Английский для магистрантов. Практикум
.pdfer methods, including monitoring of log files, followed by appropriate disciplinary actions. Otherwise we suggest that the time issue be handled like any other time issue. Rather than considering the time spent on the Internet, a better focus is on the productivity of the staff member.
Is he doing the job? If not, then normal procedures should be used. If the job is getting done, then perhaps the job needs to be enriched or expanded. Perhaps the Internet time is spent out of boredom, much like some people read the daily newspaper. Conclusion It is absolutely essential that departments have easily understood policies on Internet use, and that these policies be understood by staff. As we indicated, these policies should be drafted with the involvement of staff, whenever possible. If you are of the mind that staff are paid for what they produce rather than the time they put in (a progressive notion), then it makes sense to tackle most of these issues in terms of productivity, not time spent. That’s where the focus should be. Clearly this issue is going to come up more and more as we move into the next century. Be prepared beforehand, so you don’t have to make up rules as you go along. The «seat of the pants» approach is far more likely to provoke grievances and legal problem.
3. Management, Supervision and Related Leadership Topics
Performance Appraisal Goofs — Common Managerial Mistakes
Performance appraisals are probably the most misused, and goofedup management tool in existence. Starting from misunderstanding the whole point of appraisals, right on through to use of poor communication with employees, managers make a fairly consistent set of mistakes about employee reviews, and performance appraisals. Here are some of them in the fourth in our series of common managerial mistakes.
Since there are a fair number of errors made by managers in the performance appraisal and employee review process, we'll approach this set in brief point form. Stay tuned since we'll be dealing with
61
a few more performance appraisal errors in a future article in this series. Until then here's the first five.
Focusing on the Form: Most managers are given specific forms to fill out to record the results of performance appraisals and reviews. Apart from the fact that most forms aren't really effective in creating better performance, it's easy for managers to believe that performance appraisal is about, and only about, getting the forms in on time (which they don't). Performance appraisal isn't about the form. It's about the process.
Focusing on The Appraisal, Not the Planning: Appraisals are usually done (at least formally), once a year, covering the period preceding. The problem is that it's looking backward, and you can't change what's happened in the past. The focus (and time invested) should be on the upfront planning for performance, since we can influence the present and future. Clear shared understanding of performance expectations is powerful.
Doing To the Employee, Not Working With: There's a sense, on the part of many, that the performance appraisal involves doing something TO the employee (i.e. telling them how they have done). While communicating the manager's perceptions is not a completely bad thing, when it is the ONLY thing, it loses power. Performance discussions should be dialogues. One of the most important reasons to create performance dialogues is to foster the ability to self-evaluate on the part of employees. That makes for better performance and less work for the manager.
Surprises: If there's one fundamental rule for employee reviews (there's actually a number of fundamental rules and principles), it's this: There should never be any surprises for the employee. Managers sometimes forget. If there is anything the manager brings out in the employee review that is new to the employee, the manager has not been doing his or her job communicating with the employee.
Procrastinating: Let's face it. Managers don't particular like to do employee reviews, often because they don't realize the benefits of doing them properly, or because they haven't been exposed to the process that will make them painless, and productive. Regardless of
62
reasons, it's common for employee reviews to be scheduled, then postponed, or otherwise delayed. This sends an important message to employees: «Performance appraisals aren't important around here». If we want employees to take them seriously, managers need to take them seriously, and demonstrate their importance through action.
Over Empowering Employees
Managers, influenced by the «employee empowerment» buzz of the late '90's sometimes place too much emphasis on insisting that ALL employees exercise more power, discretion and decision-making in their jobs. The result can be the appearance of indecisiveness on the part of managers, and a desire, on the part of employees, to be «left alone» to do their jobs within a more limited scope. Learn how to avoid this common error on employee empowerment.
As a result of the encouragement of management gurus in the late 1990's empowerment became a state of affairs of value in and of itself. While having employees capable and willing to make decisions and act on their own is a good situation, some managers have taken the concept too far.
Not all employees want to be involved in day-to-day decision making, and are quite content to leave decision up to the «person in the corner office who makes the big bucks. Insisting on employee involvement and empowerment can cause negative fallout.
Pitfalls to Watch For
Some employees don't want more responsibility. They are content to cede responsibility to their managers or supervisors, who they see as being paid to «steer the ship». If you are attempting to place more power in the hands of employees, watch for hesitancy, procrastination when employees are asked to take a broader role, and resistance. That may indicate, for an individual employee, that he or she is not ready, or willing to «be empowered».
Managers can't expect employees to make effective decisions when the are empowered to make decisions, if they lack the information or
63
skills to make INFORMED and EFFECTIVE decisions. If information is not freely shared with employees, asking them to be «empowered» will end up frustrating employees, and result in poor decisions.
Managers who empower staff to make decisions, but then turn around and reverse or argue those decisions cause more problems then they solve.
Over empowerment of staff (manager avoiding making decisions) may create the perception, accurate or not, that the manager is weak, and indecisive. It can detract from employee trust.
Prescriptions for Avoiding Employee Empowerment Mistakes
Do not insist that hesitant or resistance employees take on more responsibility when they clearly do not want that responsibility. You can force empowerment on staff. Make increased responsibility available to all staff, but be aware that not all staff have the ability, or desire to exercise it. Don't push too hard.
Ensure staff have the information they need to make decisions properly. As a manager you have more «big picture» information, and it's easy to forget that good decisions require the decision-maker to have that information, or they will make poor decisions.
Give up some of your control in decision-making by accepting that some staff decisions might be different than the ones you make. Give more leeway and latitude and argue less with their solutions.
To avoid appearing weak or indecisive, don't «offload» all decisionmaking to empowered employees. Communicate so that employees understand that you are empowering them because they are closer to the action, and in some ways, are the experts about their job functions. On the other hand, some decisions ARE management level decisions, and should remain that way. For example, deciding what should be done about a particular employee's poor performance is a MANAGEMENT LEVEL DECISION. Asking employees for their advice or input on such management level decisions guarantees that you will appear weak, and indecisive.
64
Summary
Empowering employees can result in better decisions, more engaged workers, and can help managers focus on what they alone must deal with. Managers with empowered staff spend less time micromanaging and dealing with day-to-day decisions (that can be taken over by staff).
However, empowerment which is coerces employees, or is improperly implemented can backfire. Follow the simple tips, and you can avoid negative outcomes that you don't intend.
4. Articles on Communication and Conflict
Words of Anger, and Language of Peace
Recently, I came across some Facebook posts coming from a colleague who works in the areas of international education, development and training. She's a colleague I've worked with in the past and for whom I have great respect (or had).
She asked people to contact the government to protest their refusal to supply short time visas to allow her former students in Nigeria to visit from Africa for a reunion. Since I've worked with people from the same population and country, I asked what I might do to help.
Then I realized something. The language she used, accusatory in nature, and invoking the «racism» complaint, came across to me as a bit strident. Then, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I didn't care to be associated with someone, even someone well respected, who was trying to exert pressure through the use of words one might call «fighting words».
The essence of her communication to the government (she published the letter she sent to the Immigration department was this: Since
SHE could find no valid reason for the denial of SOME of the visas, she concluded, later in the letter, that racism was the culprit.
Racism IS still alive and well in this world, and the 9/11 destruction hasn't helped advance the anti-racism cause, of which I have also been a part.
65
IF she had some documented evidence to explain the denial of visas I would have had little problem standing shoulder to shoulder with her. And contributing my voice.
The problem is that anyone can trumpet an opinion based on their bias, but what will the outcome be. Usually success is elusive when one tries to inflame situations. Occasionally, one wins through intimidate, but that perpetuates a style of interaction based on confrontation and inflammatory language.
So, I concluded a) that I could not support her attempts, and b) that there was no point even having a discussion on the point. People who tend to use inflammatory language that divides people tend not to be open-minded. It also discouraged me that a number of her Facebook friends applauded her actions, apparently, not needing any evidence to support a contention that, while possibly correct, came with no documentation.
Language of Inflammation, Language of Peace
I continued to think about this further and realized that there are two «language» sets (that idea isn't new to me but I've never used the term peaceful communication before).
One can phrase things to anyone — spouse, co-worker, boss, friend, in ways that WILL provoke defensiveness, anger and counter-attacks. In my view this is the kind of language used by the person I've described. It's a language of confrontation and advocacy. It's also the language of the bully.
On the flip side there's the «language of peace» which is much more «working with» than «working against». It is based on:
–Observable behaviors that can be verified;
–Separating out facts from opinion, while making the distinctions clear. Also opinions should be clearly marked and the evidence and thinking should be supplied including facts, but also experience, logic, etc);
66
–Not demeaning readers or listeners by suggesting they «don't get it», don't understand, or are, somehow, less than the person presenting the argument;
–Focuses on working together, rather than winning ALL the stakes.
There's certainly more characteristics of peaceful language and communication and it's possible to drill down and examine the words and phrases a person uses, or could use and identify the specifics of peaceful communication versus inflammatory communication.
Random Thoughts on Peaceful, Building Bridges Communication
–The confrontational approach, something we see far to much of in our governments, polarizes opinions and leads people to believe in black and white issues. One side says this. The other contradicts, and so long as the confrontational style continues, no agreement will occur. Only anger and frustration;
–The language of peace improves the credibility of the players using it, versus people who are «fighting» all the time. Often this has the unfortunate effect of making the «fighter» more angry, and more strident. It ends up as a vicious circle;
–The idea of the language of peace is relevant and applicable for ANY situation where there is disagreement, whether its a spouse to spouse conversation, or two countries, or labor and union. All the same rules apply;
–Peaceful language can be learned. It's not necessarily a function of «personality» or even «style». It's about skill, and learning how to do it. Unfortunately we don't teach children, or adults for that matter, how to do it;
–Confrontational approaches poison relationships, and reduce the ability for parties to actually solve problems and create the synergy and new ideas that might actually enrich their lives, or the lives of others (i.e. the population of a country);
–Confrontational approaches not only insult the other party, but they insult the intelligence of onlookers, and demean our institutions. If you have ever watched television coverage of debates in government, i.e. the Senate, House of Representatives, Parlia-
67
ment, the often childish, «in your face», trying to score points process is embarrassing to watch. This shakes the faith of the population in those important institutions.
Conclusion
I lost a good deal of respect for the colleague I mentioned, because, particularly for those that exert influence over others, I believe there is a responsibility to build bridges, and not create larger chasms just to get one's way.
On the positive side, I realized it was time to re-visit my book on the use of «cooperative communication», which teaches people the specifics — what to say, what not to say, to interact in peaceful ways that encourage working together. It's still an excellent book.
Eventually, possibly in late 2012 (that would be next year), I plan on revamping the book; since I think it makes it possible for people to understand how THEIR use of language creates tension and disharmony. It also makes it possible for people to learn not just a general philosophy, but very specific techniques to replace the «fighting words» they use at home and at work.
Finally, on a personal level, I made a commitment that I will never support a cause or organization that uses language to accuse, demean or otherwise attack others in a chronic manner.
I won't vote for any party of candidate that uses attack ads. I won't lend my voice to causes that try to «win» by polarizing people into black and white, me versus you camps.
5. Public Speaking, Speeches and Group «Stuff»
Principles of Credibility
Bacal & Associates publishes a help card with tons of tips to help you deal with resistant, difficult or hostile groups. If you speak to, or present to groups who are not keen on hearing or accepting what you have to say, click here for more tips and information.
68
It doesn't matter who you are speaking to. Whether to a group of a thousand, a radio or television audience, or one person in the privacy of your office, much depends on your ability to come across in a credible and honest fashion. Good intentions are not enough. Many the honest, open speakers have created an impression of shiftiness and dishonesty due to a lack of understanding about how to structure content, and how to use language and speaking style to come across in a credible manner. In this column, taken from notes from our «Dealing With Hostile Groups» seminar, we provide some tips for you.
What Does Credibility Mean?
You will be perceived as credible when you: appear relatively unbiased
appear similar to the audience
communicate in ways the audience understands demonstrate understanding of the audience's opinions do not sound defensive or aggressive
do not over react to criticism
Specific Tips
1.Don't oversell or ignore downsides from the audience's points of view. Research suggests a mix of focusing on evidence to support your position AND considering objections is most effective.
2.Pre-empt attacks by bringing up audience concerns yourself. For example: «I know some of you are probably thinking [fill in objection]. Let me address that».
This is much better than ignoring these until an audience member attacks you with an objection.
3.Match your language to the audience. That is, stay away from all bureaucratic language and abbreviations, unless your entire audience is very familiar with them. Even then, explain the abbreviations.
Match your language to the anticipated educational levels and dialects of the audience members. Don't use huge words, or language
69
that isn't used in the world your audience lives in. Don't use long, convoluted sentences, either. Speak like them!
4.Whenever possible DON'T READ A PREPARED SPEECH. This reduces your power of influence, and credibility. Very few people are able to read a speech effectively. Most attempts at reading make you appear to be unconfident, stiff, and artificial. Reading occasional quotes, however, is OK.
5.Generally, a lectern separates you from the audience. Consider using a wireless microphone so that you can leave the lectern, or dispense with it entirely. However, if you must use a lectern, don't use a death grip on it. The audience will perceive this as discomfort and stiffness. By the way, walking around is relaxing for you (usually), and is more interesting for the audience.
6.Use a well-organized structure for your presentation. Use the old saw: Tell em what you are going to tell them. Then tell them. Then tell them what you told them. This corresponds to the introduction, body, and conclusions/summary.
7.When using the above structure, indicate in your opening that you imagine that some have concerns, that you will be addressing. Then, in your body, present both sides. You may want to emphasize any positives you have identified.
8.Speak with energy and intensity to show your commitment to your topic, but don't go «over the top», by sounding like a preacher or sales-person.
9.Make an extra effort to make eye-contact with people in the group. The listeners need to feel that your primary concern is each of them, not selling them on the ideas YOU have. So you want to appear as listener focused as possible.
10.Don't try to accomplish too much, or present too much information. The more you present, the less impact each point has. By trying to do too much you risk the possibility that the listeners will miss your main points, or simply get lost and frustrated.
Conclusion:
While most of the tips we have presented relate to sounding credible to a group of people, most apply to talking to individuals also. Re-
70