What's Best Next

You are here: Home / Archives for 4 - Management

How to Make Your Feedback Better with 19 Words — And How This Relates to Justification by Faith Alone

by

This is a great, short video by Dan Pink on how to make your feedback better.

What’s the answer? I’ll give it away (but be sure to still watch the video): Tell the person:

I’m giving you these comments because I have very high expectations and I know that you can reach them.

Why is this?

Because high expectations — and believing that people can meet them — motivate performance. High expectations but not believing people can meet them actually decreases and sabotages performance. As do low expectations.

This is incredibly well-backed by research. It’s called the “Pygmalion Effect.” I actually did a presentation on it in college, because I thought the name was funny. We all got a good laugh. I had no idea that it is actually one of the most powerful forces for human motivation that there is.

So don’t miss it — use it in your management and life. Not just because it works, but because it is respectful and the right way to treat people. Belief in people motivates. So does acceptance. If you say “you must earn my trust and acceptance by first performing,” you will diminish performance.

Last thing. For the theological folks (like me): There are echoes of the doctrine of justification by faith alone here. If God were to say to us “you must work hard and then you might earn my approval,” we would be sunk. We would never know when is enough, or if the goal post will keep changing. This uncertainty would make it too risky to engage in the hard work — as it may not pay off. And if it does pay off, we would be able to boast before God — thus putting ourselves at the center.

But because he says “I accept you through faith alone in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10),” we are actually motivated to excel precisely because we know we already belong to him. We know we cannot fail to have his acceptance through faith, and that makes us want to serve him because we are secure.

If we aren’t sure we belong to Christ, we will fear our good works will never be enough, and at the end of the day, that kills motivation.

It is interesting that good management practice echoes good theology.

How Management Training Can Help Address Global Poverty

by

This is an excellent post by Joe Carter, called How Managers Can Help Save the World.

He notes that most short-term missions trips do not empower those being served or lead to lasting impact because they simply give a fish, so to speak, rather than each how to fish.

Together with this, he notes that one reason for the productivity gap between poor countries and wealthier countries is often overlooked: management practices.

Hence:

A potentially more productive short-term service project would be to use the time to help teach businesses in developing countries how to be more productive. Many of the millions of Americans who go on mission trips have some experience in management, or could at least be trained to teach basic management skills. In many countries the productive gap is so large that almost any knowledge we could pass along could be transformative.

Christians long ago recognized that for long-term spiritual success, missionaries had to train up pastors and teachers from within a country. Perhaps it’s time we applied that same thinking to improving the long-term material success of countries in need. By sharing our abundance of managerial knowledge, we could teach others how to be more productive—helping them create wealth for themselves and their neighbors.

Well said! Read the whole thing. And as a starting point in learning good management practices, the book The First Time Manager is very helpful with many of the nuts and bolts. For a slightly more advanced look, see my article Management in Light of the Supremacy of God.

How Leaders Accomplish More by Doing Less

by

A remarkably high number of new executives fail within their first 18 months, and it’s not because they were promoted above their skill set. Often it’s because they keep filling their schedules with the tasks they did well in their previous role instead of leading.

What does it look like to lead productively?

Matt Perman helps you think through your leadership priorities and develop strategies to succeed.

Download the free article “How Leaders Accomplish More By Doing Less.”

How Do You Respond to Dissenting Opinions?

by

Dissenting opinions are useful even when they’re wrong.

That’s the argument Adam Grant makes in one of his chapters in Originals:

“Minority viewpoints are important, not because they tend to prevail but because they stimulate divergent attention and thought,” finds Berkeley psychologist Charlan Nemeth, one of the world’s leading experts on group decisions. “As a result, even when they are wrong they contribute to the detection of novel solutions and decisions that, on balance, our qualitatively better.”

When we have expertise in a particular area or more context than others or feel the need to move fast, it’s easy to discount dissenting opinions.  Or worse, to be threatened by them.

Humble confidence means truly listening to dissenting opinions, not shutting them down.

Coupling our confidence with humility honors others and (it shouldn’t be a surprise) leads to better results.

Why “Hire Slow, Fire Fast” is Wrong

by

You often hear people say “hire slow, and fire fast.” Further, firing quickly is often presented as a “loving” thing to do, because then the person is freed up to pursue what might be a better fit.

This advice needs to be fired. It has problems on both sides of the equation. For one thing, there are times when you should actually hire fast. But more than that, saying that one should fire fast ignores very important distinctions that can lead to very bad decisions and harm to both the person and organization.

The distinction is between firing due to ability issues and character issues. 

If someone is abusive, causing harm in the organization, and acting against the values, then firing needs to happen fast.

But when the problem is ability issues — that is, the person wants to do good work but is struggling — then you fire slow. The aim is, in fact, not to have to fire at all. Instead, you discuss the issue with the person and coach them as much as possible to help overcome the ability issue.

If it cannot be overcome, and a change to a different role that is a better fit is not possible, then letting them go may be the right course of action. But only after defining the problem and helping the person overcome it.

Joseph Grenny, author of four New York Times bestsellers, including Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes Are High, explains this very simply in this two-minute video from the Global Leadership Summit.

 

Productivity Tip: Remember the Intangibles (and go to conferences)

by

Remember the Intangibles

The tendency to focus only on immediate, directly measurable results is a common productivity fallacy for individuals and organizations.

Way back in 1982 Tom Peters and Robert Waterman termed this “the numerative bias,” and gave example after example of how a narrow concern for numbers leads managers and leaders to overlook the things that really make their products and services shine—and thus leads them to do things to “cut costs” and increase the bottom line that actually end up undermining their results in the long-term. 

This is the great irony: defining productivity mainly in terms of immediate measurable results actually undermines the measurable results in the long-run.

The time and energy and resources you invest in the intangibles is not lost; it is not a “cost of doing business.” It’s an investment that pays substantial returns in the long run. It’s just that you can’t always draw a direct and immediate line to the results. But the results are there, and the connection is there, just as the farmer who sows a crop in the spring sees results—not immediately, but in the fall, when it’s time to harvest.

We too need to have this longterm view when it comes to our effectiveness and productivity, both as individuals and as organizations.

Attending Conferences

One example here for the knowledge worker is attending conferences or industry events. I believe that all knowledge workers should go to every conference they can because these are prime opportunities to connect with people, benefit from excellent teachers, and share ideas—essential to knowledge work. But many think that going to a conference is a luxury or bonus, something to do only if you can get your other, “real” work done.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Going to conferences is a key part of the work of any leader and manager. It is one of the many intangibles at the heart of knowledge work in our day.

–

Adapted from What’s Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done. See also Tom Peters and Robert Waterman’s In Search of Excellence, especially chapter 6, “Close to the Customer,” where they note that high performing companies are “mainly oriented toward the value, rather than the cost, side of the profitability equation,” and chapter 2, “The Rational Model.” See also my article, Against Over-professionalism in Management: Managing for the Human Side

Collaboration is More than “Everyone Plays Their Part”

by

You’re likely working with other people to produce or create something this week.

God has put us in this together—different skills and experiences coming together to accomplish way more than we could accomplish on our own.

As Christians, we understand this at a foundational level. We know the call to use our different gifts to serve as “good stewards of God’s varied grace” (1 Peter 4:10). Or how, in the body of Christ, “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you'” (1 Corinthians 12:21).

We believe deeply in coming together for a common mission, and we want the benefits that come from strong collaboration, whether in our church or our workplace.

But in practice we can miss out. More than that, we can experience tension or even conflict with our teammates when we approach “teamwork” or “collaboration” in different ways without realizing it.

As I’ve led and worked in different teams over the years, I’ve noticed two basic levels of collaboration and the challenges that come when we apply collaboration differently.

Here’s what I mean:

Level 1 collaboration looks something like this: 
  • “Everyone needs to play their part for us to do this well.”
  • “I’m responsible for making this decision.”
  • “You do this, I’ll do that, and together we can make a big difference.”
Level 2 collaboration, on the other hand, looks more like this:
  • “You’ve only been here a few weeks, but I really want your perspective.”
  • “Can I suggest another way to think about it before we make that policy shift?”
  • “I read about this new software. Wanted to make sure you knew about it…”
  • “That’s my idea. How can we make this stronger?”

We can limit our productivity as a team if we operate solely in Level 1. And we can actually be counter-productive when some of the team are operating in the former and others are aiming for the latter.

Level 1 collaboration has it’s place, but don’t settle for that. Level 2 collaboration is where the really good stuff happens.

Productivity Tip: Counteracting Groupthink in Meetings

by

In our organizations today, we spend significant time conducting and participating in meetings. This isn’t all bad, of course, as good meetings hold the potential for generating new ideas, aligning teams around a common purpose, and moving projects forward.

But when it comes to collaborative meetings, there are some common obstacles that hinder team productivity. The tendency of groupthink, for example. Or assuming that a more experienced colleague has the best idea (or the other way around). Or the respected leader who gives their opinion too soon, affecting the freedom others feel to share their perspective.

Today’s productivity tip is for the leader who’s aware of such tendencies and wants to avoid them. 

This comes from Daniel Kahneman’s popular book Thinking Fast and Slow. In a chapter on jumping to conclusions, Kahneman writes: 

Before an issue is discussed, all members of the committee should be asked to write a very brief summary of their position. This procedure makes good use of the value of the diversity of knowledge and opinion in the group. The standard practice of open discussion gives too much weight to the opinions of those who speak early and assertively, causing others to line up behind them.

I think this is really wise, even if it wouldn’t make sense in every meeting context.

If you’re responsible for facilitating meetings, try weaving something like this in where you can, especially for strategic planning, creative brainstorming, and other meetings where you need to leverage the gifts of the whole team.

We want the best ideas to win out, not just those that come from the most senior, the most confident, or the most savvy.

The Guys in the Field

by

Awhile back I referenced this quote from Colin Powell regarding his bias towards the “guys in the field.”  I’ve been asked what biblical principle was behind my thinking.

The biblical principle I was referring to is that those in a stronger position are to use their greater strength (position, power, authority, or even money, though that’s not in view in this post) on behalf of those in a weaker position.

That’s what we see in the example of Christ. Christ has all strength, power, and authority, and uses it to serve those who have less. Hence, he came to save us, and then also gave us that principle to govern all of our leadership (Matthew 20:25-28; John 13:12-20). We also see this throughout the OT–the “righteous” and “just” are viewed not just as those who avoid doing deliberate harm to people, but those who use their resources, power, and authority to stand up for those in lesser positions–especially the weak and mistreated. Paul also bases his argument in 2 Corinthians 8 on these things.

So, how do these principles apply to the specific case of the post? In a ministry or any organization, those in top leadership have certain advantages–more authority, more power, and so forth. Those beneath them have less advantages–they don’t have the same authority to carry out their thinking, for example, and aren’t in on all the leadership meetings, and so have less opportunity to be heard, just by the nature of things.

Hence, Christian leaders ought to seek to compensate for this by giving preference to those who are in lesser positions of formal authority. This will often result in the best insights (though, of course, not always).

Note that I’m not saying here we should be partial. You asses people’s ideas and actions truthfully–based on the merits. What I’m saying is that we should go out of our way to give a greater opportunity for those in lesser positions of authority to be heard. And, along with that, usually those who are closer to the action (in Powell’s quote, those in the field) have more accurate information and so are likely to have informed, good ideas.

Management as a Liberal Art

by

 

Peter Drucker:

Management is deeply involved in moral concerns—the nature of man, good and evil. Management is thus what tradition used to call a liberal art. Managers draw on all the knowledge and insights of the humanities and the social sciences—on psychology and philosophy, on economics and history, on ethics—as well as on the physical sciences. But they have to focus this knowledge on effectiveness and results—on healing a sick patient, teaching a student, building a bridge, designing and selling a user friendly software program. For these reasons, management will increasingly be the discipline and the practice through which the humanities will again acquire recognition, impact, and relevance