It is stating the obvious to say we are all different and hence we all do things differently. Yet this is probably THE single biggest complication in human existence because it makes every human interaction and every relationship different – something which has profound consequences, not least in the world of business.
It could be argued that the biggest challenge leaders and business people alike have faced throughout history has been to control and standardise behaviour. Indeed at its most basic that is what defines leadership. Henry Ford’s assembly line, which introduced the age of uniformity and mass production, was, in essence, nothing but a brilliant means to create a more homogenous product that simultaneously reshaped behaviour and created the need for groups of homogenous people to follow a predetermined routine.
But, it is precisely because people are not homogenous that management theory and practice is so focused on “leadership”, “control” and ways to “shape behaviour.” Yet the very fact that people are individual, with innate resistance to being made to conform, makes such efforts ultimately counter-productive. Enlightened leaders recognise this and move away from Canute-like efforts to impose their will.
One of the first steps is to recognise that people are individuals whose efforts, because they think and act differently, will always end in different results. Thus no-one will do something exactly as you would. You might not even do it the same way twice yourself. I know that, when I have thought I have done a good job, and then looked at it some time afterwards, I can always think of ways it could have been better! Yet despite this moving target we still expect others to do exactly as we would. Wouldn’t it be better to simply agree the requirements and the standard – and measures – of quality and leave people to get on with the job?
One example of this is the way my daughter ties her shoe-laces. She is right-handed, but was taught by her older brother who is left-handed. Thus watching her doing it is a spectacle of confusion. Yet the result is not only equivalent, but her success rate – measured by the frequency of the need to retie – is phenomenal: unlike the rest of us she seldom if ever has her laces come undone.
How much more effective the work environment would be if this attitude was more universally adopted. For instance the impact on performance appraisals would be significant. A recent blog “Performance Reviews: A Big Fat Waste of Time” really encapsulates some of the shortcomings of these. Now, with a focus solely on outcomes, both parties will already know from the delivery cycle, what the standard of performance has been. Issues will be addressed immediately and there will be no need to agonise over performance. So rather than an annual review, there would be an “Annual Personal Plan” agreeing desired outcomes with their performance standards. This would integrate macro- and micro-level planning and enable constructive dialogue to identify obstacles and how to overcome them. It would be when manager and individual agree how best to enhance the individual’s human asset value (a concept outlined in my website) and would be a far more collaborative exercise, focusing on mutually beneficial objectives, and the interdependencies to ensure they are achieved.
Such outcome focus removes any element of judgement, along with the potential for conflict, enabling the delivery cycle – with its embedded performance measurement – to engender continuous improvement and remove the need for annual appraisals. Annual personal plans will instead provide the capability to align personal and organisational objectives, fostering greater collaboration and teamwork.
The Scriptures certainly are practical!