Knowing the answer to a question is
nice, but it's only valuable if that answer is acted on. If the person who
knows what to do, doesn't do it, what does it matter that they know the answer?
An assumption I used to make was
that if something wasn't happening as I expected, then I needed to make sure
the person responsible understood the big picture or even the small picture of
why it was important. You know what I found out? Most of the time, that person
fully understood what was important and why it was expected. They just didn't
do it...
So what do you do? Well, I pondered
that and of course the usual answers were to take aggressive action (a warning
for example) or remove the person from the position or to just give up. I'd
guess these are what happen 99% of the time.
There is another approach if the
previous answers are not appropriate: You just change the game. You no longer
allow that action (or inaction) to take place—it's just not an option. That can
be accomplished by eliminating, for instance, the person's authority to make
certain decisions alone or it could be a checks and balances system that
detects early on if something is off kilter and stops everything until it is
solved correctly. Over time, the person learns—either that he or she can't cut
it or that a bad decision is a lot worse (and harder) than doing the right
thing. And it ceases to be a personal thing; there's no emotion. It's pretty
simple actually.
No matter the solution, if we
remove the power or temptation to take the wrong actions, we might just have a
better answer.
Barry LaBov
LABOV Marketing Communications and
Training
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment