Looking at the Other Side of the Coin
© 2005, Insoo Kim Berg and Coert Visser
When we, as managers, change how we view a person, we can generate much simpler and easier solutions to them so that we can focus our attention on more difficult and time consuming issues.
Managing people takes more than clear black and white views. Even though it certainly is important to make expectations and rules of conduct clear, it is not as simple as it is described in textbooks. Many good managers have discovered that managing people is an art rather than a science, and all artistic skills take time to develop and become good at. Many competent managers discover this reality by trial and error.
Sometimes this art is described as practice wisdom. By trial and error, good managers have learned that bringing out the best in their workers is the best strategy to motivate, encourage, and teach their workers without “teaching”. Many wise managers have learned that when it is the worker’s idea to change, they will change as much as they can, for as long as they can. On the other hand, when workers are forced to change, they change as little as they can, for as short period as possible.
The most important tool that managers can have is their ability to see both sides of a same coin. Human beings are so complex and multi-faceted that a single, one-dimensional view of a worker is not adequate to describe the whole person, yet we often hear one-sided comments from managers about their workers. “George is unmotivated,” “Linda doesn’t know how to be tactful,” “Mark is a loudmouth,” and so on. It is easy to reduce a worker into a simple description because it saves time and we come to the point.
The problem with this approach is that it does not offer managers better ways to “manage” the difficulty they have with their workers. On the contrary, it reduces the manager’s options. For example, if the problem is one is “unmotivated”, then the logical solution to that is to lecture George about his lack of motivation. You can easily imagine the conversation that might follow which in turn proves to the manager that indeed George is unmotivated. This sets off a chain reaction to “do something about the problem” and leads to further “problem talk” with George. This rarely works in the long run. Pretty soon the manager may find herself repeating the warning, threat, reprimand, and nagging again and again without lasting desired outcome.
On the other hand, suppose the manager saw George as “distracted” instead. One can easily imagine what the manager might do to bring the attention of George back to getting his task done. And reminding and helping George to refocus on his task is much more pleasant for the manager and George than to be nagged at. Seeing George as “unmotivated” may be quite accurate, and so may his being “distracted” and losing his focus be. But framing it in a constructive way offers much more flexible ways to solve the manager’s problem.
The same thing happens with Mark’s “loudmouth” When we label someone as “loudmouth” then our solution to it is to suggest to Mark to be quiet or soft spoken, be more careful when he opens his mouth. It is improbable that Mark will agree with this definition. He is more likely to be defensive and offended, and become angry. Reframing Mark’s behavior as his “outspoken style” will lead to a greater chance to change his tendency to blurt things out. Changing his style is much easier to do than to change his personality. Linda’s lack of tactfulness can be easily viewed as her open and honest style. Again, one can more easily and subtly help them to change the style of communication than offering them communication training.
We believe that most of the time, all of us mean well and generally we just like to be valued and recognized for that. The same goes for George, Mark and Linda. That is why it not so strange they feel hurt and offended when spoken to offensively. It is only understandable they will get defensive. It is only logical that a more constructive approach will make them feel more valued for their good intentions and will make them more open for suggestions and more ready to make some changes.
When we, as managers, change how we view a person, we can generate much simpler and easier solutions to them so that we can focus our attention on more difficult and time consuming issues.
When we, as managers, change how we view a person, we can generate much simpler and easier solutions to them so that we can focus our attention on more difficult and time consuming issues.Managing people takes more than clear black and white views. Even though it certainly is important to make expectations and rules of conduct clear, it is not as simple as it is described in textbooks. Many good managers have discovered that managing people is an art rather than a science, and all artistic skills take time to develop and become good at. Many competent managers discover this reality by trial and error.
Sometimes this art is described as practice wisdom. By trial and error, good managers have learned that bringing out the best in their workers is the best strategy to motivate, encourage, and teach their workers without “teaching”. Many wise managers have learned that when it is the worker’s idea to change, they will change as much as they can, for as long as they can. On the other hand, when workers are forced to change, they change as little as they can, for as short period as possible.
The most important tool that managers can have is their ability to see both sides of a same coin. Human beings are so complex and multi-faceted that a single, one-dimensional view of a worker is not adequate to describe the whole person, yet we often hear one-sided comments from managers about their workers. “George is unmotivated,” “Linda doesn’t know how to be tactful,” “Mark is a loudmouth,” and so on. It is easy to reduce a worker into a simple description because it saves time and we come to the point.
The problem with this approach is that it does not offer managers better ways to “manage” the difficulty they have with their workers. On the contrary, it reduces the manager’s options. For example, if the problem is one is “unmotivated”, then the logical solution to that is to lecture George about his lack of motivation. You can easily imagine the conversation that might follow which in turn proves to the manager that indeed George is unmotivated. This sets off a chain reaction to “do something about the problem” and leads to further “problem talk” with George. This rarely works in the long run. Pretty soon the manager may find herself repeating the warning, threat, reprimand, and nagging again and again without lasting desired outcome.
On the other hand, suppose the manager saw George as “distracted” instead. One can easily imagine what the manager might do to bring the attention of George back to getting his task done. And reminding and helping George to refocus on his task is much more pleasant for the manager and George than to be nagged at. Seeing George as “unmotivated” may be quite accurate, and so may his being “distracted” and losing his focus be. But framing it in a constructive way offers much more flexible ways to solve the manager’s problem.
The same thing happens with Mark’s “loudmouth” When we label someone as “loudmouth” then our solution to it is to suggest to Mark to be quiet or soft spoken, be more careful when he opens his mouth. It is improbable that Mark will agree with this definition. He is more likely to be defensive and offended, and become angry. Reframing Mark’s behavior as his “outspoken style” will lead to a greater chance to change his tendency to blurt things out. Changing his style is much easier to do than to change his personality. Linda’s lack of tactfulness can be easily viewed as her open and honest style. Again, one can more easily and subtly help them to change the style of communication than offering them communication training.
We believe that most of the time, all of us mean well and generally we just like to be valued and recognized for that. The same goes for George, Mark and Linda. That is why it not so strange they feel hurt and offended when spoken to offensively. It is only understandable they will get defensive. It is only logical that a more constructive approach will make them feel more valued for their good intentions and will make them more open for suggestions and more ready to make some changes.
When we, as managers, change how we view a person, we can generate much simpler and easier solutions to them so that we can focus our attention on more difficult and time consuming issues.
Comments
Post a Comment