How to Make Better Leadership Decisions Than GM, VA or Xerox

I was working with Xerox a while back, and in one of their divisions, they ranked all of their facilities on certain key performance indicators. When a new VP, Jim, took over the division, the plant that initially was on the bottom, and had been for some months, climbed to the middle of the pack the first month. The next month, it reached the top. The VP spent a day at that facility to learn what employees were doing differently. At the end of the day, he walked into the plant manager’s office, laid the report on his desk, and asked, “How did you get those results?” He responded, “I made them up.” Perplexed, Jim asked, “Why?” The plant manager’s reply: “I was tired of being on the bottom.”

This is an example of managing “to” the results, rather than “by” the results. In a results-only environment, managers will do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired results. That can include things that are illegal or unsafe, such as at GM. And, in the case of the VA and Xerox, altering numbers to beef up results.

In these situations, employees logically made choices to avoid the consequences of not meeting set results. Meanwhile, leaders put their organizations at risk because they are only managing to results. At these organizations, “leadership blindness” created a near obsession with holding managers accountable for results without any attention to the underlying behaviors.

Unfortunately, however, results often mangle the truth, as it did at the Xerox division I worked with. Managing to results is like driving around a big city looking only at the tourist highlights without encountering any real-life situations. The tour doesn’t capture a full picture of a city or what lies in its future, good or bad. In organizations, as in cities, widespread problems often show up months or years later, when they can be extremely costly to correct, which is exactly what happened at the VA and GM.

THE SOLUTION: MANAGE TO THE UNDERLYING BEHAVIORS
By understanding the underlying behaviors involved in achieving results, good or bad, leaders and managers then can determine how to effectively use positive reinforcement for the behaviors involved in improving performance. Here are three ways to achieve that goal:

1. Reinforce the right behaviors. If you think of positive reinforcement as an attaboy, pat on the back or raise, you will devise systems that actually have the opposite impact. Instead, positively reinforce employees who speak up when there is a problem or those who offer solutions that save time and money. Behaviors should always reflect the mission, vision and values of the organization.

Finding behaviors that add value for every organizational result is time-consuming, but worth the effort. Many companies in the paper industry paid operators by production. When faster machines came on the scene, rates of production doubled and in some cases tripled, and compensation increases doubled and tripled when the operators did nothing different. Not a good way to spend money.

2. Train supervisors and executives to give positive reinforcement. If managers and leaders don’t care about small individual accomplishments, individuals won’t care either. Positive reinforcement ensures that the right results will be achieved and will likely be better than you expected or needed.

3. Put in the time needed and be patient. Make change easy by initially reinforcing the smallest improvement. This increases the frequency of reinforcement, which increases behavior, which increases the results. And it raises the probability that all people will receive some positive reinforcement, which dilutes, if not eliminates, resistance to change and to management requests and requirements..

Managing “to” results may look like a quick path to success, but it will never produce a viable organization. Managers will simply do whatever is necessary, including altering numbers, to boost results. But those companies that manage the behavior that leads to results will get the very results they need.