Denise Moreland

In the 1960s, the United States declared War on Poverty. Since then, we have declared War on Drugs, War on Cancer, War on Terrorism and War on Alzheimers. In these wars, we name enemies, sympathize with the victims, celebrate the survivors and mourn those who have lost their battles.

War talk is everywhere. At work, we rally the troops, bullet point ideas, shoot each other emails, fill our arsenals with weapons and create war rooms to deal with the fall-out when things blow up. When we win, we say, “We killed!” When we are defeated, we say, “We were slaughtered!” We are willing to lose battles in order to win wars.

In information technology, we assess threats and respond to cyber attacks. We also create demilitarization zones (DMZs). DMZs sit outside of the company’s internal network, and exist solely to communicate and invite connections with external parties in a way that is safe, protected and military free.

Anthropologists say that language reflects the values of culture. In our battle-laden, and battle-weary culture, I think we need more DMZs, neutral areas where it is safe to drop our war-like stances to promote communicating and making connections.

To have a more peaceful world, and more sane workplaces, let’s embrace metaphors and language that reflect values of equality, freedom and democracy. These metaphors are emerging as we engage employees, provide transparency of information, promote diversity of thought, create cross-functional collaborations and form representative governance. Let’s declare War on War talk, and replace it with Peace talk to promote understanding and compassion in place of judgement and aggression.

For more radical ideas on how to demilitarize your workplace, see my book, Management Culture at mgmtculture.com or though Amazon.

What, you ask, is a fractal?

“A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop.” (Fractal Foundation)

Fractals exist in nature (trees, plants,  coastlines, mountains, sea shells, hurricanes) and in human relationships.

For example, hospitals focus on reducing small mistakes to reduce the large ones. They have learned that the same repeated patterns that cause minor errors are responsible for costly ones.This is a fractal.

In 1989, Stephen Covey wrote a groundbreaking book about highly effective people. He found that the secret to success lies not in intelligence or personal charisma, but in having effective habits; simple patterns repeated again and again. This is a fractal.

In organizations, fractals abound. Patterns of integrity or corruption, transparency or secrecy are repeated at different levels, creating what we call organizational culture. This is a fractal.

Internal cultural patterns are also repeated externally. Employees who are treated with respect and appreciation will provide the same to customers and clients. Employees who are treated poorly will provide poor customer service. This is a fractal.

We all create and reinforce fractals by repeating patterns. Employees at all levels can change organizational culture by refusing to repeat patterns that create dysfunction, and creating new patterns that bring life. The great thing about fractals is they can transform systems from the bottom up, and from the middle out. They are not reliant on authority or positional power for their energy, but thrive on the energy of everyone who participates.

Denise Moreland’s book, Management Culture, can be purchased at mgmtculture.com or Amazon.  (Please consider writing a review on Amazon.) Sign up for Denise’s newsletter and follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Everyone makes mistakes, but at work, everyone is not required to own up to them.

If an employee screws up, s/he is expected to admit it, apologize for it, identify lessons learned,  and commit to doing better in the future. We call that “employee development.”

If a boss screws up, s/he is not expected to own up to it or apologize. Instead, we are supposed to work around, cover up or pretend that the boss is never wrong. When employees dare to point out their boss’ mistakes, we call that “insubordination,” and subject them to disciplinary action.

Pretending that bosses never make mistakes puts a lot of pressure on bosses, and robs organizations of truth and authenticity. It affects productivity and morale, and drives a wedge between management and employees.

The best way to fix organizations suffering from the ill effects of pretending the boss is always right–what I call the “Superiority Tango” (see chapters 4-6 of my book, Management Culture)–is for bosses to admit when they are wrong, apologize to those who were negatively affected, and learn from their mistakes.

I once wasted 6 months of an employee’s work life on a project that was a mistake to even begin. When I made the assignment, I had not fully understood the complexity of the issues. I also did not make analyzing the issues part of the assignment. Trying to be a strong leader, I  decided what needed to be done, and told the employee to do it.

After the project was completed, I realized I was wrong. I couldn’t undue my mistake, but I could apologize and learn from it. I apologized to my boss and the employee who did the work. I learned that the best decisions are made when I ask the people actually doing the work to participate in the analysis, and make recommendations of what to do and how to do it. Now, I seldom presume I know enough to dictate a solution before the analysis has been done.

Everyone makes mistakes. Organizations are healthy and vibrant when everyone is free to talk about them, own up to them, apologize and learn from them.

For more radical ideas on how to improve organizational life and productivity, see my book, Management Culture at mgmtculture.com or on Amazon.

What is more frightening than Halloween? Annual performance reviews, of course!

I didn’t completely understand why I dreaded being on the receiving end of reviews until I became a supervisor and started giving them. As “the boss,” I am expected to rate employee performance and identify development goals for the next year. I am both a judge of work and development coach.

Imbedded in my responsibilities is an assumption that I am superior–smarter, more experienced, more knowledgeable and wiser than my, so-called, “subordinates.”  Then it hit me, I dread reviews because they are inherently patronizing to the reviewees. The truth is, I am not smarter or wiser than the people who report to me. I merely have more responsibility, authority and accountability. We have different, but equally important, roles.

Several years ago, I decided to abandon my roles as judge and developer of other people. Instead, I expect people to develop themselves and own their careers. I have replaced judgment with questions:

1. What have been your accomplishments and challenges?
2. What are your career goals?
3. What experiences and training do you need to get there?
4. What energizes you at work? How can we get more of that into your job?
5. What do you find most frustrating? What can I/we do to lessen it?
6. Are you getting what you need from me?

Of course, I am still willing to provide feedback, and I expect the same in return. I am willing to share what I have learned over the years, in exchange for listening to the wisdom of my colleagues. Stepping out of the role of judge and developer of employees, I find my dread for giving, and getting, reviews is greatly diminished, and our conversations are more real, more productive and more meaningful.

For more radical ideas on how to create partnerships at work, see my book, Management Culture at mgmtculture.com or at Amazon.

We all want to do work that makes sense. Nothing is more frustrating than to invest our lives (time, energy, creativity) into work that makes no sense. To cope with the frustration, we have several options.

1. We could assume that we don’t know enough to judge; that the people paid the “big bucks” must know what they are doing. This option works well for people who are content putting in time for a paycheck, without the need to make sense of it or understand how their work fits into the big picture.

2. We could assume that the people making decisions are misinformed or complete idiots. This option works for people who can tolerate discontent. It can also contribute to cynicism.

3. If we feel brave, we could talk with higher-ups to learn more, which can help us make sense of it. This works for people who work in environments where it is safe to ask questions, which is often not the case.

4. If the above options aren’t viable, or are too exhausting, we become resigned to just do what we are told, whether it make sense or not. Then, we focus our attention outside of work, counting the hours until the end of the day, the days until the weekend, the weeks until vacation, and the years until retirement.

I believe option 4 is where the majority of disengaged workers live. We disengage when the work doesn’t make sense to us, and we believe no one cares what we think.

There is another option…

5. Change the rules by introducing the question, “Does this make sense to you?”

As a manager, I expect people to tell me my words or actions do not make sense to them. The best decisions are products of many brains and diverse perspectives. Bad decisions are made in a vacuum. I don’t want to make bad decisions or set directions that don’t make sense. So asking people at all levels, “Does this make sense to you” is my quality assurance.

As an employee, I want the organization I am investing in to succeed, so I give feedback to my managers when the message or the work doesn’t make sense. Most of time, my feedback is welcomed if it is offered respectfully and sincerely. I know I am more engaged when I have the freedom to say something when the work just doesn’t make sense.

If you work in a place that doesn’t welcome such feedback, you can still start a culture change simply by asking “Does this make sense to you?” when you talk with your boss or co-workers. By asking the question, you open a conversation and invite others to ask the same question. Eventually,  your boss may even be comfortable asking it too.

Imagine a workplace where everyone did work that makes sense!

For more radical ideas, see my book Management Culture at mgmtculture.com or through Amazon.

I used to be a hub-and-spoke manager. I thought my job was to be at the center of the work, to hold together all of the related parts, and to be the information broker between the spokes. I shared only enough information with each person to enable success in her/his piece. I didn’t want to burden “my staff” with extra details that were not directly relevant to their work. The truth is that I liked having control.

As work became more complex, my ability to hold it all together became more challenging. I became a workaholic, and my health suffered. Then, I started reflecting on my hub-and-spoke approach, and realized that trying to be the only one holding the work together was not only harming me, it was disrespectful toward the people I was supervising, and it was risky for the organization.

Slowly, I began to make changes in my approach. I took myself out of the middle of projects and communications. I started sharing the bigger picture with everyone who had a role. I shared ownership of the work, and asked people to actively engage in decision-making. I began to see myself, not as the hub, but as one of the spokes with responsibilities to coach and facilitate connections.

As a result of this subtle but significant change, my stress reduced because I was no longer solely responsible. Employee engagement rose because I stopped making every decision and micromanaging every communication. The quality of the work increased because many brains were participating in the decisions. “What do you think?” and “Does this make sense to you?” became common questions uttered by everyone on the team. I began to understand the power of collaboration over command-and-control.

If you are a hub-and-spoke manager/supervisor, or if you work for one, I encourage you to find ways to change the model. Engage everyone in the bigger picture, and ask everyone to participate in decision-making. If you want better results and joy at work, don’t perpetuate a boss-centric work culture.

For more radical ideas on how to make the workplace more effective and enjoyable, see my book, Management Culture, at memgculture.com and on Amazon.com.

If you want to know what engages employees, ask them what they do outside of work—coaching, cooking, gardening, finishing the basement, volunteering at Church, building boats, fishing, sewing, reading, traveling, spending time with family and friends. Evenings and weekends are full of activities that express individuality and rejuvenate the soul. People light up when they talk about their families, hobbies, and volunteer ventures. I am amazed how much work people do during their “leisure time.”

What if the work we get paid for was as energizing as the work we do for free? What if our paying jobs reflected our individuality and rejuvenated our souls? Sound absurd? Yes, because it is counter-cultural. Work, we are led to believe, is supposed to be painful, stressful drudgery. It doesn’t have to be!

It is possible for work to be energizing and engaging. All it takes is paying attention to what energizes us, and doing more of it, and paying attention to what zaps our energy, and doing less of it. Of course, this is an absurd notion because in reality most employees have few choices about the work they get to do. Such important decisions as making assignments are to be made by “the boss.”

What if this wasn’t so? What if employees had more choices about their assignments? I have tried this counter-cultural path and it works! I have reframed my job from being assigner to matchmaker. I match individuals with the work that needs to be done, based on their preferences. In taking this radical approach, I have made two important discoveries that make this work. First, there is a high correlation between what people are good at and what they love to do. So making assignments based on preferences usually means people work in their areas of strength. Second, because people are diverse in their preferences, there are seldom coverage gaps in the work. One person’s drudgery is another’s joy.

I am a better leader when I share ownership of the work with the people who to do it. Imagine a workplace where everyone does only and exactly what each loves to do and all the work gets done! It is possible.

For more radical ideas about how to improve your workplace, see my book, Management Culture at mgmtculture.com or through Amazon. If you have read the book, please consider writing a review on Amazon, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

The story I heard last week took place at a medical office. Management hired consultants to design the work space. The consultants interviewed managers to learn about the work goals, and gather requirements. No one asked the people who would use the space. After the ribbon-cutting, staff soon realized that the expensive, newly remodeled space was not working as planned. They shared their concerns with management, who accused them of being resistant to change. In the end, everyone was frustrated.

This is a familiar story.

Managing work space is challenging for two reasons. First, it comes with a lot of emotionally charged baggage that needs to be addressed. Traditionally, bigger, better space = higher status, which reinforces hierarchy and competition, and can undermine engagement and collaboration.

Second, on a more fundamental level, space is about workflow. Good space design promotes efficient operations, and meets security, confidentiality, accessibility, and a host of other business requirements. It also must meet user needs, which is where it gets dicey when users are not consulted in the planning.

Leaders are wise to call in space experts to help. Architects, designers, workflow specialists and industrial engineers have knowledge to be leveraged in space planning.

However, consultants are not the only experts who need to be at the space planning table. Effective planning must also include the people who will actually use the space every day. Workers are the experts in the work. They know what resources they need–in space, equipment, training, support, technology–to do a good job, but they are seldom asked.

Management culture promotes the belief that management owns the work environment, including space. Workers are merely the doers, not the thinkers. Changing this culture to promote a model of co-ownership increases the odds of getting it right the first time.

Asking employees to participate in decisions is the definition of employee engagement. For more radical ideas on how to make work more sane, see my book, Management Culture at mgmtculture.com or through Amazon.

Employee engagement is all the rage. Research shows that successful companies have engaged employees. So, to be successful, organizations should increase employee engagement. 

I work for an organization that values employee engagement. In the last two weeks, I have completed three surveys asking me about my level of engagement. My anonymous answers will be aggregated with my colleagues’ and reported to senior managers. There will be many discussions and workgroups aimed at improving the numbers. Engagement has become easily measurable but it remains hard to do.

Employee engagement cannot be achieved anonymously or through aggregation, or even by making it a top priority. It happens (or doesn’t) one employee at a time and is most influenced by one’s immediate supervisor. Too often, employees are not allowed to engage because bosses are expected to make all of the important decisions, leaving little for employees to engage in. It is part of the culture.

Employee engagement is also easy. All it takes is for supervisors to let go of control and engage the people who actually do the work. Here are some questions I use to engage people:

1. What do you think?
2. What are your ideas?
3. What energizes you?
4. What frustrates you at work?
5. What can I do to help you succeed?
6. If you were in my position, what would be your top priority?
7. What is your vision for the future?

The point in asking these questions is not to improve employee engagement scores, but to improve the work. Excellent leaders see employees as partners in the work, not hired hands to do the work of management. They actually implement employee suggestions because employees have good ideas. Successful companies engage employees to improve their business, not their scores.

For more radical ideas on how to improve the workplace, see my book, Management Culture, available at mgmtculture.com or through Amazon.

Is your boss’s office (or your office) a black hole, sucking in everything around it and never giving it back? Have you ever worked for someone who was a bottleneck in getting your work done? You work your butt off to meet the deadline, submit it to the boss for approval and then it disappears for weeks or even months. Finally, it emerges with a ton of edits, comments and required changes and even tighter deadlines.

This frustrating scenario is common for a variety of reasons.

First, in traditional hierarchy, there is an expectation that all work must be reviewed and approved by bosses. Behind this expectation is a presumption that bosses are smarter than the employees.

Second, there is a workload issue for bosses with several subordinates whose work they must review/approve. Behind this is a presumption that bosses own the work and employees are merely hired hands to do it.

Third, as work becomes more complex, it takes a significant investment of time for bosses to remain current on industry changes and best practices. Behind this is a presumption that bosses must be the experts.

To get rid of the black holes and bottlenecks, and provide relief for bosses and employees alike, we must question the presumptions that are part of the culture of management.

Are bosses really smarter? Should they really own the work? Should we expect bosses to be the experts?

What if we acknowledged that employees are smart, in many ways smarter than their managers? What if employees were encouraged to own their work, and be the experts in their fields? What if bosses took themselves out of the middle, and found new ways to ensure accuracy and accountability?

We need new models for managing work and the people who do it.  For more radical ideas on how to make work a more sane experience, see my book, Management Culture at mgmtculture.com or Amazon.