Effectiveness to Greatness

by Paul Crookall

THINK OF A JOB WHERE YOU FOUND YOUR ‘SWEET SPOT’, YOU LOVED THE WORK, SERVED A REAL HUMAN NEED, HAD FOUND YOUR VOICE. NOW THINK OF A WORK SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD NO VOICE – NO REAL INPUT, NO OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE WHAT YOU WANTED IN PUBLIC SERVICE. WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE, AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DID YOU MAKE? STEPHEN COVEY HAS PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCED MANAGEMENT OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES. HIS “7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE” WAS RATED ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL BOOKS AND COVEY HIMSELF ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE OF THE PAST DECADE. “7 HABITS” IS SIMULTANEOUSLY A SELF-HELP BOOK AND A GUIDEBOOK FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.

FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, COVEY RECOGNIZES THAT THE WORLD IS A VASTLY DIFFERENT PLACE. THE CHALLENGES AND COMPLEXITIES ARE GREATER, AND THERE IS MORE NEED FOR MEANING. TO THRIVE IN THE KNOWLEDGE WORKER AGE, PEOPLE MUST MOVE BEYOND EFFECTIVENESS TO REACH FOR GREATNESS THROUGH PERSONAL FULFILLMENT, PASSIONATE EXECUTION, AND SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION.

COVEY HAS DEFINED AN EIGHTH HABIT THAT HELPS MAKE THIS A REALITY: "FIND YOUR VOICE AND INSPIRE OTHERS TO FIND THEIRS." IT IS ABOUT FINDING YOUR PERSONAL TRUTH AND HELPING OTHERS TO FIND THEIRS. "I DIDN'T INVENT THE EIGHT HABITS," COVEY SAYS. "THEY ARE UNIVERSAL TRUTHS." THE NEW HABIT APPEARS TO RESONATE WITH PUBLIC SERVANTS, WHO SEE THEIR MISSION AS GIVING VOICE, TO HELPING PEOPLE ACHIEVE THEIR VOICE, TO MAKING SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS. TO THEM IT IS SECOND NATURE. SO I SPOKE WITH HIM ABOUT IT.


DR. COVEY, HOW WELL DO THE CONCEPTS IN YOUR BOOKS APPLY TO PUBLIC SERVICE?

I like a quote from Peter Drucker who observes: "There are differences in management between different organizations – missions define strategy after all and strategy defines structure. But the differences between managing a chain of retail stores and managing a Roman Catholic Diocese are amazingly fewer than retail executives or bishops realize. The differences are mainly in the application rather than principles."

That has been my personal experience as well. In most management jobs, people issues take up 80% of your effort. In any management role you need to focus on the four roles of the leader (modelling, pathfinding, aligning goals and systems for results, and empowering). The differences are mostly in semantics and situational aspects.

The biggest reason people are unsatisfied at work is that organizations have an incomplete paradigm of human nature. We want to use all four dimensions: our mind (to learn, to have challenging work, to be creative); our heart (to love, to be respected, to build relationships, treat people kindly); our body (to live well, be paid fairly); and our spirit (meaning and contribution, to leave a legacy). To be effective in the private or public sector, we don't manage people, we lead people. We must build trust. The principles of human behaviour are the same in public, private and voluntary sectors.

I was recently in China, and they asked me what those principles are and where they came from. I replied by asking them about Confucius: would Confucianism suggest that we treat each other fairly, that we be kind to each other, that managers work to develop their staff, that they provide meaningful work, that they act with integrity. The Chinese replied, "Yes, Confucius teaches that." I observed, "Then the roots of these principles are already in your culture."

You don't ‘motivate’ people. The carrot and stick approach is for jackasses, not knowledge workers. The leader's job isn't to manage people but to manage the process. Everything about management practices that was developed for the industrial age needs to be reviewed in light of the knowledge age. Take the ‘negative sandwich’ technique of performance appraisal, for example, where, when you have to correct someone, you start first by saying how they are valued, then share your concern, then conclude by telling them something positive. That process is repugnant.

JIM COLLINS TALKS ABOUT GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT SEAT ON THE BUS. IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, THAT IS MORE DIFFICULT.

As a public service manager, your job, as Peter Drucker has pointed out, is to make peoples' strengths productive and their weaknesses irrelevant. You have to look at your team. Marcus Buckingham uses the image of a chessboard. Your people are not interchangeable checker pieces that all have the same moves. They are individuals with different moves, different capacities and interests. Your role is to help them to find their voice and create a management process that maximizes their special strengths. People don't change much, you don't instil things into them, you draw out what is already there.

If you want to influence, be influence-able. Increase the number of questions you ask. Practice what you teach. There are six things that contribute to poor performance:
• Lack of clarity
• Lack of commitment
• Poor translation of corporate goals into individual goals and action
• Poor systems to enable and support
• Lack of synergy
• Lack of accountability. You need leading indicators as well as lag indicators. And you need to be transparent – light is a great disinfectant.

Despite the restrictions, you can still ask, "What can I do to counteract this, how can I contribute, whose permission do I need to do things better?"

WE KNOW THE MANY NEGATIVE VOICES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE – "I'M BEING ASKED TO DO MORE WITH LESS," "MY TALENTS ARE NOT BEING USED EFFECTIVELY," "THEY USE MUSHROOM MANAGEMENT" AND "I WISH MY BOSS WOULD STOP LYING TO ME…THERE IS SUCH A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT (S)HE SAYS AND WHAT (S)HE DOES." IN “THE 8TH HABIT” YOU SUGGEST PEOPLE SEARCH FOR A THIRD ALTERNATIVE, TO SEEK SYNERGY RATHER THAN A WIN-LOSE OPTION. YOU SAY MANAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS SHOULD BEGIN WITH THE PARTIES ASKING: "WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SEARCH FOR A SOLUTION THAT IS BETTER THAN WHAT EITHER ONE OF US HAS PROPOSED?" AND "WOULD YOU AGREE TO A SIMPLE GROUND RULE: NO ONE CAN MAKE HIS OR HER POINT UNTIL THEY HAVE RESTATED THE OTHER PERSON'S POINT TO HIS OR HER SATISFACTION." THIS IS A GREAT MODEL THAT IS SURE TO BUILD OPENNESS AND TRUST. BUT HOW DO YOU APPLY IT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE POLITICAL LEVEL, WHERE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ENCOURAGES JUST THE OPPOSITE – TO STICK TO YOUR GUNS AND RIDICULE THE OTHER'S POSITION? WHERE POLICY IS NOT ALWAYS EVIDENCE-BASED AND PROGRAMS ARE KEPT GOING EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO IMPACT?

I have done a lot of work on this issue. The difficulty is compounded because the third alternative is not part of the political paradigm. Most politicians are talking to their supporters, not to the other party or its followers. It is best for a deputy minister to speak with the minister privately, take the conversation to an authentic and real level, and suggest that they can find a solution. Then ask "How can we communicate this to your constituents without it looking like we've caved in or backtracked?" If that doesn't work, go to the second level and try to drain the negative.

I tried this technique with President Clinton and Newt Gingrich. It built the synergy needed to resolve a particular issue. We need more use of the third alternative, especially as we are discussing social security in the US. Politicians need to stop posturing.

SO WE SHOULD BE FEARLESS IN ADVICE AND LOYAL IN IMPLEMENTATION?

Yes.

YOU NOTE, "WHEN RULES TAKE THE PLACE OF HUMAN JUDGMENT, YOU CAN'T NURTURE A CLIMATE OF INNOVATION, YOU NURTURE A KISS-UP CULTURE." HOW DO YOU OVERCOME THAT IN THE RULE-DRIVEN PUBLIC SERVICE, IN ORDER TO GET TO INNOVATION?

You need to discuss the rules with your staff. "You know you are rule driven, yet we want to be creative. What do you suggest we do?" Be sincere, don't just use it as a technique. Your staff will find areas where they can innovate. It won't be as much as the private sector, you won't be able to create a ‘skunk works’ like Steven Jobs did at Apple Computers. But the results achieved will allow the group more freedom. You have to convert the cynics.

You can also work to get partial exemptions to the rules, with the knowledge and approval of the boss or the auditor. Or work to change the rules. Sometimes rule change can be driven from the top. For example, the Governor of the State of Georgia wanted to change the system, so he essentially ‘fired’ all his agency heads. He then re-hired the ones who would agree to practice transformational principle-centred leadership.
They changed the rules for seven agencies. Those agencies received leadership training, a control sample didn't. The test sample achieved production gains of 60 to 70%.

Sometimes rule changes can be local. The RCMP detachment in Richmond, B.C., for example, has a wonderfully innovative approach to community policing and giving ‘positive tickets’. When they see young people doing something right, they issue a positive ticket. They issue several positive tickets for each negative ticket. They are seeing improved relations and reduced crime rates, with great staff morale. They try to keep little things little, so things don't escalate. They work toward solutions, such as setting up a bike park. Superintendent Ward Clapham sees his team as problem solvers not rule followers.

CAN THE 8TH HABIT BE PRACTICED BY INDIVIDUAL MANAGERS WITHIN THEIR WORK UNIT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A SYSTEM-WIDE EFFORT? CAN YOU CREATE AN ISLAND OF SANITY AND KEEP YOUR HEAD WHILE ALL THOSE ABOUT YOU ARE LOSING THEIRS?

You can. In my book “Living the 7 Habits” we look at 60 individual stories of people applying the habits, many of them in public service roles. As a public service manager you need to get your head out of victimization, become a champion and influence your culture. You can influence your work group, and then spread that success to other parts of the organization.

YOU IDENTIFY THE AGE OF WISDOM AS BEING THE NEXT AGE OF MANAGEMENT. THE PUBLIC SERVICE HAS JUST MOVED INTO THE AGE OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE KNOWLEDGE WORKER. HOW DO WE MOVE TO THE NEXT LEVEL?

Wisdom is more than information, more than networking. It is living by universal principles and getting everyone to buy into them. You need to get a critical mass living by these principles. Principles lead to purpose, which leads to the development of a collective conscience, which when applied provides wisdom.

In my consulting, I focus on the principles, and let the local leaders decide which practices are best in harmony with those principles. Your practices need to fit with the public service culture and your organization.

YOU OBSERVED IN AN EARLIER BOOK THAT PRINCIPLE-CENTRED ORGANIZATIONS SEEM TO SHARE A UNIVERSAL MISSION STATEMENT: "TO INCREASE THE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS." IN OUR RESEARCH INTO EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE, PUBLISHED IN “THE THREE PILLARS OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT”, WE FOUND A UNIVERSAL MISSION STATEMENT FOR HIGH PERFORMING PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES – THEY COMMIT THE ORGANIZATION AND ITS EMPLOYEES TO CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING A BETTER SOCIETY, TO HAVING A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THEIR SPECIFIC CLIENTS, AND TO CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING. IF THE NOTES AREN'T IDENTICAL, THEY CERTAINLY ARE SINGING IN HARMONY, WITH EACH ADDING SOME SPECIAL FLOURISHES THAT THEY CONSIDER IMPORTANT TO THE SCORE. THAT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH, BUT BROADER THAN, THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

That's very interesting, and consistent with our experience. “The Three Pillars” is a most interesting book. I trust the excellent public agencies also put an emphasis on their employees – their health, welfare, personal
growth.

INDEED THEY DO. YOU HAVE NOTED THAT THE MARKETPLACE IS DEMANDING THAT ORGANIZATIONS TRANSFORM THEMSELVES. THEY MUST BE ABLE TO PRODUCE SERVICES AND GOODS AND DELIVER THEM IN A FAST, FRIENDLY AND FLEXIBLE WAY, AND ON A CONSISTENT BASIS THAT SERVES THE NEEDS OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS.

The fundamental reason most quality initiatives do not work, above poor communication, above lack of empowerment or lack of resources, is because there is a lack of trust in the culture – in the relationships among people. You can't fake high trust. It has to come out of trustworthiness. As we move from the information age to the age of wisdom, high standards of vision and integrity are required to use the abundance of information effectively.

THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, DR. COVEY.

Every good wish.