A Quick Lesson in Developing Trust

In 2005, the Italia Masters Tennis Championship brought together Fernando Verdasco of Spain and Andy Roddick of the USA. The battle had reached match point in favour of Roddick and Verdasco was to serve. Verdasco did serve, it was judged as a fault. He served for a second time - and once again, the umpire called Verdasco's serve as a fault. Match Roddick!

Well, it didn't quite work out that way. Roddick had just been awarded the match and by default, the cheers of the crowd. As Verdasco started the traditional walk to the net to shake hands with his opponent, Roddick remained still. Why would the victor remain still? Was he injured, shocked or was something else happening? It was indeed something very special and deeply human happening. Roddick was about to challenge the umpire's decision. A decision that was not only in his own favour, but one which had awarded him the match and safe passage to the next round.

Roddick politely and assertively stated his view that the ball was actually 'in' and not 'out'. He stated that the proof of his own call was that a slight indentation had formed on the clay court where Verdasco's second serve had impacted. As the ball had landed on the line and not outside the line, the match umpire allowed Roddick to overrule him.

As history shows, Verdasco went on to win the match and progress to the next round. But while Roddick may have lost the match, he won in so many other ways. He demonstrated strength of character, deeply held personal values relating to trust, honour and integrity, and if you were umpiring his next match and Roddick challenged your decision, might you just be a little more open to listening and understanding his viewpoint than you would of other sports men and women who moan, groan, complain and downright cheat to get their own way?

As my wonderful mother used to say to me 'Scott, always be honest. It's really easy to remember.'

Spying or Simply Positive Performance Management?

Airbus are in the news due to a supposed 'spying scandal' . A previous management board allegedly spied on staff between 2005 and 2007 in what was deemed to be a positive step to identify and deal with instances of corruption amongst its ranks. The BBC reported that the checks were to see if any employees bank accounts had any links to those of the company's suppliers.

But is this a bad thing or a good thing? Corporate surveillance can be perceived as a distinct absence of trust for employees but on the other side of the coin, isn't it also a very positive step the company's former bosses took to ensure that their company's business was being run honestly and transparently? Not that it is an act of transparency to secretly 'spy' on staff - but I suppose that informing everyone in advance of such a project would defeat the whole object of the exercise!

In the instances of the Enron, Worldcom, Parmalat scandals, if the cameras have been focused firmly on the leaders of the organisations the fall-out would have been reduced significantly. But, as it is on most occasions the leader/s who authorise such a practice, they are unlikely to promote such a practice for themselves.

A certain Mr Madoff is also in the news. His alleged multi-million dollar fraud could have and some commentators say, should have been avoided if his company's accounts had been audited by a genuinely independent accountancy practice.

We may have to accept that in some situations, actively observing and indeed investigating employee behaviour (from the very top downwards) is a very good thing. Moving away from the old adage 'if you've nothing to hide, there's nothing to be concerned about' to 'it's in everyone's best interests that we all demonstrate transparency'. Remember in the UK in the 1970's where a car manufacturer British Leyland identified that some of its assembly line workers were stealing car parts from their employer - not to sell or indeed use the parts individually. At the expense of British Leyland, they were building their own cars at home!

Is there a difference between 'spying' and 'managing quality'? Is it the intention on which the action is based? If you don't trust your boss, isn't it likely we will view it as spying or micro management, whereas if we do trust our boss, we are more likely to view it as a genuine corporate requirement?

How do you perform when you feel you aren't being trusted? How would you respond if your employer was found to have been watching your every move?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7978713.stm

Showing Two Fingers To Bad Behaviour - Football's Shameful Leaders

Many companies have a clause in their employment contracts which states something along the lines of 'the employee agrees to behave themselves, not be stupid, silly or get into trouble with the police - basically...BEHAVE YOURSELF'. Is it fair for a company to impose such a stipulation on its employees when they are outside of the workplace and outside their working hours? There is after all this growing awareness of human rights - we should be free to do as we please when away from work. Well, such a general statement could cause chaos in a world where social ills such as violence, illegal drug use and booze culture are growing fast.

But what about when a professional sportsperson/footballer (or two of them in this case) choose to break the rules set by their national team manager by allegedly going on a heavy drinking session when they should have been tucked up in bed in preparation for representing their county 24 hours later? Some people may challenge 'Well, as long as they perform on the pitch, why is it a problem?' while others may claim 'They get paid enough to behave themselves, how stupid can they be?'.

But while national team manager George Burley and Walter Smith, Rangers' Manager thought they had effectively resolved the matter of 'drinking on duty', what made matters worse, much worse in fact was the two players' two finger hand gestures to the television cameras during the Scotland v Iceland match when they were both on the bench and not selected to play due to their manager suspending them.

Whichever way we look at the situation that Barry Ferguson and Allan MacGregor currently find themselves in, the facts of the matter are:

1. The Scottish Football Association has decided that both players cannot represent their country again.
2. Both players have been suspended by their club for 2 weeks and have been fined 2 weeks' wages. Perhaps this isn't a big deal in itself as Ferguson reportedly earns £25,000 per week and MacGregor £15,000.
3. Barry Ferguson has been stripped of his club captaincy role and both players transfer listed by Rangers. They are unlikely to play for their club again, even though the Scottish league championship is rather tight this year and Rangers would benefit from having their best players available.

So what does this mean in a corporate sense?

How do you tackle those team members who choose to flout the rules and standards that your organisation set and you are paid to implement? Do you turn a blind eye if the rules are being broken by a high performing team member because you can't afford to upset them in case their performance drops?

How about, if as in Rangers case, you have a good chance of 'winning the championship' and you feel you can't afford to take your best player/s out of the team? Either way, whether they remain in the team or are suspended/fired, what messages do you send to other team members who behave impeccably well on a consistent basis?

If a member of your team behaves in such a manner that s/he is ultimately removed from your organisation, would you still provide a job reference saying they were a model employee/committed/dedicated, not mentioning the reason they left your organisation - even if the prospective employer asked you?

How many times do you give a team member 'another chance' to behave within the boundaries set by your organisation? When is enough, really enough?

What situations have you faced, or are facing where someone's behaviour is being tolerated even though it is destructive?

When have you procrastinated on taking action on a poor performer and it has got worse?

Have you had a time when you procrastinated on taking action on a performance/behaviour issue and the matter seemed to resolve itself?

Why do some people choose to let their ego get in the way of doing what they are paid (and hopefully, trusted) to do?

There is a big difference between 'making an example' of someone and leading by example. In my view, Walter Smith has set a standard which as well has having potential serious repercussions for both players future career prospects, sends a clear message to his current and future players - behave, or else. Perhaps Mr Smith is leading by example as football is supposed to be a family game and he may not want to promote the possibility of young, impressionable children accepting the behaviour of their role model/s as the norm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/03/barry-ferguson-allan-mcgregor-banned-scotland-rangers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7983283.stm

Personal Impact - Getting Below The Surface to Shared Understanding

We all have an impact. Whether we know it or not, whether we care or not, we all impact other human beings with our gestures, communication and even our personal values. Have a think, if you and I work together and in the early stages of the relationship, we both agree that 'honesty' is of great importance to us, should this agreement and shared value make working together less stressful, more enjoyable and even more fulfilling? Nope, not at all! Unless that is we both understand what exactly 'honesty' means to each of us. For example, many moons ago, I was invited to facilitate an open and honest discussion between a senior manager and a subordinate. They had completed such a discussion at interview stage and the senior manager (also the recruiter) stated that one of the main reasons he selected the applicant for the job was that he 'felt on the same page'. Very dangerous - especially when just 3 months into the working relationship, their relationship had become toxic, information that should have been shared wasn't being shared and both individuals had founded their own little 'gang' to bad mouth their colleague and reinforce the supposed 'fact' that they were right and the other person was wrong. Gangs can be very powerful in helping our ego be stroked, they won't though dig us out of the very deep hole we will eventually find ourselves in when gang members leave, change allegiance or simply get fed up of listening to us bad mouth someone or persistently moan on.

How could this happen after such a positive and enjoyable selection interview? Quite easily actually! Following discussions with both parties I established that the word 'honesty' had a very different meaning for each person. For the new staff member, honesty meant that there was open, honest dialogue and information was shared in a timely manner with everyone's best interests at heart. There was to be no personal or hidden agenda overriding the needs of the team or business. To do such things would amount to 'being dishonest'. On the other hand, the manager stated that for him 'honesty' meant 'telling people how it is', 'letting people know where they stand' and also included ' and 'giving feedback that makes people listen'.

Let's bear in mind that in the real world (not our own little world) in the absence of indisputable facts we can only tell people how we see it, not how it actually is. We can only provide our opinion about a subject or situation. While it may not be what we can accurately call 'the truth', it is nonetheless 'our truth'. Letting people know where they stand can be extremely useful if it is designed to agree roles, responsibilities and boundaries within which someone is to operate. This clear context can stop individuals and teams going off track and missing deadlines and quality standards. When it is used though to set a command and control, ego based relationship, it can serve to destroy trust, loyalty and employee engagement. And why wouldn't we want to provide feedback that makes people listen? The word 'makes' in this instance reflected a 'I'm right so don't dare to speak back to me' approach rather than 'helping' someone want to listen - and really appreciate the feedback being provided. Indeed, helping someone want to listen is more focused on win-win, collaboration, supportive and even motivational, simply because it is said with a positive intention that will probably help the relationship grow and prosper rather than fall apart and cause toxicity.

As it turned out, when both parties shared their definition of 'honesty' and what it meant to them, the relationship got on to an even keel. Both parties gave each other permission to provide candid feedback but only if it was with an intention of improving a situation - backstabbing was no longer to be the order of the day. A wonderful demonstration of integrity - which is another personal value that they shared. I only hope they got some shared clarity on what this actually meant to each other as this too could cause problems that wouldn't be spoken about for many months, just like honesty.

One powerful lesson I learned from my mother was 'Always be honest with me, it's a high standard to hold, and it's far easier to remember'. If only business leaders would demonstrate such a standard wouldn't our world be a little bit more enjoyable?

The Lewis Hamilton/McLaren Approach to Winning - Is It Worth It?

Today, Formula One's governing body, the FIA have announced a suspended 3 race ban for McLaren race team and their reigning world formula one champion Lewis Hamilton. Good news or bad news?

A quick review tells us that during the Australian Grand Prix, both McLaren and Hamilton collaborated to withhold information from race officials when Hailton finished the race in fourth position behind Toyota's Jarno Trulli. The incident which caused the McLaren team to appeal against Trulli's 3rd placing was that he had illegally overtaken Hamilton while the race was under the control of the track safety car. This means that no overtaking is allowed until the safety car has left the track and normal competition recommences. McLaren stated that they had not intentionally allowed Trulli to overtake Hamilton, but (and this is the really clever bit), Hamilton's communication with his team officials was recorded. And when the recording was played back, it contradicted what the team had told race officials, perhaps to elevate their team and driver to a place on the podium. More can be read about the details of this incident at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8024661.stm

Transferring this sporting situation to the business arena, have a think about the following:

Hamilton is currently world champion and has become something of a hero for being a 'good guy' who persevered through personal challenges during his childhood years to pursue his passion and has developed a very powerful reputation for youngsters and adults alike. He seems a quite likeable chap.

Did Hamilton choose to be misleading/dishonest and willingly collaborated with his team-mates to mislead officials in order to gain a better placing in the race? Hamilton stated that his boss, Dave Ryan had instructed him to 'withhold information'. Doesn't this reflect Dr Robert Cialdini's point that subordinates often feel compelled to comply with an authority figure, even if they don't agree with the boss's decision? This principle, in another way, helps Hamilton to abdicate any personal responsibility for his (choosing) to comply and (choosing) to be allegedly misleading/dishonest. Relate this back to the workplace and this is where a junior employee will say 'I was just following the boss's orders' when a problem appears or quality has suffered. For schoolchildren when caught stealing or mis-behaving it's something like 'Johnny MADE ME do it.'

When officials heard the radio communication between Hamilton and his team-mates (the game was now over), Hamilton quickly made an emotional, and possibly, genuine apology for his part in the scandal. Is this because he had been found out, because his personal brand, and potentially the brand of each of his sponsors would be damaged to some degree? Just thank of how his sponsorship negotiation power has diminished for his next renewal discussion! I invite you to learn more about 'guilt by association' in the corporate arena. Perhaps Hamilton has learned that honesty is the best policy - as it's really easy to remember, and hopefully, that 'doing the right thing' is just as important as 'doing things right' in a high-speed motor vehicle.

It's true that we can learn from mistakes - at least if we choose to. But what do you think the initial response of Formula One's governing body, the FIA might be if McLaren/Hamilton complain or appeal a decision mid-race in the future? Might they be more interested in ensuring they aren't being duped than ensuring that they are applying the rules and regulations of the race itself? Will an element of suspicion, unfounded or otherwise exist towards McLaren, even though the team now has a new boss who has implemented 'a complete culture change'? WOW, he's managed to achieve this in just a few weeks? Management Consultant's appear to take years, if not decades to achieve this in the corporate arena!

The decision by the FIA to impose a 3 race ban which will only be imposed if 'further facts emerge' about the incident or if there are 'further breaches of the rules'. Prior to the FIA hearing, news media were reporting that McLaren could be suspended, if not thrown out of Formula One forever. Perhaps a little sensationalist? Well, when in the grasp of a global recession, team sponsors such as Royal Bank of Scotland amongst others not being in a position to continue with multi-million pound sponsorship deals and F1 enthusiasts perhaps watching their pennies a little more - the last thing the FIA would do was to ban a team. It wouldn't be good for the F1 brand or keep money in the sport.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8016611.stm

In terms of Hamilton's previously unblemished record in terms of appearing to be a decent bloke, remember, we human beings keep score. We tend to remember when someone has deceived us, and trust, while it can be restored, it can take a long time to forgive - not so much forget.

The danger with blaming. An important point to bear in mind for the viewing public and Hamilton and F1 enthusiasts is this. When we label another human being, we don't define them - we define ourselves.

I hope that you win each and every day, but please don't allow it to be at the expense of your character and integrity.

Thoughts? Please do share.