•
How Fear Affects Effectiveness
•
Sources of Fear
•
Results of Fear
•
Fear of Knowledge and Change
•
Managing Without Inducing Fear
To introduce fear in the
workplace we’ll start off with an exercise.
Exercise
Think about your own job and
your relationships with superiors and fill in the blanks:
I am afraid of these
consequences on my job:
•
•
•
So, I avoid these actions:
•
•
•
and substitute these actions:
•
•
•
Hopefully you are one of the
fortunate few that experience no fear on their job. If so the exercise is
meaningless for you. However, if you are in an environment of fear you likely
were able to fill in the blanks with just a little reflection. Now compare the
actions you substitute for the actions you avoid. Typically, we avoid things
that would be more effective for the long term success of the business and
substitute weak alternatives that are not nearly as effective. The result is
there is a relationship between fear and job effectiveness. This relationship
is shown graphically in figure 4.
Figure 4. High fear in the
workplace results in low effectiveness for the organization
Do you agree with the claim
implied in figure 4? What is your experience that leads to your belief? What is the difference between respect and
fear? What is necessary to have respect without fear? Jot down your answers and
then review them after completing the discussions of fear in the workplace.
Let’s start by listing sources
of fear, which include:
•
Management Induced
–
Negativity (management style)
–
Plans, policies & procedures for 5% of
workers (Including performance appraisal & merit rating systems)
–
Over emphasis on numerical goals and objectives
–
“Shoot the messenger” behavior
–
Retribution for mistakes and errors
•
Environment Induced
–
Business conditions, business cycle, market
cycle
–
Actions by competition, government,
stockholders, mergers & acquisitions
•
Inherent Fears
–
Fear of knowledge & fear of change
Note that
Management Induced includes management style and the annual performance
appraisal, topics we discussed in the lecture on achieving high motivation of
workers. Let’s examine how management style induces fear and affects
motivation. Imagine the following scene. A manager is sitting behind his desk
and a young woman is facing the desk. Think about what happens as described in
the bullet list:
•
The manager has
problems
•
He sees the young woman as the cause
•
He expresses negativity to her, e.g. he directly
blames her for the problems using foul language
•
Will she:
–
Want to talk to him in the future?
–
Avoid him in future?
–
Want to be his partner in improving effectiveness?
–
Offer suggestions in the future?
–
Pass his negativity down the line?
–
Encourage suggestions from her subordinates?
Have you ever witnessed a
similar scene? Unfortunately many of us have and this is just one example of a
manager expressing negativity. Let’s list some others.
Form 1
Coercive, negative power (Intensely emotional, with voice effects and
body movements)
Examples
“I want it NOW!!”
“WHO KNOWS anything about
this!!?”
“I don’t CARE what else you have
to do!!”
“WHO did THIS!!?”
Results
Induces atmosphere of direct
fear, uneasy silence
“Shoot any messenger” is inferred
Wipes out 20 “attaboys”
Travels rapidly down the
line…all the way
Form 2
Backstabbing the boss when
problems arise (to your subordinates or to your peers)
Examples
“It’s all HIS fault”
“What is he leading us into now?”
“Do you BELIEVE this?”
Results
The backstabber has relinquished
his leadership
Poor morale spreads
No or few suggestions
No loyalty
Form 3
Subtle backstabbing (to
subordinates or peers)
A variant: Malicious obedience
Examples
“I’m only doing what (so and so)
wants”
“When (so and so) says ‘do it,’
we’ll do it!”
“So and so wants it this way!”
(Raises eyebrows) “So, we’ll DO it this way!”
Results
Absence of risk taking
Poor morale
Manager has relinquished
responsibility
A “yes-man”- afraid to take
authority-a bureaucrat
The organization floats
Numerical goals
Another form of negativity is
ineffective reliance on or ineffective implementation of numerical goals.
Recalling that most organizations have some variant of management by objective
numerical goals are inherent in today’s work environment. However emphasis on
numerical goals can be positive or negative. It’s positive if the goals are
achievable, if the workers have had some input into setting the goals or at
least offered the opportunity to discuss them before the goals are adopted, if
they understand the reason the goals are necessary and if they are provided
feedback on progress toward the goals.
Numerical goals are bad when
they distort the business environment, when workers have no opportunity to
participate in the goal setting process, when the reason for the goals isn't understood and when they cannot easily see how well they are progressing toward
the goals. Bad numerical goals are demotivating. W. Edwards Deming’s famous Red
Bead Experiment clearly demonstrates the demotivating characteristic of bad
numerical goals. The Red Bead Experiment is discussed in a later lecture.
There needs to be an upfront
agreement on what will result from achieving goals. Sometimes this is simple
survival of the organization, which is easily understood and highly motivating,
but sometimes the reasons for goals are more abstract and therefore workers
need to know why they are expected to put in extra effort to achieve the goals.
Achieving goals needs to be rewarded when the goals are extraordinary and not
just the organization’s normal work. Non-monetary rewards are usually the best
because they are easier to be perceived as fair to everyone involved.
Sometimes it’s better to have
global goals rather than numerical goals; where global goals make sense, e.g.
perhaps to have the best record in the enterprise rather than a specific number
where specific numbers are arbitrary. Workers can get behind being the best but
have problems understanding why some arbitrary numerical goal is worth their
best efforts.
Dealing with impossible
goals
Sometimes goals are flowed down
to low levels of an organization by high level managers without explanation or
the opportunity to discuss the merits of the goals or the applicability of the
goals to the low level organization. Examples of where this can be extremely
negative include where sales, profit, growth or similar targets are set
arbitrarily without regard to the realities of the market the subordinate
organization addresses.
The effective leader doesn't fall into the trap of trying to meet unrealistic sales goals by blindly chasing
new markets and thereby wasting valuable resources or trying to meet
unrealistic profit goals by deferring critical investment, maintenance or other
expenses necessary for the sustained health of the organization. Such responses
are an extreme form of malicious obedience that can ultimately destroy both the
organization and harm all the stakeholders, including harming the manager’s
reputation.
What does the effective leader
do in such situations? To a great extent
the response depends on the relationship a manager has with superiors. For the
purpose of this training let’s assume the relationship is neutral. In this case
there are a series of steps to be followed. Understanding this simple case
should enable you to think through other cases. First, you must assume that the
higher level managers don’t know the details of the organization’s environment
so that the goals are reasonable to these managers. Second, you must
communicate to the higher level mangers that you understand the goals and are
working on plans to achieve them. This buys you a little time for the next
step, which is to develop several alternatives based on the business
environment your organization operates in. These must include trying to achieve
the goals along with your assessment of the likely results. Stretch goals are
healthy if they aren't completely unrealistic. Also, there is always the
possibility that your superiors do understand your environment and still want
you to pursue the stated goals. They may understand something you have missed
or have other strategic reasons. Examine other alternatives such as continuing
on previous years plans, scaling back the goals, closing out or selling the
organization and other options that could be achieved.
When you have worked out these
alternatives and have mastered your understanding of them and your business
environment you should approach your boss and say that your analysis is showing
that there are difficulties in achieving the goals and that you have identified
some alternatives that may be better; assuming your alternatives are better.
Ask for your bosses help in reviewing your draft analysis. Hopefully your boss
agrees and you have the opportunity to present your carefully developed story
as a “draft” analysis. This gives you the opportunity to present the facts of
your business environment and how these facts impact achieving the expected
goals as well as the alternatives. You must be loyal to the enterprise first
and your organization second if you are to achieve what is best for the
enterprise and for your organization in the long term.
At this point you may think the
course I suggest is selling out your organization. This is not true. If you
think about it carefully what is best for the enterprise is almost always what
is best for the subordinate organization. Your workers are stakeholders but so
are the owners, management, community and you. Every organization requires
investment to remain viable. This investment may include capital equipment,
cash for research and development of new products or services or just management
attention. A healthy organization provides a return on investment to its
stakeholders. If your organization’s return isn’t competitive with other parts
of the enterprise then it isn’t healthy. Selling it to another enterprise or
merging it with another organization may enable it to get well. If it isn’t
healthy and there isn’t a home for it where the necessary investment is
available then it isn’t providing a good career environment for the workers in
the organization. Keeping such an
organization alive just lets the workers grow older as they spin their wheels
in dead end jobs and robs all stakeholders of better opportunities. Better to
close the operation. In the long run
this is a better solution for almost all of the stakeholders. Admittedly, there
will be some workers, e.g. those nearing retirement, that will be harmed by
such a decision and compassionate enterprises attempt to minimize this harm.
If you keep the interest of all
stakeholders in mind you can be objective and work with your bosses to find the
best solution. If you focus just on preserving your organization then you
become part of the problem and damage your ability to manage your organization
effectively.
I have included this long
discussion because there are two important principles involved that you should
take away and it points to a third important principle. First, you must keep
the interests of all stakeholders in mind when faced with difficult management
situations and second you must be loyal to the enterprise in order to maintain
your effectiveness and ultimately the loyalty of the people you manage. Note,
as shown in the example above, this doesn’t mean saluting dumb things that your
bosses propose. It means trying to work with your bosses in a constructive way
to find effective solutions to problems. I know and you know that there are
times when you won’t be successful. We have all encountered senior managers
whose attitude is “it’s my way or the highway” even when they pursue impossible
strategies or unobtainable goals. We just have to accept that there are battles
that we can’t win and not waste our energies dwelling on these situations. This
brings up the third principle. Spending energy on issues that we can influence
is positive energy and increases our circle of influence (the sum of those
things we can influence). Spending energy on issues we can’t influence is
negative energy and shrinks our circle of influence. That’s why you must not
dwell on issues you can’t influence or battles you lost beyond reflecting on lessons
learned; it’s negative energy and makes you less able to function effectively
in the future.
Exercise
If you are studying in a team
then divide in half. One half give examples of reactions to negativity in terms
of statements subordinates might make to themselves, e.g. I hate my boss.
The other half state reactions
in “psychological terms”, e.g. hate decreases altruism.
You may try this if working
alone but it’s easier and a more effective learning experience when done as a
team.
This lecture has concentrated
on fear resulting from managers expressing negativity and has attempted to show
that negativity has many forms, all of which result in reducing the
effectiveness of the organization. Now is the time to review the action plan
you developed in lecture 10. Are there changes you need to make in your list of
seven or eight top priority actions based on what you have learned in lectures
11 - 13? If so make them now and start to follow these changes in your daily
work because if you have been expressing negativity it will decrease the
potential for success from your other actions. To assist you the next topic
discusses a way to manage problems without inducing fear.
If you find that the pace of blog posts
isn’t compatible with the pace you would
like to maintain in studying this material you can buy the book “The Manager’s Guide for Effective
Leadership” at:
or hard copy or for nook at:
or hard copy or E-book at:
