I had an oddly unsettling experience this week. After a certain amount of time in the workplace, you would assume you would get used to getting completely screwed over by someone you've allowed yourself to trust a little. But I guess I'm just not there yet. I'm still overwhelmed with disappointment each time someone screws me over that I thought was a team sort of player.
Allow me to explain a theory that I can't take credit for- but a theory that should be shared nonetheless. My friend Alana is a business guru and one the super connectors that Malcolm Gladwell talks about in The Tipping Point. Her theory is that there are two kinds of cities- team cities and tribal cities. In a team city, the residents and business owners work together to bring prosperity to that city. While their is competition, each team member is wise enough to understand that even competition has to work together sometimes for both to profit. To translate down a bit, this would be when a restaurant owner or executive chef eats at a competitor's restaurant to enjoy the meal and appreciate the good food. Or when one agency decides that the client request isn't a competency of their own and subcontracts or recommends the work go to a different agency.
In a tribal city, it's the opposite. In a tribal city, you have tribes with big kahunas on the top. Eventually, a big kahuna is going to fall from power and then it's a scramble from the tribe below or a neighboring tribe to take the new position. It's all about competition. In terms of Wealth of Nations style economics and capitalism, this kind of city works (in theory).
The problem with a tribal city or a tribal work style is that you are constantly trying to one up someone else, screw someone over and take down the competition. The fear of not being the best or owning the most drives you crazy. The competition is unhealthy and once you reach big kahuna status, in many ways, you stop learning.
In a team city, you still compete, but you recognize the benefits of the competition and understand that it's important to set your ego aside long enough to notice what the competition does well.
Ok, enough on theory. Let's get back to the story. This all links together, I swear.
So, I'm a team style player. A few weeks ago, I went to an American Marketing Association Mixer at Firehouse Lounge in Pittsburgh. I networked, met a few people, had a drink, and in general, enjoyed myself. One of the guys I talked with sent me an email request to meet for coffee and learn more about what the other did so that we could possibly help each other in the future.
My job description is tough to understand until you start talking to me, but I'm specifically looking to work with restaurants and food companies on their business models, marketing, and brand image. This guy worked for an agency in town that dealt mostly in manufacturing. 2 different industries.
I let him know of a couple of example clients I was going after to give him a better idea, he told me about his potential clients, we shook hands and agreed to stay in touch.
The very next day, he called and asked about a particular client I had mentioned I was going after and said he thought he'd be perfect for the position. Did I think I'd be able to help?
Really? Now I'm all about being a team player, but I'm also not about to give away the opportunities for a new client that fits the profile of work I'd be doing.
This type of screw-you-over behavior is so completely centered on a tribe philosophy that I wondered how I ended up meeting with him and getting the impression he was a team player too.
Granted, he did call to ask me if I would help him, which shows me that although he's a tribe kind of guy, he's a rather stupid one.
So, are you team or tribe? Let's hope for team. The business world could seriously use a lot of team players.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Feedback 101: the annual review boomerang
I could spend months, months, maybe even years researching and gathering anecdotes about feedback and reviews in the workplace and how this has forever been a sore spot in business. Humans have never been good at receiving feedback and giving feedback is always difficult because of the anticipation of the reaction.
In this weeks installment of feedback 101, we'll discuss the current trends in the corporate world for annual reviews and feedback and why they are so very, very inefficient and even less effective.
Let's begin with how feedback is given and why it's evolved to this point.
I call it the boomerang effect, especially when it comes to an annual review. All year long, as an employee, you throw things out there. You do presentations, make calls, attend meetings, etc., with the intention of making some money for the company and getting a promotion and raise. You get some spur of the moment feedback when you are going over your work with your boss throughout the year, but all else is quiet on the western front.
Then comes your annual review. You believe you had a good year- you got a few "good jobs", made your numbers or close to it, and otherwise had no major hiccups. But then, sitting in your review with your boss, or worse, an HR rep, you feel blindsided by anecdotes and comments of the negative sort and you have no way to defend yourself or fix the situation.
This is what it has come to. It's no longer "appropriate" to give feedback on the spot for several reasons.
1. On the spot feedback could result in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation for the giver of the feedback.
2. By giving feedback that allows them to fix and change something right in that moment, the feedback giver cedes their position of power over that person and will have fewer reasons to ensure they stay right where they are.
3. It could be politically incorrect to give your feedback.
4. By waiting the feedback can be "anonymous" and no one has to suffer the process of being direct.
This is so completely inefficient that I'm more than certain that some MBA genius could come up with the negative ROI equation that shows how much money you lose when you give feedback via the boomerang method.
As the employer, when you allow your employees work with little feedback and ultimately little direction, and the results don't come back until months later to slap them in the face, a few things happen. First, when you aren't giving your employees feedback often and clearly, you are missing the opportunity to get better work out of them then and moving forward. Second, by waiting so late to give the feedback, the employee is going to feel blindsided and a little betrayed. The feelings in the moment aside, that employee is never going to feel comfortable in that working environment again. Their work will suffer because of the fear of feedback like that again. Both pieces translate to reduced profit over time and when you multiply per employee, it adds up.
So how did we get here? See above. People who can't handle receiving feedback and political power plays. By coddling the past 2 generations and raising them to believe that you should get a pat on the back for participating and getting up for work these days, we've created a labor force that has trouble hearing that they've done a bad job. And then you have the other half of the equation that revolves around politics and the power plays people make in an attempt to either keep their job safe, elevate their current position, or both.
Here's the deal. In order to run a good, efficient business you have to be willing to give good, constructive feedback and give it often, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Otherwise, you are going to end up with work that isn't what you want or need. Also, for the love of god, stop keeping good workers down so you can continue to keep your position. Help foster their growth as employee instead. You look good when your employees do well. You become a true leader when you foster growth though, and leadership is far more valuable over time than power (it's a little idealistic to say that, but let it marinate a little and think it over again).
And when it comes to receiving feedback, you have to be willing to lay yourself wide open. It sucks, I know. Hearing that the work you put in isn't so hot is hard. But if you can hear it, absorb it and let it marinate a little you might find that you can grow and learn a little or you can decide you think they are full of crap, but at least you can take it standing up with professionalism and composure. If nothing else, that will get you a reputation for being a ballsy yet reasonable employee.
That's installment one regarding feedback. Don't get smacked upside the head by the annual review boomerang.
On the flip side
In this weeks installment of feedback 101, we'll discuss the current trends in the corporate world for annual reviews and feedback and why they are so very, very inefficient and even less effective.
Let's begin with how feedback is given and why it's evolved to this point.
I call it the boomerang effect, especially when it comes to an annual review. All year long, as an employee, you throw things out there. You do presentations, make calls, attend meetings, etc., with the intention of making some money for the company and getting a promotion and raise. You get some spur of the moment feedback when you are going over your work with your boss throughout the year, but all else is quiet on the western front.
Then comes your annual review. You believe you had a good year- you got a few "good jobs", made your numbers or close to it, and otherwise had no major hiccups. But then, sitting in your review with your boss, or worse, an HR rep, you feel blindsided by anecdotes and comments of the negative sort and you have no way to defend yourself or fix the situation.
This is what it has come to. It's no longer "appropriate" to give feedback on the spot for several reasons.
1. On the spot feedback could result in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation for the giver of the feedback.
2. By giving feedback that allows them to fix and change something right in that moment, the feedback giver cedes their position of power over that person and will have fewer reasons to ensure they stay right where they are.
3. It could be politically incorrect to give your feedback.
4. By waiting the feedback can be "anonymous" and no one has to suffer the process of being direct.
This is so completely inefficient that I'm more than certain that some MBA genius could come up with the negative ROI equation that shows how much money you lose when you give feedback via the boomerang method.
As the employer, when you allow your employees work with little feedback and ultimately little direction, and the results don't come back until months later to slap them in the face, a few things happen. First, when you aren't giving your employees feedback often and clearly, you are missing the opportunity to get better work out of them then and moving forward. Second, by waiting so late to give the feedback, the employee is going to feel blindsided and a little betrayed. The feelings in the moment aside, that employee is never going to feel comfortable in that working environment again. Their work will suffer because of the fear of feedback like that again. Both pieces translate to reduced profit over time and when you multiply per employee, it adds up.
So how did we get here? See above. People who can't handle receiving feedback and political power plays. By coddling the past 2 generations and raising them to believe that you should get a pat on the back for participating and getting up for work these days, we've created a labor force that has trouble hearing that they've done a bad job. And then you have the other half of the equation that revolves around politics and the power plays people make in an attempt to either keep their job safe, elevate their current position, or both.
Here's the deal. In order to run a good, efficient business you have to be willing to give good, constructive feedback and give it often, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Otherwise, you are going to end up with work that isn't what you want or need. Also, for the love of god, stop keeping good workers down so you can continue to keep your position. Help foster their growth as employee instead. You look good when your employees do well. You become a true leader when you foster growth though, and leadership is far more valuable over time than power (it's a little idealistic to say that, but let it marinate a little and think it over again).
And when it comes to receiving feedback, you have to be willing to lay yourself wide open. It sucks, I know. Hearing that the work you put in isn't so hot is hard. But if you can hear it, absorb it and let it marinate a little you might find that you can grow and learn a little or you can decide you think they are full of crap, but at least you can take it standing up with professionalism and composure. If nothing else, that will get you a reputation for being a ballsy yet reasonable employee.
That's installment one regarding feedback. Don't get smacked upside the head by the annual review boomerang.
On the flip side
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)