Delegate to Lead Well

September 10, 2010 By Maureen Moriarty

The more senior you are in the organizational hierarchy, the more you will need to rely on delegation to be successful.

Senior managers serve their organizations most effectively when focused on strategic planning and other high-level activity, including getting the most out of their people — in other words, leading. In most situations, they do not have the luxury of direct involvement with the actual “doing” typically completed by associates or direct reports with specific skills and responsibilities. Many managers struggle with how to delegate effectively. It’s not easy. The biggest offense: micromanaging or delegating without sufficient or specific consideration to establishing accountability. The greatest challenges for most leaders are determining under what circumstances you can (and should) delegate, to whom you can delegate and how to establish accountability.

Effective delegation can help your people develop and deliver to their highest potential. Most professionals credit their greatest growth to someone delegating to them along the way. Most workers are eager for more challenge, autonomy and responsibility (aren’t you?).

Yet many managers are uncomfortable delegating for fear of having tasks out of their direct control. Individuals who pride themselves on their high performance can particularly struggle with the paradox of “no one can do the task as well as I could” (i.e. as fast, thorough, insightful, creative) and recognizing that the key to leadership success is leveraging the skills and talents of others in the organization.

What kinds of tasks can you delegate? The answer is, of course, it depends. However, generally speaking, you can comfortably delegate most routine duties and questions, relatively minor decisions without great risk or consequences, and minor staffing issues (scheduling and coordinating). Another rule of thumb — you should be able to delegate anything you would expect your employees to do when you aren’t there. From there, it’s trickier and you will need to rely on good judgment.

One important step is identifying the right person to take on the delegated task. According to Ken Blanchard, author of “Leadership and the One Minute Manager,” responsibility and authority should be given to those who have demonstrated both commitment and competence in the skills and abilities required to complete the task. To determine commitment, consider their motivation, enthusiasm, trustworthiness and confidence. Evaluating relative competence involves taking into account their relative education, knowledge, skills, experience and track record. Understandably, new or inexperienced hires often need more training, direction and supervision. The “unproven” will generally need to prove their commitment and competence to you first, especially for projects with the potential of significant impact to the organization.

I encourage managers to think of delegation as a process. Don’t just automatically turn everything over to someone. Do it in stages; this will increase your comfort level and theirs. To be successful requires ongoing communication, feedback, confirmation and monitoring. Recognition, accountability, defining and supporting required authority and defining consequence (both for achievement and non-achievement of delegated tasks) are also important.

Truly effective leaders understand that delegating does not mean abdicating. You are still ultimately responsible so remain involved. Let the employee know you are available and willing to answer questions. Communicate expected outcomes — what you want done by when (what success looks like) — and provide the necessary resources and feedback for success. Don’t forget to tell them why you chose them for the task (what skills and talents you see in them that give you confidence they will be successful). I recommend that managers also ask one final question after delegating a task: What else do you need from me to be successful?

A common delegation pitfall — when leaders fail to assign or relay the necessary authority required to be successful. Employees want (and need) clarity about authority, responsibility and expectations. While important, personal authority in many cases is not enough to get multilevel or complex tasks accomplished. As a manager, delegates will look to you for protection and direction, as well as the authority they need to be successful.

Lastly (and perhaps most importantly), remember that accountability and delegation go hand in hand. If you aren’t willing to hold someone accountable, don’t delegate. It’s a mistake (and unreasonable) to delegate something important and then walk away and never look back. Ask the person you are delegating to how they will communicate back to you that the task is completed successfully, or if they are having trouble. Make them a partner in defining how you will know they have completed the task successfully. Engage in a collaborative discussion to define success parameters and expectations that both of you are comfortable with. This will greatly improve the chances for success and positive growth of the employee.

Invest in yourself by hiring me as your coach! I can help you learn, develop and grow your leadership and coaching abilities. I coach leaders all over the world via Skype. Call me: 360 682 5807 or email: mmoriarty@pathtochange.com

Empowering Bosses

September 10, 2010 By Maureen Moriarty

For most companies, their most valuable yet underutilized resource is their people. While many business owners and managers espouse that they want their people to take more initiative and “get their skin in the game,” it’s surprising how few actually give their people the authority and support to do so.

In an empowered organization, employees take personal responsibility for the day-to-day running of the business under appropriate leadership direction. Effective leaders delegate and empower talented employees, coaching them to use discretion and good judgment when faced with obstacles and opportunities. The happiest, most satisfied and productive employees that I coach are those who are empowered and have some level of autonomy and responsibility over what they do.

Unfortunately, the notion of empowerment for many leaders is a double-edged sword. While bosses want their employees to take responsibility for getting results, they often fail to give them the necessary resources, support and decision-making authority to actually accomplish their objectives. Bosses reluctant to provide their people more autonomy often either lack confidence in themselves (or others), or have control issues.

Is there risk in delegating decision-making authority? Of course. But if you’ve got the right person with the right skills and are giving them what they need to be successful (with clear parameters), the risk should be acceptable and minimal.

Jack Welch, former GE CEO and author of “Winning” (a book I recommend), once sent out a letter to shareholders stating, “If you want to get the benefit of everything employees have … you’ve got to free them so they can make the right decisions by themselves.”

For many years, customer-service-driven Nordstrom had a one-rule employee handbook (actually, it was a 5-by-8 card) that read, “We’re glad to have you with our Company. Our number one goal is to provide outstanding customer service. Set both your personal and professional goals high. We have great confidence in your ability to achieve them. Nordstrom Rules: Rule #1 Use good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.”

Seattle-based Nordstrom provides a great example of how to empower. From day one, employees were told they were appreciated and trusted to make good decisions. Management set clear expectations “to provide outstanding customer service.” My experience as a Nordstrom customer has been consistent. Employees have the latitude to do the right thing by the customer, and display a genuine “I care” attitude. This cultural example stands in sharp contrast to the extreme levels of micromanagement pervasive in other companies (and often poor customer service).

An option for many “traditional autocratic” companies is to act like their smaller counterparts — uncluttered, with minimal politics and mind-numbing meaningless processes. Small-company cultures tend to encourage entrepreneurial behaviors, autonomy and individual creativity toward making things happen.

What leaders can do:

Set expectations for performance and empower employees to make decisions they need to succeed. We are all being asked to do more with less. Managers need to understand their employees need to make more decisions with less of their day-to-day involvement. Delegate with clear parameters of freedom (budget, resources, etc).
Eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and decision-making approval processes. Remove things that get in your people’s way of doing what’s right for the business (and what you’ve asked them to do). Give them access to the information, feedback, authority and resources they need.
Bosses are responsible for setting employee priorities and expectations. Bosses should work hard to create a culture where their employees feel safe coming to them for direction and clarification when they are overloaded or confused by competing or conflicting priorities (particularly those that come from other managers who aren’t their boss).
Be supportive of decisions your front-line (customer contact) employees make to keep customers happy. A less-than-perfect decision resulting in a happy customer is markedly better than losing a customer because of an employee who has no power to make a decision. Don’t renege on an employee’s commitment to a customer; it’s bad for business and employee morale.
Continually engage employees in improving how things get done in the organization. Train, teach and coach them to make bigger and better decisions without you.
As a leader, keep your eye on the big picture versus getting mired in the small stuff. (Do you really need to approve that $100 line item?)

Decision Making Styles for Leaders

September 10, 2010 By Maureen Moriarty

Leaders must make decisions every day. The most effective leaders are transparent about their decision-making. They communicate to their people how decisions will be made and establish a clear definition of decision-making authority for their teams and direct reports to follow.

Different situations call for different styles of decision making. Leaders have several to choose from — there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Here are four primary styles to consider:

Authoritative: With this management decision-making style, the leader decides and then delivers a unilateral decision. There are certainly situations (a crisis, or when you are the only one with the insight or information necessary) that call for this “old school” style. Leaders need to be able to take charge and/or champion a cause. Yet wise leaders avoid overuse of this style. They know that using it means risking little or no buy-in to their decision.

Consultative: With this style, leaders consult with their people and gather input before making the decision. When used effectively, they communicate to those providing input where they are in their process. For example, “I want your input from the beginning on this,” or “I am down to two options, I am leaning toward x … and want to get your opinion.” As an organizational development consultant, I often encourage leaders to use this style more than they typically do. Why? It allows for influence and input from others (thereby increasing buy-in, commitment and reducing risk) but keeps clarity around who is making the decision (you, the leader) intact. A word of caution: If you aren’t open to influence, don’t pretend you are. It’s a huge mistake. Effective leaders will be prepared to discuss their rationale or reasons for not following recommendations or suggestions.

Consensus: With this style, essentially everyone agrees to support the decision of the group. You lose your right to veto as the leader. The plus — this often results in buy-in and commitment from team members. The minus — trying to achieve consensus is difficult and time-consuming. One person can hold up the process (the “tyranny” of consensus). Local author and consultant Robert Crosby wisely writes in his book, “The Authentic Leader:”

“The positive intent on consensus is to significantly involve people in decision-making. The negative intent and frequent consequence is to stifle action and give power to the most stubborn.” Consensus can be a great choice for those decisions that require a high level of team commitment to succeed. But trying to make all team decisions by consensus is a recipe for team frustration and struggle. Consensus shouldn’t be attempted with challenging decisions that require responsiveness and timely action.

Delegation: With this style, leaders give their decision-making authority away to others. This can be a good strategy to allow those closest to the task at hand to make the call, to grow the skills of others and/or when someone else clearly has more experience, skill and understanding than you do. In a nutshell, when delegating, make sure to offer clear parameters, then ask those taking over this responsibility to summarize their understanding. See next week’s column for tips about how to delegate wisely.

Here are a few important guidelines around decision making:

Communicate your decision-making style (depending on the situation) so that others in your group or on your team know how the decision will be made.
Honor the followers’ role in the decision-making style that you have chosen (don’t say, “I want your opinion,” if you have already made an authoritative decision).
When practical, avoid only bouncing between the extremes of making authoritative decisions and consensus; delegation and the consultative methods are more reliable styles that support organizational teamwork

As an external consultant, I am frequently asked to observe and coach team meetings and often ask the question, “Who has decision-making authority over this?” Too often, no one knows. Meetings are a tremendous investment in resources; having clarity around decision-making authority, commitment and accountability are critical to bottom-line results. For critical or complex initiatives, or if the majority of your meetings are spent wasting time, getting expert help to achieve results may be in order.

In today’s dynamic workplace, effective decision-making is critical to achieving organizational objectives.

A caring boss matters most

September 10, 2010 By Maureen Moriarty

The most important relationship in any business is that between the boss and employee.

In a major survey of 2 million workers by Gallup, people rated having a caring boss as more important than how much money they earned. Another study by the Harris Association reported that 40 percent of those who rated their supervisor as poor also said they were likely to leave their current position.

The data support an important reality: that people most often leave workplaces due to poor bosses (not the organization). How employees feel about their jobs and organizations has everything to do with how their manager treats them. People who feel cared for and appreciated are more motivated and are better performers. Those with employee-retention concerns need look no further than this critical relationship — and invest in its improvement.

There is little tolerance in today’s workplace for the boss who is a bully, insensitive or dictatorial. It is, in fact, a leading cause of career derailment. Successful organizations recognize the high cost of the emotional wake of the non-caring and out-of-touch manager. Unchecked, the command/control approach has the potential for creating a tidal wave of exiting talent that few organizations can afford.

Unfortunately, I run across a surprising number of managers with these traits in my executive coaching practice (most have been identified as “problems” and are seeking help). Sadly, most are unaware of their impact on their employees and peers. “360s” or peer reviews are often illuminating. They often lack self-awareness and seem oblivious to how they have contributed to the problem. When challenged, they are quick to blame others, rarely stopping to look in the mirror. Part of my job as a coach is helping them do just that.

In contrast, caring (or emotionally intelligent) managers are typically self-aware, optimistic and tuned in to their people in a way that conveys sensitivity and concern. These are the bosses that bring out the best in their people by:

Paying attention. They read their emotional cues for signs of anxiety, fear and defensiveness and then act accordingly.
Remaining connected even during difficult interpersonal interactions. Instead of pulling away, threatening, avoiding or “defending,” they are authentic and genuine about how they are feeling (even to the point of vulnerability).
Responding with empathy and sensitivity when their people are hurting.
Being more positive than negative (preferring the carrot to the stick). They are careful when offering critical feedback (focusing on the behavior versus making it “personal”).
Recognizing effort (not expecting perfection) and using mistakes/failures as learning opportunities versus a cause to punish, belittle and/or embarrass.
Providing support (even when challenging poor decisions) and communicating clear expectations for changed behaviors moving forward.

To work on improving being perceived as a more “caring” boss:

Become a better observer. Focus on how you affect others (watch for nonverbal cues). When you notice signs of trouble (body posture turned away, crossed arms, frowns, pursed lips or sudden silence), check in and ask what’s going on for them. Find out if some word or action of yours might have been misunderstood.
Be alert to your own nonverbals — the cues you may give off that convey, “I’m not interested” (sighs, looking at your watch, not looking up from your computer when the employee walks in).
Seek feedback on how your interpersonal leadership style is working (or not). Ask what they want more of (or less of) from you. Given most employees’ natural reluctance to give bosses critical feedback, you must ask in a way that conveys that you sincerely want to know. How you react when they tell you will determine whether or not they ever tell you again. If you shoot the messenger or get defensive, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot.
Strive to offer more positive than negative comments. Most leaders are too stingy with praise. University of Washington relationship guru John Gottman recommends a 5-1 ratio of positive to negative comments to improve personal relationships.
Turn off that ego voice in your head that quickly wants to judge and weigh in with, “I disagree,” or “I know what’s best.” Consider that how you are perceived by your people may at times be more important than being “right.”
Listen well. Most bosses I see are impatient and interrupt others in their zeal for quick action. I have never heard a boss criticized for listening too much!

10 common hiring mistakes

September 9, 2010 By Maureen Moriarty

One of the most important decisions any manager will make is whom you hire. I liken it to deciding whom you will marry; it’s a decision that ultimately can determine your future workplace success, satisfaction — or misery.

Many green managers simply don’t prepare or spend enough time on the hiring process.

They often succumb to the short-term pressures of “needing to get someone in the chair” right away versus taking the time to determine what skills, talents and abilities they need and then finding the “right fit.”

Seasoned managers, on the other hand, know the pain and cost firsthand of a bad hire (experts estimate that it can cost two to three times an employee’s salary to rehire someone).

10 common hiring mistakes

1. Not creating (and then prioritizing) a list of key requirements for the position. Consider what special experience, talents, strengths and abilities you need in a candidate and then identify what skills are important. Although you can teach skills to a new hire (like how to use a software program), core talents are natural gifts that a candidate either has or doesn’t. What characteristics are a good fit with your team and company culture? Likewise, identify what you don’t want. I recommend starting with the core qualities required for success, such as integrity, IQ and EQ (emotional intelligence), judgment, problem solving, passion, communication and people skills.

2. Not prescreening. Initial phone interviews can save managers time and headaches. It typically only takes a 30-minute phone interview to discover if the candidate has the knowledge and experience you need. If you delegate the prescreening task to HR (or someone else), determine your minimum criteria for passing the candidate on to your face-to-face interview.

3. Not considering a wide enough potential hiring pool. Best hiring practice means making a choice from several qualified candidates. If you didn’t find enough qualified candidates via your first cast, cast a wider net. Try recruiters, networking Web sites such as LinkedIn, Career Builder, Monster, Craigslist, etc., and industry/association and collegiate sites.

4. Not having others on your team interview the candidate. Have at least three people interview at least three qualified candidates.

5. Not checking references. Although certainly not foolproof (many companies will only offer dates of employment and job title), references offer you an opportunity to ask questions about the candidate related to these areas:

Key responsibilities in previous position
Reason for leaving (be sure to ask any candidate why he or she left the previous two jobs)
Important contributions to the position or company
Relationships with staff, attitude and outlook at work
Strengths and weaknesses — and most importantly, whether they would rehire the candidate

Coach’s tip: Ask candidates if you can talk to their last or current employer. If you can’t, this is a potential red flag.

6. Not challenging candidates to prove to you how they can think on their feet during the interview. Offer a potential difficult job scenario you anticipate and test them by asking them how they would respond. Consider giving them an on-the-spot writing assignment that can help you glean their creativity, judgment, communication and writing style.

7. Not asking “behavioral” questions during the interview. Here are some to ask:

Give me an example of when you … .
Describe how you managed or resolved a difficult situation.
Tell me about a time when you … (took initiative, went beyond what was expected of you, broke the rules, etc.).
Tell me about the largest project you worked on.

8. Not paying enough attention to their appearance or nonverbal cues. Dress, hygiene, tone/pace of voice, handshake and odd nervous habits can tell you a lot. (For example, slouched body posture or lack of eye contact can indicate a lack of confidence.)

9. Not giving the candidate opportunity to ask questions. Ideally, an interview should be split between you and the candidate talking. You can learn a lot by the questions they ask. (Do they ask basic questions they should know if they looked at the company’s Web site?) Take note if their questions demonstrate true interest in the nature of the work/team or are limited to benefits and vacations or their first promotional opportunity.

10. Settling when you can’t find the “right fit.” You are far better off to re-advertise and get the right person on board.

Lastly, factor in “chemistry” and your intuition. My experience (and that of my clients) tells me you can save yourself a lot of grief down the road by paying attention if your gut is screaming at you, “Something’s not right.”