The following column has been reprinted from healthsystemCIO.com’s 11/18 eNewsletter (to register for our complimentary weekly eNewsletter, click here)
Most people who’ve attained leadership positions (such as CIO) understand the importance of building a solid team, and almost all of those who “get it” say they’ve also done it. For some, however, this vision doesn’t match reality. For example, I’ve worked for individuals whose team building skills seemed straight from Stalin’s Manual on Employee Motivation, but suspect they also (mistakenly) felt loved by the minions at their mercy.
If we take for granted that teambuilding is an essential ingredient of success, and throw into the mix a shortage of qualified HIT talent, you had better do more than think you’re good at it.
At its most basic level, building a strong team – which simply means employees like both you and the work environment you’ve created – starts with understanding that you are there for them, not the other way around. You are there to open doors, remove barriers, obtain resources and mentor, not extract, squeeze and cajole every ounce of productivity out of them.
Let me give you an example. In a past life, I once told my team they could work from home when confronted with the arduous NYC commute that attends heavy snowfall. To my surprise, I was berated by my manager for this “indulgent” approach. “You know, they’re not really going to work all day at home!” I was told.
Yes, I did know that, and I didn’t care. I knew whatever “hours” the company lost on that day would magically turn into goodwill which had its own value. I knew that telling my team they could skip fighting the busses, trains and subways (made 10 times more inefficient in bad weather) would be extremely appreciated. Especially when you’re not paying top dollar, this is the kind of gesture that makes employees think twice about jumping ship for seemingly greener pastures.
Take a minute today and reflect on how you treat your team. Do you say yes to 99 percent of their requests for flexibility, time off, etc? Are you willing to put them up for a promotion, even though it means you’d lose direct benefit of their services? Do you think more about what you can do for them than what you’ll make them do for you? If you’re answering these questions correctly, you might just keep the few people who make your professional life worth living. If not, they’ll leave, and you’ll be left answering to a boss who wants to know why you can’t build a solid team.
Vince Ciotti says
Your editorial above rang quite a bell in my dim mind: I was definitely a “Theory X” manager in my youthful 70s, and drove my poor subordinates at SMS nuts. I thought the word “delegate’ was synonymous with “cop-out,” and hounded my poor people to death… Only now in my grey twilight can I appreciate how right you are: employees react best when they are actually respected a little bit, and treated like equals, rather than minions… “Theory Y” as psychologists term it.
A case in point: last month’s Scientific American Mind, which CIOs might still find in airport news racks, contains an article entitles “Cubicle, Sweet Cubicle.” It’s all about office furniture and protocol, which hardly seems relevant to IT, but it hits to the heart of how management style can impact productivity.
The article reviews what life is like living in cubicles, which is what most IT workers do these days: few have private offices. It covers the impact of how a CIO mandates these cubes be arranged and decorated. The authors describe some of the history of office furniture, and then a fascinating experiment they conducted of four basic approaches a boss can take to mandating office space & furniture:
Enriched – letting employees choose from “approved” plants and art, and allowing some folks see the outside world through windows.
Empowered – total laissez-faire, allowing employees to take down partition, and decorate with any art, toys, calendars, even Leggos!
Disempowered – (me in the 70s!) – where management suddenly takes down all the frills and sets up the partitions again.
The authors ran a fascinating experiment employing each of the four approaches and measuring employee productivity under each regimen. The results: people in the enriched environment worked about 15% faster than those in the lean office, with fewer health-related complaints. The empowered office environment saw productivity and well-being jump by 30%. When switched back under a disempowered regime change, productivity dropped down to lean level again. The full study was published in the June issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, in case you want to read further (authors are S. Haslam and C. Knight).
So, Anthony, you may have hit the nail right on the head: let your employees feel a little bit of control, show that you actually care, and they’ll reward you by working faster. Treat them like underlings who don’t know what’s best for them, and that’s exactly how they’ll work: poorly!