Leaders Should Always Consider How Their Team Members Might Answer The Question: “What’s in it for me?”

https://transformpartner.com

If you don't communicate effectively with your team members during a time of significant change, you will sow confusion and doubt.  Some leaders remain silent until they have more clarity themselves and until all the loose ends are tied up.  However, a lengthy period of non-communication can be very detrimental to the organization.   As Molly Rosen and Connie Rawson write in Fast Company this week, " We see this pattern again and again: silence creates space for confusion. In the absence of clarity, people default to self-protection and assume the worst. The longer the silence lingers, the further they go down the rabbit hole."  In fact, your team members will not only be confused, but they will speculate with their peers.  They will presume certain intent on your part if you don't explain your rationale.   

Rosen and Rawson offer some advice for leaders. They suggest that leaders should always put themselves in their employees' shoes and ask the simple question: "What's in it for me?"  If you want their buy-in, you have to understand what they stand to lose, as well as gain, from this organizational change?  Leaders need to analyze why they might be inclined to resist a change, and why they might find it beneficial to embrace a new initiative.  Rosen and Rawson suggest that leaders should ask themselves four questions before communicating about a new initiative: 

1. What are they worried about losing?
2. What might they gain?
3. What does this mean for them in the next 30, 60, 90 days?
4. What will we be transparent about even if we don’t have all the answers yet?

Calculating the Cost of Meetings

Source: Getty Images

Kaz Nejatian, Chief Operating Officer of Canadian e-commerce company Shopify, has created a meeting cost calculator for his organization. Nejatian developed the software program to calculate the cost of meetings during a company hack-a-thon. According to Nejatian, meetings per worker have declined by 14% this year, and productivity has risen.  Bloomberg's Matthew Boyle describes this innovative new approach to curtailing excessive meetings:

The Canadian e-commerce company has rolled out a calculator embedded in employees’ calendar app that estimates the cost of any meeting with three or more people. The tool uses average compensation data across roles and disciplines, along with meeting length and attendee count, to put a price tag on the event.

A typical 30 minute endeavor with three employees can run from $700 up to $1,600. Adding an executive — like Chief Operating Officer Kaz Nejatian, who built the program during a company-wide hack day — can shoot the cost above $2,000.

As I read about this article, I contemplated why excessive meetings sometimes take place.  Many reasons exist - positive and negative.  For example, sometimes leaders really are trying to give a range of people an opportunity to provide input, and they are involving others to build buy-in for a course of action.  On other occasions, though, leaders are simply engaging in what Michael Watkins calls the "charade of consultation." In other words, they hold the meeting to make it seem as though they are soliciting input, but in fact, they have already made up their mind.  It's all a show.  Another reason we have excessive meetings in many organizations is that managers want to avoid accountability and responsibility.   They call others to meetings so as to avoid being put on the spot if a plan goes awry.  They intentionally create a "when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible" culture.  Without a doubt, many unnecessary or unproductive meetings take place every day in organizations.  

Is there any danger though in trying to reduce the number of meetings?  First and foremost, some issues are better hashed out as a group, rather than in one-on-one conversations or email threads.   If we eliminate meetings, but simply replace them with a long set of email threads, we may not truly be increasing productivity.  In fact, we just be shifting our time from one form of communication to another, and one that is perhaps more inefficient.  Second, successful implementation of key initiatives requires a great deal of coordination.  Moreover, it requires a strong shared understanding of the plan, something that may not be achievable without critical meetings.  Third, employees may come to feel as though decision-making processes are not fair, if they are left out of the deliberation process.  If they don't feel as though they have been given voice, then they may not commit and buy into the plans being enacted.   Finally, plenty of learning can take place in meetings, as junior employees soak in knowledge from discussions and analysis undertaken.  Moreover, they watch how others conduct themselves, make presentations, and answer hard questions.  This on-the-spot learning may be lost if too many meetings are eliminated.  

In sum, the goal is admirable.  We all can identify many unproductive meetings we have attended.  However, we need to remember that most things we do require input, support, and collaboration with others.  We do few things alone in organizations.  Meetings serve as important coordination mechanisms in many cases. 

Voice is Not Enough

Source: pixabay

If leaders want to build employee buy-in and commitment, they need to do much more than provide opportunities for people to express their opinions. Voice is not enough to achieve buy-in and build trust.  People need to believe that they are actually being heard, that their views are being genuinely considered, and that they have had a legitimate opportunity to influence plans and decisions.  In short, employees need to know that leaders are actually listening.   Employees want to see changes occur as a result of their ideas and suggestions.   If nothing ever changes, employees stop offering their ideas.  Engagement suffers, and intrinsic motivation declines.  

What are some signs that leaders are actually listening?   

• The leader asks questions, trying to understand an employee's ideas more thoroughly.  
• The leader plays back what he or she has heard, seeking to confirm an accurate understanding of employee views.
• The leader asks others for input and feedback on an employee's suggestions.   
• The leader thanks those who have the courage to express dissenting views.
• The leader comments directly about what he or she has learned from direct communication with employees, and he or she seeks to learn more through further dialogue.  
• The leader follows up promptly when an employee makes a suggestion, rather than letting recommendations simply hang out there in limbo for weeks or months.