|
|
|
Before
one of my keynotes, an attendee who introduced himself as Mr. Lansdorf asked me,
"What can I do about working for a corporation full of stiffs?" In
spite of the fact that the company paid quite well, Mr. Lansdorf's people never
performed the way he hoped they would when he hired them. His co-workers weren't
much better. As for his boss, "He couldn't care less about my problems.
He'd like to be able to forget about my whole department."
"So what exactly do you
want?" I asked.
"What I'd like is for people to
do the job they're supposed to do, the way they're supposed to do it."
"Which means?" I asked.
"To do something beyond the
minimum: to go the extra mile for the company.
"Don't you?"
"Hey, I earn my money," Mr.
Lansdorf insisted. "I go way beyond the minimum."
"And it gets you?"
"Nothing, that's the point. It
gets me nothing."
"So how long are you going to
keep doing that?"
"Not much longer, believe
me."
"But you want others to go beyond
the minimum: without putting something it in for them? Aren't you the one who's
expecting for something for nothing?"
"I want people to do what they should
do."
"So what we're talking about is
morality and ethics? What people should do?"
"Exactly." he said.
"So as a manager, your ability to
manage is based upon people doing what they should do?
Otherwise you can't get the results you want?"
"No of course not. Nobody does
what they should. At least nobody in my company."
"So wouldn't you be better off
trying to find a way to get the results you need with the people you've got
rather than the perfect people who do what they should and apparently don't
exist. Or at least don't exist in your company?"
"Obviously."
Obviously. Bingo! I thought. I
felt like Socrates: elucidating my point with just the right questions. Of
course later someone reminded me of the famous report given by a third-grader:
"Socrates was a Greek philosopher who went around giving people advice.
They poisoned him." So much for the Socratic method.
Obviously, Lansdorf
said. If it was so obvious why had he been asking his people to go the extra
mile when there was really no advantage in it for them? Even if they went along
in order to stay on his good side, how enthusiastic would they be? You Can't Sell an Empty Glass
Why do we all so frequently act like
Mr. Lansdorf? Trish asks her boss to go out of his way for her and help get her
promoted. There's nothing in it for him. If anything, losing Trish will make his
job more difficult. He's a nice guy. He may help her. But wouldn't he go along
far more willingly if he was doing it to gain another ally in management; or to
earn points with the company for having developed another manager; or to free up
Trish's spot so he can reward and keep from losing that great new talent he's
been grooming on the rung below hers.
It's obvious: you can't sell
anybody anything if you don't offer them some benefit. You can't motivate anyone
by offering them an empty glass. It's obvious: and we all forget it. Constantly.
We hope ethics or morality or religion or character will make up for the lack of
incentive.
Does your idea of character tell you
that when there's little or nothing in it for you that you should devote
yourself unstintingly to providing for someone else's welfare? If so please
call, I've got a job for you.
Tip: If
I believe that playing by your rules, systems, procedures, traditions or
morality guarantees that I'm going to lose, do not expect me to play by them. Bosses
who tell you they can't hire good workers are usually telling you they're poor
bosses. They're telling you they aren't providing sufficient incentive for
people to meet their standards. Or if they have provided the incentive, they
haven’t provided sufficient nuts and bolts, real-world training and direction,
leaving their people wanting to climb the mountain but without a clear enough
trail to follow. To
mix metaphors a bit, they aren’t adding enough water to the glass.
|