Analyzing staff, Part 3

In part 2 of this series, we looked at the Hammerstein Window, but that is not the only kind of window analysis out there and not the only one that can be used for analyzing staff.

Another useful window analysis is mapping staff where productivity of the employee is compared to the maintenance the employee requires from management. You can think of maintenance as the amount of management time needed for the employee or the amount of attention the employee demands. Productivity is the desired output of the employee measured as quantity, quality, or both. With window analysis, these factors are measured with a simple relative high or low metric. Together they represent a classic cost-benefit analysis, or CBA window, but applied to your staff. The cost is maintenance, the benefit is productivity.

In the low maintenance/high productivity window pane is the dream employee. They are likely the same core staff described in the Hammerstein window - but not necessarily. Hammerstein speaks to work-ethic - an inherent trait in the employee - but here, maintenance is measured as effort supplied by you, the supervisor.

The high maintenance/low productivity pane describes the employee that needs to be drummed out of you organization or are on the path of self destruction. You need to make book on their behavior early, or better yet, use what little productivity they have to get them to self-document their problems. When it comes time to drop the axe, you simply print out their file and present it to human resources.

The low/low's are your morale killers; never making enough of a problem to get taken out and barely doing anything at all. This group gets nothing but simple routine assignments. Your dream employees can help you break the work down into the smaller tasks that you will assign to this grumbling mass.

The high/high's are the "Dirty Harry's". They walk a thin line, often cross it, and are constantly getting into trouble. They are hard to control and very effective, but - wow, do they leave a mess behind! When possible, give some of the clean up work to the self-destructor. It will likely set them off into another round of self-documenting their awful performance.

Some say you should team your dream employees with your morale killers - hoping that these low productivity types will be inspired by the higher productivity stars. I think that is a good way to drag down your dream employees and turn your morale killers into the higher maintenance version of their low productivity selves. Let your dream employees run free of such hindrances. In fact, rarely is it a good idea to team any of these groups. It is best to keep them compartmentalized until you can reform them one-by-one and let them join the ranks of the dream team, move on, blow up, or fade away.

Whether it is productivity, skill level, maintenance, or willingness being analyzed - your job as a supervisor depends on your power to obtain a high performing team. Your ability to attract and retain good people will require more than staffing analysis. You need the tools to motivate and coach the staff you have, as well as the resources and support to make changes when motivation and coaching are not enough.

Window analysis can provide valuable insights with their analytical mashups. What key attributes, in a window analysis, illuminate your core challenges?

-AR

© Aron Ruthe, 2014

Analyzing Staff, Part 2: Hammerstein Window

In part 1, we discussed the value and limitations of using the Zebra test when analyzing staff in terms of willingness and ability.

A more valuable analysis is to think of these traits as two interacting attributes. Willingness is about taking initiative, work ethic, or motivation and can be measured on a continuum that goes from willing (self-starters) to unwilling ("only if I have to"). Whereas ability is on a different continuum about having the skills to do the job well, or at all. Looking at your staff this way will lead to surprising results.

There was a german general in the World Wars who put it this way:

“I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be removed immediately!”*

If you can remember this quote, you are in good shape (I always have to look it up), but it is easier to remember it as a 2x2 table that compares ability to work-ethic. Draw your table where "Clever" and "Stupid" are the row headings, and “Industrious" and “Lazy" are the columns. Now we have four boxes to fill out. The boxes are supposed to look like window panes, that’s why the 2x2 is also called "window analysis".

Obviously, the clever and industrious - shown in the table as “Core Staff” - are the rock of your workforce, and the best of them should be part of your inner circle, but they are not the stuff of leadership. The first surprise, according to the General, is that leadership requires the talents of the clever, but the mindset of the lazy because:

1. They will get it done correctly - they know what needs to be done, but
2. They won't get too excited, over think it, and overdo it.

In other words, they won't panic and will only do what needs to be done. If hardship is the mother of invention, then laziness is the father of efficiency.

Strangely, the stupid and lazy are not the worst. "Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy." These are what the military call the SLJO's (“Shitty Little Job Officers”), and you can push them along with your core staff. Your core staff will develop the step-by-step procedures, and give them to the SLJOs to follow. Then, the core staff will stand behind them and smack them in the back of the head and yell: Do step one! - smack - Do step two! - smack - ...And so on. You get the idea.

It is the industrious-but-stupid that will jack-up your program as they blunder about making a mess of things. These individuals are a menace and need to be identified early and contained...or according to the general, “removed”.

Depending on how quickly you can fill a vacant position, removing may not be a good option. The long hiring process, that plagues the federal workforce, will push you to consider if the menace is better than an empty chair. It is easier to teach skill than it is to teach work-ethic. And keeping an employee motivated is easier than getting one motivated to begin with. The problem with the menace is that they might be unteachable or require a teacher who is not on your core staff. If that is the case, you must focus on containment.

If you are a manager, you probably have already imagined the names of your subordinates or teammates in each box, or window pane, and had a good laugh... but what box would your manager put you?

• Are you “core staff” and haven’t learned to calm your nerves enough to be the leader?
• Is there a peer, or senior peer, who is always relied upon to organize the work, assign the tasks, and constantly harps on you to get it done? (you are the SLJO!)
• Are you constantly being told to slow down and think it through? (are you the menace?)

In part 3, more windows ...

-AR

*Attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in: Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations, p. 223, by Robert Debs Heinl, Naval Institute Press, 1966

© Aron Ruthe, 2014

Analyzing Staff, Part 1: The Zebra Test

So, you had someone who didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Now, you have to figure out why. Were they unwilling to do the task or were they unable to do the task? Are they mean or stupid? When put this way, you are likely to say they are mean because they don’t like you, don’t like the task, or just don’t care about either. They are just a bunch of malicious people who don’t like you and don’t like doing their jobs. This ignores Hanlon’s razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

It is less likely that someone is spending energy to defy you or actively engage in willful insubordination. It is more likely they just did not know how to do the task, did not know when to do the task, or did not know how to ask for help. Some people you expect to be smarter, turn out to be pretty stupid about a lot of things.

 

So, if we are declaring the problem to be because they are unable, we then have to look at the supervisor who is responsible for training the employee. Are you the supervisor? It is tempting to blame unwillingness.

 

This type of analysis is sometimes called a zebra test, or black/white analysis. When I use this with first line supervisors, I ask if their employee (or team member) is unwilling or unable to do the task assigned. Most of them tend to say the reason is a little of both. What follows is generally a heathy discussion about the employee and their interaction with the supervisor.

 

Calling it a test is a bit of a misnomer, since there is not supposed to be a definitive answer to the question, but rather it is to encourage discussion about the problem. The best that can be hoped for is an improved understanding of how people give and receive instruction.

 

The problem with this kind of analysis is that the two attributes are not mutually exclusive. In the next post, we will explore how it is more helpful to think of this as two interacting attributes.

- AR

© Aron Ruthe, 2014

The XO's Dilemma

The new executive officer (or XO in Department of Defense speak) was sitting in the conference room and before the meeting began started thinking out loud, "What would this room look like if it was blue?" 

The next day, he was surprised to find that the room had been painted blue. The junior staff had taken the musings as an order, and jumped on it. Perhaps, they were eager to please the new XO by demonstrating how nimble and capable they are. 

When you reach a certain level of management, you are expected to lead and everything you say can be taken as an order. When you were among them as a peer, you could think out loud. Your collaboration was taken for granted, or perhaps no one cared what you thought. But now, not only are they listening to you and heeding you, they are also not interrupting you. After all, it is not a good idea to cut off the new boss with "painting the conference room is a waste of resources, and besides blue is an awful color for a conference room.” 

The peer group discussion allows for lesser formality where you can interrupt someone without major disrespect. Interruption is a wonderful indicator that others may have opinions too. When you were their peer, silence was a good indicator of the absence of dissension or the presence of indifference. However, protocol dictates you don't interrupt the boss when he is talking. The new XO forgets this when thinking out loud, and may - unconsciously perhaps - mistake deference for consensus. 

This leaves a lot of room for you to blunder. You have to be aware of how deference has changed the interaction with you.

What to do: 

When you have junior officers and first-line managers in with you, you have to listen more and speak less. Because when you speak, requirements and constraints are heard. Since they won’t stop you, you have to stop you. You have to ask for alternatives and potential issues and then listen to them. If you don’t, many will allow you to boldly travel in ignorance into dangerous corridors.

Another trait to pick up is cues. You can give cues to your audience that distinguish when you are having a debate and when you are making a decision. “what do you think would happen if we did ….?” “How would it turn out if we decided to…?” When you do this you are declaring a brainstorming session. This grants the group permission to speak freely as you work out a problem. 

This takes discipline, as you have to consciously shut up. If you are graced with a culture that values respect for the chain of command (when the chain is present) they will not interrupt the boss. This means you have to draw it out, in a way that can be repeated. Then, you have to declare the session over, and make a decision. All those that contributed have to know their input was valued and considered, but the decision is made and everyone is expected to get behind it. If you don’t end the session, it will continue though execution and your effectiveness as a leader will suffer.

Additionally, you can establish, from your senior staff, a trusted circle of advisors where you can safely brainstorm. They can talk back with impunity, stop you from “sucking the air out of the room”, and help others understand your style of communication. They can help craft safe execution of your directives because they have a privileged view of how you process information. They will protect you and help you, because they understand your challenges as well as the peculiar aspects of the staff that support you. But they can only be selected from your senior staff or you will be seen as playing favorites and surrounding yourself with an entourage. Not everyone is blessed with the right mix in senior staff - or any senior staff at all. This invaluable asset should be sought out in every new assignment.

Your trusted circle will keep you out of trouble. Your cues will avoid waste and save you from embarrassing situations. Your ability to listen will build respect and loyalty. But more importantly, you will effectively wield the value of the human resources for which you are accountable.

©  Aron Ruthe, 2014