Most people have some form of a “To Do” list, which lets them know the things they have to do.  But credibility and a reputation for effectiveness comes from what you deliver to others and what they deliver to you.  When we know what we have due to others, and by when, we can better schedule the work we need to do in order to successfully deliver what is required.   That is one reason we stress the importance of including “by when” in all performance conversations.  Successful delivery to others increases their trust in us and enhances our credibility and reputation.

By the same token, when we keep a Due List of what other people owe us, and by when, it allows us to effectively follow up with them in a timely manner.  Following up lets people know we really did want what we asked for and that it was important enough that we remembered both what we asked for and by when.  As a result, our credibility increases.  Following up also builds accountability as people come to learn that we will be back to have a closure conversation with them.

Credibility and accountability are built and a key to building them is to keep, and use, a “Due List”.

Agreements are the foundation for performance.  Many managers believe the key to getting things done is to appeal to people’s emotions and feelings, including their likes and dislikes and what they want or don’t want.  However, I have not found this approach to be highly effective or sustainable.  Emotions and feelings are easily changed and since I can’t control my own emotions, I am skeptical of influencing those of others.  Besides, there is a much more reliable approach.

Create agreements with people and then manage those agreements.  Agreements are created in performance conversations where both parties agree on what will be accomplished, by when, and how success will be determined.  These are conversations between adults where what counts is the agreement they create together.  Since agreements are between both parties, both are accountable for its accomplishment – one for delivering and the other for receiving what is promised.  This means that if an agreement is not kept, both parties are accountable.

Closure conversations are used to follow up and hold people accountable for agreements.  In these conversations, both parties have the opportunity to address what worked and what didn’t.  The focus of these conversations is on the success or failure of the agreement, what can be learned, and what can be done differently in the future.

For another take on managing agreements, read this blog.

Everything seemed to work fine until Rebecca began informing the work units of her decisions.  According to Jeremy, Rebecca’s decisions ignored many of his work unit’s recommendations with no explanation why.  When he went to his unit manager to find out on what basis Rebecca was making her decisions, his manager replied “I don’t know”.  People in Jeremy’s unit were perplexed, confused, and upset.  They felt betrayed and there was a substantial increase in gossiping and complaining about Rebecca.  Some people even quit their jobs.

Change leaders like Rebecca have to make tough decisions and are accountable for those decisions.  But Rebecca could have reduced the damage both to her reputation and the future receptivity of people to change if she had engaged in understanding conversations with people prior to her decisions and closure conversations after.

The director of a lean management program recently approached me with a problem he was having with program sponsors prohibiting students from implementing their lean projects at work.  According to the director, each student who enters the program has a sponsor who agrees on the focus and scope of the project the student will do while in the program.  This agreement is worked out before the student enters the program and includes numerous “check off” points so the sponsor knows what is happening throughout.  However, when it is time to actually implement the lean project, 20-30% of the sponsors refuse to proceed.

Initially the program director thought the sponsors might be resistant to change, but I told him I didn’t think that was the issue.  Rather, I told him there was something else going on.  And indeed there was.  As students progress through the program, they see other things that could be done beyond the project they originally agreed to with the sponsor.  However, rather than renegotiate the agreement, the students proceed with developing the larger project.  It is these larger projects that sponsors refuse to implement.

The issue here is not resistance to change, but a failure to honor and manage the agreements among students, sponsors, and the program.  More complete performance and closure conversations will reduce the percent of sponsors who refuse to implement projects.

The topic in my leading change class today was integrity and its impact on a leader’s ability to effect change.  Integrity was defined as honoring your word and doing what you said you would do by when you said you would do it and if you are not going to do what you said, to communicate fully to everyone affected as soon as you know you won’t be going what you said so that they can make the appropriate and necessary accommodations.  During the discussion, several students told of job situations in which projects they were working on were not going to get done when promised, but were told by their immediate managers not to tell the project clients.  The reasoning was that if the clients were told before the due date, they would question the manger’s competence.  However, once the deadline was missed, other factors could be blamed.

Although managers may think this “don’t tell them” strategy protects them from looking bad, it actually undermines their integrity and reputations.  Each of the students involved in these situations said they lost respect and regard for the managers involved.  This is unfortunate since all the managers needed to do to maintain their integrity was to have closure conversations with their clients.

Having one closure conversation, even if it may be a little uncomfortable, seems like a small price to pay for keeping one’s integrity and the respect of others.

I see why performance conversations are such a confront: saying publicly what I’ll do and by when would be fine if I was sure nobody was listening!

So, I have created a timeline for getting my “management is missing” summaries – including solutions – out on the Management-is-Missing blog before the end of December. And I’ll meet with my weblog guy to learn how to turn the prototype into something user-friendly – in that timeline too.

To box myself in, I’ve requested an appointment with him. So as soon as he picks the date and time to meet, I’ll have an agreement to turn over a deliverable.

When I know someone will be expecting to meet with me and discuss my deliverable, I have an obligation to produce, and to arrange my schedule to do the work and be at the meeting. That’s why performance is a product of agreements.

OK, I’m a woman at work!

Then I talked with several people about learning management systems and how they are used for online learning. One of them creates and manages several online learning sites, another has used online learning systems, and a third has built a business around them. All this was useful to help me see the kind of design work and planning that I need to do, and who I could link up with to get some of the results I want to have.

The last conversation was with a manager, call her Lynne, who is in a really bad situation. Lynne was hired as an “account manager”, to provide services to a large customer organization. The job included some compliance duties (making sure that products and equipment were updated on time and with appropriate vendor support) and collaborating with several other organizations in industry, service, and government. The bad situation started when she pointed out some serious compliance issues to her boss – she noticed several places where the relevant laws were being broken and gave the boss a memo about it. Nothing happened.

The situation soon spiraled downward: Lynne grew impatient with a boss who didn’t seem to care about illegal situations, and she began noticing other places where internal policies were not followed or agreements with partner organizations and clients were unmanaged. She began speaking up at meetings about these things even though it was clear that nobody wanted to hear it. Now she is stuck in an increasingly negative relationship with many of the people above her in the organization. Even some of her peers are hesitant to work too closely with her for fear that the management reaction to being accused of mistakes will taint them too.

Could an “understanding conversation” – a dialogue about what players are involved in the problems, who should be involved in creating solutions, and how to go about putting things right – have made a difference? Maybe, if it was held early and privately with the boss. But maybe not. If Lynne is determined to set things right without building a performance circle and having the dialogues for clarifying roles and responsibilities, she is creating a hard road ahead for herself and others.

All of these conversations were exploratory – they were “understanding conversations” to learn more about where my ideas fit into a possible new future. But this last conversation reinforced the importance of having a place where people – both managers and the people they manage – can look at different ways to talk about management problems they are having. And perhaps we can even create a place where people can create solutions that will be relatively quick and painless.

When I finish these understanding conversations, I’ll move on to the performance conversations. Back soon.

Years of research indicates that managers who have authority over resources important to subordinates (e.g., pay, job assignments, vacation time) assume they do not have to persuade or convince subordinates of their assessment of a situation.  Managers are often blind to the fact that subordinates see things from a different point of view.  According to a recent study published in Organization Science, one result of this blindness is that when managers with authority confront a threat to the successful completion of a project, they engage in fewer and less immediate (e.g., face to face) communications than managers lacking that same authority.

In reviewing the results of the study, what is particularly interesting is that when compared to their counterparts without authority, managers with authority do not engage in Understanding Conversations or use complete Performance Conversations.  The study indicates that managers with authority do not explain why a particular event is a threat, explore how it might be resolved, or address subordinates’ concerns regarding the impact changing their work to resolve the threat may have on other work (an Understanding Conversation).  Furthermore, rather than get good promises from their subordinates, they assume their subordinates will “just do it”.  Unfortunately, 72% of the time the managers’ communications regarding a threat are ineffective and their subordinates do not respond as expected, requiring additional communication.  This additional communication can result in a loss of credibility and diminish their reputation.

One conclusion from this study is that managers use authority as an excuse for reducing their communication on the assumption that their subordinates will automatically accept what they are told and act accordingly.  We know from our work with The Four Conversations, however, that there is no substitute for appropriate and complete communication.

Deadlines are specific – they tell people the exact date and time by when you want to receive something or start something.  For example, “by Thursday at 9AM” or “at 10AM on March 23, 2012”.  Telling people you want things “ASAP” (as soon as possible), “when you get a chance”, “first thing”, or “at the next opportunity” is not a deadline.  Although you may have a clear idea of when you mean, they don’t and won’t know how to schedule their work.  Giving people a specific “by when” reduces the chances of being told later “I didn’t know you wanted it then.”

Deadlines increase accountability – theirs and ours.  If you are going to give a deadline, be prepared to receive what is due at the time its due, don’t be “out of the office”.  The accomplishment value of deadlines is diminished if people believe you are not serious or if you give false ones (saying you need it by a date when you really don’t).

Deadlines are a tool that can dramatically increase the accomplishment and success of both parties.  If you aren’t using them, try adding them to your requests.

Complaints are prevalent in organizations.  People complain about the weather, about their work, about their coworkers, and about their boss(es).  Although some complaints may seem innocuous, complaining contributes to a culture of negativism, lowers morale and satisfaction, gets people upset or angry, and adds to resignation and cynicism.  Complaints act like depressants, particularly when they are expressed to people who really can’t do anything about them.

But some complaints can be productive if they are directed to the right people.  Properly directed complaints can improve processes, products, and customer service.  They can lead to and support change and be a source of innovation.

If you want to increase the number of productive complaints (and reduce the number of unproductive ones), create a policy where you ask people to direct their complaints to someone who can do something about it.  If you are the someone, then listen up.  However, if you aren’t, then let them know immediately they have the wrong person and then either direct them to the right person or ask them to find out who the right person is.  This will reduce the number of complaints you listen to and train people to being accountable for their complaints.