Discussion: View Thread

Dear List,

We have recently conducted a survey at our facility to help
determine the level of confidence employee's have in our Leaders
(Senior Management) and in their ability to Lead.

We looked at a variety of relationships to help understand
enablers and inhibitors to trust, confidence and leadership.

Upon evaluating the results we have found that employees have the
highest level of trust and confidence in their fellow workers,
especially those within their own departments, somewhat less trust
in their immediate supervisor, but a dramatic drop in confidence
and trust in management the further up you go.

Now we have the task of trying to correct this.

1. Are any of you aware of information out there that reflects our
findings...however scientific or informal?

2. Are any of you aware of any companies that had similar results
and a process they used to correct this situation?

3. I am also intersted in your thoughts and feelings on this
issue.

Thanks a lot,
Cheers!
Rick Corcoran
Excel.Mark I
Internet:"corcoranre@excelinc.com"

RICHARD CORCORAN <CORCORANRE@EXCELINC.COM> wrote:

>>... employees have the highest level of trust and confidence in their
fellow workers, especially those within their own departments, somewhat
less trust in their immediate supervisor, but a dramatic drop in confidence
and trust in management the further up you go...<<

Makes sense to me.

>>... Now we have the task of trying to correct this ...<<

The solution is hard, but doable if senior management is committed to
changing their behaviors and doing what it takes to change.

>>>.. 1. Are any of you aware of information out there that reflects our
findings...however scientific or informal?...<<

The information I have seen is that the more we work with someone the more
we are likely to respect them--all other things being equal.

>>... 2. Are any of you aware of any companies that had similar results and
a process they used to correct this situation?...<<

The solution is a four letter word: TALK

Employees have high regard for their coworkers because their coworkers
actually take the time to talk with and listen to each other. Immediate
supervisor at least to talk to their people occasionally. They may not
listen but at least they talk whereas management neither talks with or
listens to the rank and file employees.

>>... 3. I am also interested in your thoughts and feelings on this
issue...<<

See my article below.

Bob

-----------------------------------------------------

Why Motivation Is Free
----------------------
by Robert F. Gately


Managers are seldom equipped psychologically to talk to their people on a
personal basis. One reason is that many people are managers because of
their technical ability not because of their people skills.

We should reward our technical experts with higher salaries but not with
promotions into management. We would be far better off if we promote to
management the people who have good managerial and people skills and poor
technical skills--which will solve two problems:

1 - Improve the technical aspect of the team
2 - Improve the managerial performance as well.

As long as the top executives do not know how to select future effective
managers, management will be stuck with the Peter Principle. When managers
are asked to list the ten top motivators for their employees the list
looks something like this:

Managers Perceived top ten motivators for their employees.

Money Items

1 - Salary
2 - Bonuses
3 - Vacation
4 - Retirement
5 - Other Benefits & Perks

Communication Items

6 - Interesting work assignments
7 - Involved in decisions
8 - Honest Feedback
9 - Training
10 - Respect

Note that the managers rank items that are equivalent to "money" as the top
five motivators. However, when employees are asked to rank their top ten
motivators the list is:

Employee Motivators as reported by Employees

Communication Items

1 - Interesting work assignments
2 - Involved in decisions
3 - Honest Feedback
4 - Training
5 - Respect

Money Items

6 - Salary
7 - Bonuses
8 - Vacation
9 - Retirement
10 - Other Benefits & Perks

Note that the employees rank items that are equivalent to "money" as their
"bottom five motivators". The managers' top five motivators are the
employees' bottom five motivators. The managers' top five motivators are
more related to the need of the managers to avoid personal contact with
employees than the needs or desires of the employees.

Managers pick the top five motivators because these are the things that
managers can "give" their employees without ever having to ask what the
employees want or need,i.e., no involvement on a personal level is needed
and all decisions can be made behind closed doors--while avoiding personal
contact even to the detriment of the organization.

By the way, managers give the same sequence as their employees when asked
to rank their own motivators.

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

In past discussions along this line, I see a pattern of blaming upper
management for this type of problem. But trust is a two-way street so
lower level employees should shoulder their part of the burden. I believe
that this comes not from a lack of communication, but a lack of role
empathy. That is, both groups not being able to walk a mile in the others
shoes, so to speak.

As a remedy, there is a wonderful M*A*S*H episode where Col. Potter and
Cpl. Klinger exchange places for a day. Upshot is that each gains a new
respect for the tasks that the other provides to the organization. This
is similar to Boxing Day traditions where master and servant reverse roles
for a day.

Could it be as simple as having a member of each group act as a tourist in
the others culture? Kinda like taking the kids to work so that they can
see what the parents do support them. Just a few thoughts.


______________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Abilene, TX
Hm. Telephone: 915.698.7217
mailto:ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu

The Associated Press ran a story this past Labor Day on a survey of over
1000 employees. The article was titled Employees' top complaint" Lousy
leaders and the article address the trust issue. The article is
authored by Maggie Jackson. I could forward a copy is needed.
Rodney Vandeveer


>----------
>From: RICHARD CORCORAN[SMTP:CORCORANRE@EXCELINC.COM]
>Sent: Friday, September 05, 1997 3:34 AM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Leadership and Trust
>
>Dear List,
>
>We have recently conducted a survey at our facility to help
>determine the level of confidence employee's have in our Leaders
>(Senior Management) and in their ability to Lead.
>
>We looked at a variety of relationships to help understand
>enablers and inhibitors to trust, confidence and leadership.
>
>Upon evaluating the results we have found that employees have the
>highest level of trust and confidence in their fellow workers,
>especially those within their own departments, somewhat less trust
>in their immediate supervisor, but a dramatic drop in confidence
>and trust in management the further up you go.
>
>Now we have the task of trying to correct this.
>
>1. Are any of you aware of information out there that reflects our
>findings...however scientific or informal?
>
>2. Are any of you aware of any companies that had similar results
>and a process they used to correct this situation?
>
>3. I am also intersted in your thoughts and feelings on this
>issue.
>
>Thanks a lot,
>Cheers!
>Rick Corcoran
>Excel.Mark I
>Internet:"corcoranre@excelinc.com"
>

Dutch Driver <ddriver@@CS1.MCM.EDU> wrote:

(Hi Dutch)

>>... I see a pattern of blaming upper management for this type of
problem...<<

Blame means "to assign responsibility" and it is managements'
responsibility not the employees' to fix the things that are not working
within the organization. When the problem is communications the employees
cannot make management listen and act accordingly.

>>... But trust is a two-way street so lower level employees should
shoulder their part of the burden...<<

Trust starts out as two, one-way streets until trust is developed in both
directions, only then does it become a two-way street. Employees learn
quickly if management listens and listening is a necessary precondition for
trust to develop.

If an organization learns that their employees do not have trust in their
senior managers it is because the senior managers have failed in their role
as leaders and managers.

How many times or how long do employees have to be ignored, insulted,
belittled, demeaned, or generally overlooked before the employees are
justified in having less than a stellar opinion of management? I suggest a
very short time frame is all that is needed for employees' good will to go
out the window. For some sensitive employees it takes only one event, while
for others two or more events are needed before the employee realizes what
is really going on.

>>... I believe that this comes not from a lack of communication, but a
lack of role empathy...<<

Only management is in a position to develop role empathy in their
non-managers so if non-managers do not have role empathy for their managers
management is still to blame. It is hard IMO to pass the buck to the
employees when managers fail to live up to the demands of the job.

>>... That is, both groups not being able to walk a mile in the others
shoes, so to speak...<<

It is not the role of employees to understand what it is like to walk a
mile in the managers shoes, but it is the role of the managers to help the
employees to understand what is going on and why. Employees do not have to
feel sorry for their managers to respect them, but managers do need to
behave like a manager.

>>... As a remedy, there is a wonderful M*A*S*H episode where Col. Potter
and Cpl. Klinger exchange places for a day...<<

As I remember the episode, it wasn't Cpl. Klinger who made Col. Potter
switch places but rather Col. Potter who either commanded or allowed the
switch.

>>... Upshot is that each gains a new respect for the tasks that the other
provides to the organization...<<

I agree, but why do so many managers not do it? Employees cannot make their
managers do it therefore it must be the responsibility of management.

>>... Could it be as simple as having a member of each group act as a
tourist in the others culture? ...<<

Yes and no. Without two way communication the situation will eventually
revert to the same old "we--they" and the employees will quickly see that
the "tourist in the others culture" was just a ruse to keep the employees
in line. IMO it is always the responsibility of management to see to it
that employees are not demotivated and it is never the other way around.
Managers need to accept the responsibility for what happens on their watch.


Just a few thoughts as well.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

>
>Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:34:51 +0000
>From: RICHARD CORCORAN <CORCORANRE@EXCELINC.COM>
>Subject: Leadership and Trust
>
>Dear List,
>
>--snip-- we have found that employees have the
>highest level of trust and confidence in their fellow workers,
>especially those within their own departments, somewhat less trust
>in their immediate supervisor, but a dramatic drop in confidence
>and trust in management the further up you go.

You have rediscovered the JOHARI Window. The answer is communication, the
key is selecting the topics and pace. I agree with Bob Gately's response
but believe that progress does not require a great deal of behavior
modification on the part of upper management. In fact, upper management
can have fun at becoming better communicators. Suggest you get some of the
instruments from Teleometrics, 1-800-527-0406 and get some managers
involved in exploring the implications of the Johari window.

If this makes sense let me know and I will further suggest how to get upper
management involved while avoiding any implication that they are being
asked to submit to remedial training.

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
602-488-4615

Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> wrote:

(Hello Jack)

>>... progress does not require a great deal of behavior modification on
the part of upper management...<<

Hmmm, I wonder how and why a management team would let things go so far as
to cause their employees to have very little regard for their decisions?

>>... In fact, upper management can have fun at becoming better
communicators...<<<

I agree, upper management can have fun, but to assume that any management
team is capable of transforming their managers into good communicators,
seems to me, to be a little too hopeful. Many managers are in their
positions because they are not prone to mistakes, i.e., they take no risks,
or because they were excellent in another position and were rewarded with a
promotion to management not because they were or are good communicators.

IMO good communications is more than listening to a lecturer and then
following the tens steps to effective communications. Employees will
quickly see that a change in style is not much more than manipulation on
the part of some of the managers. Good communicators WANT to listen and
listen intently not just because one of the ten step to effective
management requires listening.

If knowledge were the answer to poor management, i.e., communications, we
would have far fewer poor management teams given the amount time and money
spent on management education, training, consulting, books, tapes,
seminars, lectures, etc. The problem is directly attributable to the people
we select to be our managers. If we select non-communicators we ought not
to be not surprised when the employees recognize the problem. If we want
good communicators, hire them since making them out of poor communicators
is very hard to do. Yes, some poor communicators may be good communicators
who need training, but all poor communicators don't fall into this group,
unfortunately.

>>... how to get upper management involved while avoiding any implication
that they are being asked to submit to remedial training...<<

Interesting, sneaking in remedial training, I like it, but what happens
when a manager recognizes it as remedial training? After all, we are saying
that the managers do not know how to communicate effectively.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

It seems to me that we cannot even begin to discuss the causes of trust
(or its absence) without knowing the sort of trust about which we speak.
Are we talking here about trust in management's competence, in its
ethics/integrity, in its strategic vision, or what? In my personal life,
I find that I may trust someone for certain purposes, but not for
others, and that those trust domains can have separate causes. I suspect
that effort directed toward isolating the specific domains in which
management is not trusted would go far toward illuminating the factors
contributing to the distrust.

Bart
>------------------------------
>Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:34:51 +0000
>From: RICHARD CORCORAN <CORCORANRE@EXCELINC.COM>
>Subject: Leadership and Trust
>
>Dear List,
>
>We have recently conducted a survey at our facility to help
>determine the level of confidence employee's have in our Leaders
>(Senior Management) and in their ability to Lead.
>[snip]

On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Bob Gately wrote: Re: Leadership and Trust
---snip ---
>Interesting, sneaking in remedial training, I like it, but what happens
>when a manager recognizes it as remedial training? After all, we are saying
>that the managers do not know how to communicate effectively.
>
Bob, (and others)
Apparently, I was not clear. WE are not saying that managers do not know
how to communicate effectively. I, for one, think most are better than
average -- at least in one direction. My point was not about competency in
communication but about knowing what subject to communicate about and at
what pace. They must be pretty good at those factors with their superiors
else they would not have been promoted. They are less good with peers (the
teamwork problem) and somewhat good with customers (or at least they
acknowledge they need to be) but less good with suppliers and even less
with employees. And the greater the organizational distance, the worse
they are.

Now, most people who try to help go at it with a presumption that managers
are poor communicators. Thus they project the message to the managers that
the managers need remedial training. I did not intend to sneak in that
thought. I intended to communicate that if the "remedial" tone is there,
it will be recognized and managers will balk and shun anyone trying to be
of help.

Rather, if they are acknowledged as skilled at communication and helped to
understand what subjects they should be communicating about (and how to
find out what messages people want to hear) and at what pace (the relative
frequency of asking questions to making assertions), then they become quite
effective at opening both the openness and the feedback dimensions of the
JoHari window and are perceived much more positively -- by peers,
customers, suppliers, employees, family and even themselves.

It is not about communication. It is about subject matter and pace.
Skilled communication about the wrong topics at the wrong time is just
about as bad as no communication at all. Was it Mark Twain who said 'tis
better to keep quite and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and
confirm it?

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
602-488-4615