People might be the problem, but it’s not the people you think!
“People are Stupid!
That was the response of one member of a procurement team I was working with when we started exploring the reasons why people weren’t completing all of the necessary information on a purchase requisition. While this seemed a little light-hearted, it led to an interesting discussion on the real reasons people may not carry out a task as expected.
So often we hear of “human error” as the stated cause of a problem. Or, worse, people are seen as the problem. When performance isn’t at the level required, we might hear comments like; “People aren’t giving of their best” - perhaps code for “They’re not doing what I think they should be.”
Or maybe we hear from managers; “Why is it up to me to solve all the problems?” when people aren’t engaging in problem solving and improvement activity.
Perhaps it’s the familiar “people always resist change.”
All of these comments seem to blame people, yet digging deeper often reveals that there’s something else going on. As W.E. Deming often said; “94% of problems in business are system driven and only 6% are people driven” and “People work in the system. Management creates the system.”
“94% of problems in business are system driven and only 6% are people driven”
“People work in the system. Management creates the system.”
W. Edwards Deming, Quality guru
This suggests the main causes of “people problems” – i.e. problems we perceive as caused by people or the users of a system or process - are actually caused by the system within which people operate, and that it’s up to management - probably those at the very top of the organisation – to create the “system” that in turn establishes the right conditions for employees to succeed.
The answer’s (not) always training
A frequently cited “solution” to this type of problem is; “we’ll give them more training”, yet I wonder how effective that is. There’s more than one possibility for what the “real problem” (or root cause) might be. So, let’s dig a little deeper.
One model I was introduced to many years ago has always stood me in good stead when it comes to understanding “people issues”. It suggests that they fit into one of three categories.
People don’t know:
WHAT to do – there is a lack of knowledge
HOW to do – lack of skill
WHY to do – an issue of attitude or motivation
Don’t know WHAT to do
This suggests a lack of knowledge about what is required. This can often be a lack of clarity on:
What is needed: this can be around the task itself, the method for doing it or any “boundaries”.
How it fits in to the overall system: this level of knowledge really helps to position the task in context and deepens understanding.
How results will be measured: this will help the employee know the answer to the question; “how do you know you’re doing a good job?” So often the answer is “I don’t, I only know when I’m doing it wrong!”
This not only leaves a lot of ambiguity around the “what” question but surely also has an impact on motivation.
With this in mind, a good first step in establishing the cause of “poor performance” can be to check understanding on the above three points. Asking the employee to play back their answers may reveal what’s missing or lead to identification of another issue getting in the way.
Don’t know HOW
In this case the employee can’t do the task. This probably points to a lack of skill, which in turn suggests that training may be the answer, or at least part of it.
Not only is training required, but also the “necessary conditions” for the training to be put into practice.
Opportunity: “permission” and the time and space to practise what has been learned.
In the ideal case, this will be set within the context of the regular rhythms of the working day, whether this relates to the way daily work is managed or when problem solving and improvement happens.Permission to fail: rarely will someone get it 100% right first time, so the freedom to make mistakes must go alongside the opportunity.
Feedback and support: feedback and coaching delivered in a positive, encouraging way is an important part of mastering a skill.
Of course, there is the possibility that the “can’t do” relates to none of the above. The task may just be too difficult to do, either physically or mentally. Perhaps there are issues with equipment. Or maybe the process is simply not capable of delivering the desired result.
None of these is down to the individual – other than to highlight the difficulty – and the cause must be sought elsewhere. A robust problem-solving approach.. will reveal all of these items too.
Don’t know WHY
This is the tough one. The symptom is that the employee “won’t do”, for whatever reason. This points to an issue of motivation and is often be characterised as “doesn’t care”.
I’m all for simple models that help us to get our heads round complex issues. This WHAT, HOW, WHY framework is one such model. The one I like around motivation is the one Dan Pink talks about in his book “Drive”.
He identifies three characteristics that motivate: Purpose, Autonomy and Mastery.
Purpose gets directly to the WHY question. This covers both why it matters to the organisation and why it matters to the individual.
In my experience, it’s often the one that gets missed by leaders. They’ll spend time formulating vision and strategy, yet when it comes to communicating downwards they’ll share little more than a list of tasks to be done. And, let’s face it, who gets excited about being given stuff to do!
If employees understand why something is to be done, it’s much more likely to engage them. Even better, if it answers the “what’s in it for me?” question in a way that aligns the individual’s value and aspirations with those of the organisation, employees will give more of their “discretionary effort”, which in turn will almost certainly boost performance. I think we’d all recognise that, when our passion is engaged, we will willingly devote more time and effort to the task at hand.
Autonomy is being allowed to take responsibility for your own work, and derives from a desire for self-determination, or maybe a dislike of being “over-managed”.
Of course, this requires managers to have the confidence that work will be done in the right way and to the required standard, which in turn requires a level of trust. Without it, the need to “check up” can be hard to resist.
This requires us to dig a little deeper into managers’ beliefs about their team members. I fundamentally believe that almost no-one comes to work to do a bad job. With this mindset, we will value the intention in the person and, if performance is not what is required, we will take an objective look at the situation and discover which of the aspects identified above (WHAT, HOW or WHY) is missing. We will also encourage and recognise contribution which will, in turn, further boost motivation.
Mastery is that desire to do things well; back to that desire to do a good job. This links back to the knowledge and skill points above, yet also has an impact on motivation.
To develop mastery in a skill requires positive action to improve, which in turn requires some sort of improvement process. With the right mindset, process confirmation (observation by someone else that a task is being carried pout ion the right way) can be seen as a valuable part of this process rather than “checking up on”. The person carrying out the task can get valuable feedback on their work and, where appropriate, advice or coaching to help them to improve. Both parties involved will see the process as a positive one that can boost motivation further as well as improving performance.
Creating the right conditions
The other aspect to consider is one I’ve mentioned in other recent articles is to consider in a broader sense whether we’re creating the right conditions for people to succeed in addition to those mentioned above.
Most significant are those around psychological safety, particularly around removing the “fear of failure” that will encourage employees to try things and be more open to receiving feedback.
Another aspect to consider is “what are the consequences associated with performing well or badly?” How good are we at “catching people doing things right.” Is our reaction when there are concerns about performance likely to help engagement or provoke resistance? Do we model the behaviours we would like to see in others?
In conclusion
Going back to where we started, are we creating and maintaining a system that is designed to enable high performance?
Here’s a checklist that might help you to reflect:
Clarity of Purpose at all levels
WHY does this matter to the organisation?
Alignment of values
WHY does this matter to individuals?
Do we want the same things
Clear definition of expectations
WHAT to do and how to do it
– procedures to follow, boundaries, how much autonomyWhy it matters – task specific
How success will be measured
Commitment to development of knowledge and skill
Permission plus opportunity
Feedback and support
A positive and encouraging work climate
Safe for people to try things without fear
Non-directive, coaching leadership style
What do you need to work on for your organisation and yourself?
Often it helps to reflect on these items with someone else who will help you to “be honest with yourself”. This may be someone within the organisation or - perhaps better – an external coach. Someone outside the organisation is more likely to be truly objective and able to ask the tough questions.
If this sort of support would be helpful, please do get in touch by email or using our contact form.