We get paid to deliver results. But, results come through people. People are the way to superior performance. Results and people are both sides of the same coin – if the people side isn’t right, then you can’t get the results side right. People matter. People make the difference.
This article attempts to provide further taste of why people matter and argues that the dividend from “people first” approach is sustained success on the results side.
Changes in our societal framework, the impact of information technology – especially the importance of knowledge as source of comparative advantage in enterprise – and demographic trends, signal fundamental change in the workplace. This will be accompanied by power shift from executives to people who populate organisations. Unless leaders get in touch with people’s opinions and are responsive to their need for meaningful, rewarding work, those people will increasingly vote with their feet.
The old social contract – job for life – is thing of the past. Most people have got the message that they must plan and manage their own career.
The workforce is becoming more demanding and increasingly likely to select vocation where they can change jobs every couple of years. Individuals focus on what they can learn; their accessibility to education, training and development; and package of terms and conditions, tailored to their individual needs at the time. They seek more say in decisions that affect them and more involvement in the direction, purpose and efficacy of their enterprise.
The “war for talent” is powerful expression of the primary challenge that organisations face to excel in the early part of the 21st century.
Talking about people as resource, an asset, or as human capital, reveals “mind set” that considers people as simply another cost centre. Terms such as “people management” and “human resources” are similarly inappropriate. One Aussie or Kiwi dollar is the same as any other Aussie or Kiwi dollar. People are different. They are individuals and want to be recognised and treated accordingly.
Research shows that executives whose people achieve better performance (in terms of productivity, cost, job satisfaction, turn-over, absenteeism etc) lead differently from those whose work groups exhibit poorer performance. Those with the best record focus their primary attention on people and build effective teamwork based on high performance goals.
Where people know that their executives feel that achieving high level of performance is the most important part of their job, they deliver. Enthusiasm about the importance and meaningfulness of the work – and conviction that the purpose adds value – contributes to exceptional performance.
Being unselfish, cooperative, sympathetic, participative and genuinely interested in each individual’s success – including specific recognition of the importance of people getting the balance that they desire between their work and personal/family life – also has marked relationship to success.
When I was Australia’s Secretary of Defence we developed framework to facilitate work environment where everyone wanted to (and could) make difference and contribute to sustainable high performance culture.
Our quest to set the standard and foster greater accountability among senior leaders rested upon their creating climate to allow people to do their best as they worked towards their aspirations and potential. This called for greater focus on the day-to-day workplace behaviour of senior leaders and broadening of the criteria for leadership away from technical competence alone to include emotional intelligence, relationships and “people skills” driven by our “results through people” credo.
A series of three-day workshops designed to explore the “results through people” approach, included survey designed to reveal the essential skills/qualities of outstanding bosses. The characteristics identified fell into seven categories:
• had time for me/a good listener;
• provided feedback;
• trusted me/stretched my potential;
• had personal interest in me/my development;
• supported me/valued me and my work;
• provided clear direction and hands-off approach;
• personal commitment and motivation/modelled the behaviour that they were seeking.
The intention underlying “performance management” schemes is well founded where it clarifies individual responsibilities; links those to the work of their area; provides means of regular performance feedback; and improves openness, transparency and fairness.
Our “plan on page” approach involved each supervisor and team member agreeing on what needed to be done and the support required to achieve it. The cardinal rule to make such requirements effective is to keep it short and simple. Our one pager established the five to seven objectives that the team member would work towards, as well as identifying learning and development needs.
Supervisors and team members met quarterly in two-way feedback process which reviewed progress towards results and discussed how the team member was developing/improving their performance. If, at the end of the 12 months, the team member failed to meet their objectives that also reflected adversely on the supervisor’s performance as coach.
Aussies and Kiwis have particular views about what leadership means – for example, they don’t like to fail and they hate letting down anyone they like. The upshot is that American and British approaches don’t always apply or translate to the Antipodean environment. Nevertheless, lot can be learnt and adapted from Peter Drucker’s Management Challenges for the 21st Century (especially chapter one which deals with Management’s New Paradigms and chapter six Managing Oneself) and Lynda Gratton’s Living Strategy which argues the essentiality of putting people at the heart of corporate purpose.
People need to know what they have to do, why it’s done and how it fits with the organisation’s purpose, strategy and direction. People don’t want or need to be controlled. If treated responsibly they respond accordingly.
Individuals respond even better if they are inspired – if they take pride in what they do and the organisation they belong to – if you can light fire inside them rather than underneath them. Ultimately, leaders have to win the hands, hearts and minds of their followers.
Dr Allan Hawke is Australia’s High Commissioner in New Zealand.
THE DAILY DRUCKER
Qualities of Leader
Leadership is the lifting of man’s vision to higher sights.
The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any other trio in history: Hitler, Stalin and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. For leadership is not magnetic personality – that can just as well be demagoguery. It is not “making friends and influencing people” – that is flattery.
Leadership is the lifting of man’s vision to higher sights, the raising of man’s performance to higher standard, the building of man’s personality beyond its normal limitations. Nothing better prepares the ground for such leadership than spirit of management that confirms in the day-to-day practices of the organisation strict principles of conduct and responsibility, high standards of performance, and respect for the individual and his work.
ACTION POINT: Set strict principles of conduct and high standards of performance, and respect people and their work.
• Extracted from Peter Drucker’s book The Daily Drucker published in 2004.
