baldinbusiness

I recently was reading a Harvard Business Review article about “supporting a decision you don’t agree with.” The article was helpful, and offered the reader wise counsel in advocating that workers should not undermine their boss’ decision. They’re both on the same team after all!

But, this got me wondering: What about when the boss is wrong? Bosses are human after all, and all humans are prone to making mistakes. So what happens when the boss is entirely wrong, and you the worker can see it, yet the boss wants to move forward anyway? To be sure, this goes beyond “supporting a decision you don’t agree with.” I am referring to big initiatives, where the very survival of the organization may hang in the balance. What do you do then?

For starters, respectfully challenge the decision. If anyone I lead is reading this, I want noise, albeit in a respectful tone! “Your idea sucks,” is harsh, but it may be necessary. It would be better to say something like “here is where your idea may run into trouble” —and then name the potential obstacles. The point is that you need to speak up! And not just once. The leader had better fully understand your point of view, its merits, and your concerns around the direction they—the leader— intend to go. The most unhelpful thing you can do for your organization is be quiet in the moment, and play “armchair quarterback” later. Know-it-alls in hindsight are not helpful whatsoever.

Speak up in the moment!

But what if the boss still does not listen? Dan Coyle shares an example of this in The Culture Code (yes, this book again!). The story is of Dave Cooper, and his now famous “Seal Team 6’s” capture of Osama Bin Laden. You’ll have to read the story yourself in the book. The short version, goes like this: The higher ups ordered Cooper to use a new kind of stealth helicopter for the mission to capture Bin Laden. The problem? The chopper had never been used in combat! Cooper challenged authority, but command was insistent. Instead of blindly obeying the order, or denying the order, Cooper did something altogether different by preparing his men for every conceivable thing that could go wrong with the helicopter. In fact, as Coyle shares, they practiced “downed helicopter drills” so many times that his men started sarcastically joking about running even more drills. The result is amazing. (Go buy the book!)

What do you do the next time something similar happens in your organization? For example, the boss is insistent on using a certain supplier that you suspect will fail. You respectfully voice your concern to no avail. Do you sit back and watch, or like Cooper, or do you help the team do “drills” in anticipation of the challenge to come?

Leaders always take ownership of the problem!

Leaders are always out to help others succeed, no matter the cost to their own ego!

This leads us to one final reminder before closing: Respectfully voicing your opinion and planning for contingencies are positive behaviors of any culture. Sitting around and gossiping about how stupid management is —regardless of how true that sentiment may be —is not. As Dr. Henry Cloud has said before, “I do not understand people who pee in their cereal and gripe because it tastes bad!”

Bosses are often wrong. Challenge them respectfully. Create contingency plans that will serve the organization.

Just don’t pee in everyone’s cereal.

I have been devouring Daniel Coyle’s The Culture Code lately.  Providing simple actionable advice on creating a positive and effective culture, it is quickly becoming one of the best books I have read so far this year.

A chapter that grabbed my attention early in the book is entitled “How to Build Belonging.” In it, Coyle examines long-time San Antonio Spurs’ Head basketball coach, Gregg Popovich. “Pop,” as he is known by NBA fans, has had one of the most successful tenures as a head coach in NBA history. His teams have always stood out to the common observer because they have exhibited unselfishness not common in the modern NBA. Their winning record and 5 NBA titles placed them consistently in the “who is the best team in the NBA” conversation.

Success on the court is one thing, but what has always stood out about Pop to me is how much his players, and even players on other teams, adore him. How does he connect with so many people? Coyle points to three intentional practices Coach Popovich practices (this chapter alone is worth the price of the book, and by no means am I doing it justice below):

Pop practices connectivity. Coyle details how Pop invades personal space, touches players’ elbows or gives them a pat on the back, and specifically attends to players who might have struggled in the previous game. This is all intentional. What challenged me was how simple this is. It is something any leader can do.Pop then critiques. Pop is known for not sugar coating any message to his players or other coaches. We have all read countless biographies of leaders willing to “tell it like it is,” but what makes Pop different is when and how the criticism is delivered. It always comes after a connection has been formed—as in step 1 above. This is more effective than the “feedback sandwich” approach where managers handout criticism “sandwiched” between two positive attributes. This tends to make the positives feel less authentic. Compare this to Pop” who has been known to absolutely berate his players, including the superstars like Tim Duncan and Tony Parker, during practices. The players’ openness to such criticism seems to indicate a unique connection to Pop. For if they were not connected, would they be open to such criticism? One probably suspects not. Moreover, “Pop” seems to understand the need for the players to accept coaching, because as Coyle writes in the chapter, he thanks “each player for allowing him to coach them” at every season’s end. Talk about an example to follow in our own leadership!Pop teaches perspective to the team. I have heard stories, and Coyle details a few in the chapter, about how Pop uses game-film study sessions to show his team documentaries about history, politics, and other topics of importance. In fact, Pop encourages discussion about these matters within the team. This perspective not only reminds players that there are bigger issues in the world than the game of basketball, but it also reinforces how connected they are as a team (we can talk about anything and everything here). So when the Spurs lose a big game, and they have had some gut-wrenching defeats during Pop’s tenure, they’re able to maintain perspective and process the loss, and emotions that come with the loss, together.

What does all this mean for us? For starters, it reminds us that connecting with those we lead is not only vital, but often simpler than we assume. It just takes intentionality and focus. As Coyle reminds the reader, Pop does not engage much with technology, and did not carry an iPhone until 2018 (he has yet to send a single text message per Coyle).

No wonder he has the time for this kind of intentionality.

Here are some ideas to increase connectivity with your team this summer:

—Schedule a team dinner this summer.

—Tell your team “thank you” today (be specific for why you are thanking them however).

—Read and discuss a history book with your team.

—Consider ways of connecting physically with your team (Know your audience here, and obviously avoid anything that could be creepy or misinterpreted. A hand shake, fist bump, or a pat on the back when appropriate are proven to be extremely powerful!).

The list could go on and on. The point is this: To build a great culture, you have to be intentional about connecting with, and valuing, others.

I was recently reminded reading the Harvard Business Review that most organizations rely on workers to fulfill the specific job description associated with the title of the position they are being hired for, rather than allowing them, the worker, to create a role more suited to their skills set. Given the challenges all manufactures —us included —face to cut costs, optimize processes, and become more efficient, this got me thinking: should workers be tied to a job description? Should we persist in the standard model, largely based on hierarchy, that can restrict workers from engaging in activities outside their standard job role/title?

I pose this question because it is an aspect of organizational life that I have been thinking about since my role morphed to include operations, in addition to both sales and engineering. Frankly, I have found it easy to give our sales and engineering teams complete autonomy. That said, they all have “traditional titles” on their business cards, and while their deliverables are mutually-constructed, it is safe to say that they’re pretty standard in the industry. Most do, however, play hybrid roles, meaning they contribute more than their traditional title would suggest. Some have customer service backgrounds, and provide value that is addition of our standard customer service team (one recently drove parts to a customer on a Saturday morning, for instance).  A few others are more technical, and can provide tooling knowledge that goes beyond the scope of their “Business Development” title. And perhaps the most impressive example is our proprietary product team, which can offer unique knowledge on filling technology in the flexible packaging market, and is supported by our automation team that can completely change over an existing horizontal, form, fill, and seal, and pre-spouted pouch machines to accommodate our parts.

I fear the above sounds like a brag, so here is where we are not as “advanced”: the manufacturing floor. While certain groups in our company are empowered to use their gifts, especially when those gifts are outside the scope of their job title, our manufacturing floor still feels very “traditional” as I suspect it did two decades ago. Hourly workers, in particular, have a lot more structure around the tasks they are supposed to perform on a daily basis. And like all of us, they have challenges they have to deal with on a daily and weekly basis. For example, I have been told frequently that given our current environment at Hoffer Plastics, they feel continually challenged around the level of business (i.e. busyness on the floor): Foremen struggle to find weekend coverage in all our plants, and I sense burnout on the rise as weekend work has not slowed down so far in 2018 (of course I fear it will). Therefore, engagement is a big deal to leaders like me. I value our hourly workers because the work they do is, in a lot of ways, what we all get paid for by our customers. So as a leader, it is my job to uncover ways to increase their engagement, and frankly, happiness.

So this brings me full circle to the question at hand: would more autonomy increase worker engagement? How would it work, given the non-negotiable aspects of manufacturing (like quality standards, production demands, etc.)? How can I train our plant managers to embrace this kind of thinking?

These are thoughts on my mind at the gym right now (where I do my best thinking!).

I don’t have the answer to these questions today, which is one of the reasons I am writing this post. I hope to start a conversation with you, the reader. What ideas do you have for improving employee morale and engagement? What ideas do you have for shaking up traditional hierarchies on manufacturing floors?

To be clear, we do uncover hidden talents on the floor, and we do promote from within. For example, our plant managers have all come from within over the decade I have been here, and that has had ripple effects in terms of internal promotions. I have been pleasantly surprised when hidden gems have stepped up in their new roles. But it still bothers me that we are most likely still missing hidden potential. (I’m sure I will hear about “hidden talents” from people on our floor after posting this, which is one of the reasons I am writing it in the first place!).

I’ll close by repeating some of my core beliefs: Every job matters, and every human being here matters. As leaders, we have to use our leadership gifts (whatever they are) to help marry people’s skills, passions, and unique abilities to meeting our customers’ needs. After all, the mission remains to manufacture plastic parts that increase our customers’ productivity and profitability. They remain the hero!

I could not finish without reminding the reader of that.

I firmly believe that every team member can set the tone of the organization each day. A smile, a positive attitude, a helpful mindset, all go a long way in determining the tone of the organization.But this is even more true for those of us in a leadership role. We are being watched, whether we like it or not. Every move is scrutinized. Don’t believe me? Over the last year, I have received the following feedback from various sources within our organization:

You spend too much time talking to so and so

You always appear busy

You are always serious

You are too focused on metrics

You travel too much given your young family (Sarah got to them!)

You have too much on your plate

You looked more stressed than normal

Before commenting further, I love working in an organization where people feel free to give this kind of feedback. I love it even more when it comes from team members on the manufacturing floor (a lot of the above did), because it tears down the false chasm between the white and blue collar worker. I continue to believe we are all valuable human beings, and EVERY job matters. (And just so you and I are clear, I did not create this culture. So this isn’t a personal brag. Maybe it is a little bit of a brag —and rightfully so—of the culture created by my Grandfather).I continually challenge myself to not only be open to this kind of feedback, but to react in a way that honors the giver of the feedback. In other words, I want to set a receptive tone. Now I may disagree with the feedback, and in those instances, explain why I do not agree. But this is also important because I want to a set a tone that people should speak up when things are not as the other sees them. They just need to do so in a way that honors the other person.I also spend time thinking about the feedback I receive. Admittedly, my demeanor is naturally serious, and as a dominant “D” personality on the DISC profile, I am very focused on metrics. So when I hear feedback like the above, I have to fight the natural tendency that wants to either get defensive, or feel like a failure.

Instead, I use it as a reminder to smile when I am walking through the plants, and to approach individual people that I don’t have a pre-existing relationship with —something always challenging for an introvert.All this sets a different, arguably better, tone.And because of the feedback, I grow in the process…What tone are you setting in your organization?