To begin with, nothing quite prepares you for the experience of being responsible for people and the business or mission responsibilities associated with your new job.  Books, prior training, and direct observation of other managers help but confronting real issues and situations from the management side of the fence for the first time, is uncharted territory in most ways.

An initial mistake made by many new managers is to assume that becoming a manager is part of a natural evolution in their profession – from subordinate to being a boss — when actually becoming a manager is entering a whole new profession. No longer an employed doer of some professional service or task, now you must energize others to do that something.  Once the realities of this profession shift set in, the new manager begins to realize the new job is really a conundrum: simultaneously energizing and exhausting; seemingly straight forward yet complex; apparently clear yet frequently ambiguous; and about having some power yet often feeling powerless.

As a new manager, you quickly discover there are few certainties, perfect performance is impossible, frustration comes with the job, failure is always an option, as is that dreaded possibility that you will be the captain of the ship when it suddenly runs aground.  Moreover, certain people are, by temperament, better suited to the managerial role.  The managerial role generally requires more attention to people than things, as much of one’s emotional intelligence as of her or his pure grey matter, some comfort with not always being right or in control, and the ability to shift one’s focus and attention gears rapidly.

New managers must navigate these new uncharted waters for themselves and learn the hard way, many of the lessons that will serve them well for years.  As the old saying about the unfairness of experience goes, “first it gives you the test, then it teaches you the lesson”.   So, here are a few suggestions for all new managers and their supervisors concerning how to make the most out of one’s rookie year.

First, start by concentrating on and practicing the big adjustment new managers must make; stop doing things others should now be doing.  The manager’s job is to facilitate, coach, mentor, and motivate, not undertake the efforts of others.  In other words, avoid micromanaging.

Second, learn to establish priorities and stick to them.  If you attempt to tackle everything that comes your way, you will quickly become overwhelmed, many of your decisions and actions will be off the mark, and you will almost certainly leave some important matters unaddressed.  Learn to distinguish the more important from the less important and focus your time and attention accordingly.  Delegate when appropriate and do not assume responsibility for things that are best left to others.

Third, do not run from your challenges. Procrastinating in the face of uncertainty, as a means to avoid mistakes, can quickly become a habit that is hard to shake.  Embrace your responsibilities and act like a manager.

Fourth, remind yourself frequently that every mistake is a learning laboratory and go to school on what went wrong, or why you did not get the outcome you desired.  What you learn from your first year mistakes will serve you well for years to come.

Fifth, start getting comfortable with the SHADOW you cast as an authority figure.  Whatever your self-image, your subordinates will form their own views of you as their boss.  Accepting the shadow of authority you cast as a manager is difficult for some who see themselves as benign, friendly, and non-threatening.  Rest assured your subordinates — especially those you criticize and discipline — will come to see you differently.  (See also an earlier article in this series entitled “The Shadow of Authority”)

Sixth, practice humility.  There were times in my first year where I simply felt lost, confused, and uncertain.  I thought I was prepared to manage but facing my subordinates as the mis-steps piled up was truly humbling.  Fortunately I had good mentors who supported me and helped me learn from my experiences.  Practicing humility helps you keep yourself and the daunting challenges of your new profession in perspective as the learning process unfolds.

Finally, find your new BUZZ.  One of the most frequent laments I hear from new managers in my workshops is that they miss the excitement and psychic reward they received from being good at whatever they did before becoming a manager.  Managing has its own rewards but it takes time to really discover them.  Be patient until you discover what it is about managing others that provides your new psychic satisfaction.  If that discovery never comes, perhaps management is not for you.  In that case, the sooner you acknowledge and act upon that realization, the better.

As I rose to the loftier heights of the management hierarchy, I began to suspect that there was some insidious correlation between one’s level of management and the number of meetings you must hold and attend; the higher you rose, the more meetings constituted the bulk of your day.  At times, I would cynically calculate the precise amount of time I actually participated by making a comment in a meeting, compared to the time I spent attempting to stay focused and sometimes awake (those nasty mid-afternoon slumps).  I actually recall a lone 30 second verbal contribution of mine in a meeting that lasted a full 90 minutes.

Now I am not writing this article to suggest that meetings in the workplace have little value at all.  On the contrary, some meetings are essential to organizational success.  But in order to minimize the number of gatherings where we spend most of our time making little if any meaningful contribution, let me suggest the difference between the meetings we should and should not hold, or have to attend.

THE GOOD MEETING

It is fairly easy to describe a good meeting.  It has a clear, well understood purpose relevant to one’s job.  Attendees are limited to individuals who have a direct connection to the issue or purpose of the gathering and the expectation is that everybody will actively and frequently participate.  Often there is a pre-circulated agenda, allowing attendees to prepare.

The good meeting is frequently chaired by someone skilled in facilitation — not always the boss — whose job is to get everybody involved and to keep them engaged.  There is a desired outcome — information conveyance, some decision, or a deeper understanding of some issue or problem — and the facilitator keeps things moving in that direction.  Participants discipline themselves — often with the facilitator’s help — keeping the air time they demand to a minimum.

At times, the discussion in a good meeting –might get heated, tempers a bit frayed, but participants generally accept the emotional moments as part of a constructive process.  In the end, only the sore losers in a debate tend to feel the meeting was a waste of their time, because they feel they have lost.

Good meetings prove their value because they move the organization forward toward widely agreed upon goals and objectives.  Participants in good meetings feel like players and that their contribution is making a difference, however small.  Equally important, they do not waste people’s valuable time, at the expense of the important work of the day.

THE BAD MEETINGS

Bad meetings unfortunately come in many shapes and forms.  You should feel free to add your own descriptions to those I include here. I will describe only a few of my least favorite gatherings to give you the idea.

THE MONOLOGUE — One person, often the person who chairs the meeting, does most of the talking.  Just try to stay attentive for long.

THE BRAGGING HOUR — These meetings usually involve going around the room or table, allowing everybody to attempt to impress the gathering with some accomplishment or achievement in their piece of the organization.  Rarely are all these accomplishments newsworthy.  Better to tell a few, pre-selected stories with real organizational significance and repeatable lessons and applications.

THE PHILOSOPHY HOUR — All of us have our own special way of looking at things.  But when every meeting, no matter the issue, involves each of us holding forth on the same philosophy — or replaying the same philosophical arguments — everybody else has heard a hundred times, how is that an effective use of organizational time?  Unless the arguments are relevant to some problem at hand, this meeting is simply a philosophy seminar.

THE INFORMATION DUMP — Often called the staff meeting, the information dump involves attempting to impart so much information in a short time frame, that it overwhelms participants, who promptly forget most of what they heard.  Large quantities of information are often better disseminated electronically, allowing people to absorb it in manageable chunks.  Keep information meetings brief, tightly focused, and topic-limited.

THE “IS THERE A POINT HERE” MEETING?  — This is any group gathering from which participants emerge asking themselves or each other, what just happened in there?

THE DECISION MEETING THAT ISN’T — This meeting speaks for itself.  People gather to solve a problem and take some action but either nothing gets decided in the end, or what supposedly gets decided never gets implemented.  How’s that for a waste of organizational time?

THE MEETING THAT NEVER SEEMS TO END   – While all meetings start somewhere, there are those which never seem to have a defined end.  Unless someone has the courage to ask “are we done here”, everybody just sits, day dreams, doodles, or whatever, until eventual group exhaustion takes place.

So managers, if you intend to call a meeting for whatever purpose, make it a good meeting:

• Have a clear purpose relevant to your organization’s business needs and stick to it;
• Make certain participants know the purpose of your meetings in advance;
• Start and end on time; the shorter the meeting the better;
• Invite only those who are essential to the meeting’s purpose and involve them all during the meeting;
• Facilitate do not orate;
• If you require the attendance of participants, enforce that rule;.
• And, above all, if you decide something, implement the decision, and track and measure the results.

Believe me your colleagues will appreciate your efforts and meeting-time discipline.

In today’s business and public sector worlds, “just do it because I said so” is an approach to management that rarely succeeds.  Whether we like a decision or not, most of us want an explanation supporting the important decisions that directly affect us. While I don’t believe that most managers are intent on deliberately keeping their workforce in the dark, I do believe there is often a bit of laziness involved when it comes to thinking through how to communicate a decision to the workforce as a whole.  Even, as is usually the case, when the workforce knows an important decision on some issue is pending — and even when they have had some input during the consideration phase — the effective communication of a final result is a critical component of generating maximum eventual support.

While many small management decisions — yes, you can have Friday off — require little or no explanation at all, as a general rule, managers should spend a proportionally appropriate amount of time crafting an effective communication message, depending upon the importance of the decision itself.  While the exact wording of an important communique is always optional, I recommend attention to the following five guidelines.

First, KEEP IT SHORT.  The attention span of most humans is short to begin with and can easily be shortened further by a plethora of words.  If you write the message for dissemination, I am a big fan of the one-pager and think two pages is the absolute limit.  Whether a verbal or written communication, there is almost always more you can say about an important decision but the essence of an effective message can, and should be, kept short.  The goal is to accommodate the human attention span, not test its endurance.

Second, CLEARLY STATE THE DECISION.  This may sound simplistic but clarity is often obscured by attempts to say too much, or by your choice of words.  So ask yourself the simple question “what exactly did I or we decide “, then write it down and make certain you are satisfied with the answer.  There are times when you will wish to revise the results.

Third, CLEARLY EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND THE DECISION.  The goal here is not to sell your decision to others,  achieve buy-in, or justify your action.  Managers are empowered to make decisions, so they require no justification.  Rather, the goal is to clearly and simply communicate the reasoning that led you to the decision you made. This is essentially a sign of respect for those the decision will impact; it lets them know you thought about the matter with some care and had some plausible rationale for the call you made.  Others are then free to agree or disagree as they will.

Fourth, CLEARLY STIPULATE HOW YOU INTEND TO MEASURE THE DECISION’S EFFECTIVENESS.  Not only is this often not part of a decision’s communication to a workhorse, worse, it is often not a serious part of the decision-making process itself.  Think of this as a variant of the saying “if you don’t know where you are going, how will you know when you get there?”  Letting a workforce know that you intend to measure results — and sharing the measures you intend to use — is a powerful message that enhances your managerial credibility.  It also reinforces that you understand that “there is no such thing as a decision until you implement it”.  Communicating your measures for success is especially important to those who may disagree with your decision, letting them know there will be a re-evaluation of the results.  And of course, it gives you a method of testing the judgment call and act of faith your decision represents.

Fifth, INDICATE EXACTLY WHEN YOU WILL UNDERTAKE A RE-EVALUATION OF THE DECISION’S IMPACT.  Putting an exact time frame on the re-evaluation process lends credibility to the promise it contains and forces some form of tracking process to fulfill the promise.  But remember, as I have written elsewhere, it is bad management practice to promise the workforce anything you do not — whether deliberately or inadvertently — deliver. Even the most effective communication messages regarding a decision do not serve management well, if any part of their content ends up being false or untrue.

I was involuntarily let go once.  I was 19 years old and a busboy at a resort hotel in Florida.  I was one of the last new hires for the summer rush and thus one of the first let go come September.  I had worked hard, tried not to irritate anybody, was reasonably good at the job, and let them know that I wanted to stay on for the Fall.  Although my dismissal was perfectly rational, economically sensible from the hotel’s perspective, and understandable in the abstract, I was — irrational and immature though it was — really hurt and still remember the feeling.  Thus I can only imagine the intensity of that feeling in an adult with a family to support.

Over a decade ago, I encountered a marvelous book entitled “Die Broke” by Stephen M. Pollan — a highly respected and well-known financial advisor.  The book sets forth a fairly radical financial plan that allows one to live well, spend it while you have it, and realize your life dreams.  Pollan advises that the last check you write in your life should be to your undertaker and it should bounce.

I have recommended this book to many others and one part, in particular, is especially relevant to the notion of losing one’s job.  In an economy and time where job security is a myth for most of us and where, as Pollan writes, “many white-collar, middle-class, college-educated folks are seeing their standards of living and prospects for employment drop” (P. 22), Pollan’s advice is to remember above all that it is “just a job”, “short-term is the only term” and that you should always be prepared to “jump ship” if something better comes along.  He called it “quitting in your head” (P.26).  I call it “what will I do if thinking?”.

Coming to grips with the idea that it could happen to you, I believe is an important first step toward the productive coping and adaptation process that losing one’s job requires.  At a minimum, it lessens the likelihood of total surprise and it forces you to begin to explore — at least mentally — some realistic options.  However, there are additional important steps one can take, especially when your suspicion of impending trouble has factual merit.

First, resist denial, an extremely powerful defense mechanism readily available to us all.  Denial prevents constructive thinking and action which is critical in the near-term if our suspicions are accurate.  Reality is always confronted more effectively head-on.

Second, seek someone at work you trust enough to confide in, who can provide some reality checking. Chances are if your suspicions are well grounded, you are not the only one on alert.

Third, never panic, another common human response that paralyzes the thinking process.  Instead, develop a plan of action.  Assuming you have considered alternative employment options — i.e. engaged in some prior “what will I do if thinking?” — begin to explore them more seriously.  Discretion is always wise but be proactive and become your own advocate when it comes to changing jobs if required.  This is the time to test the waters elsewhere.

Fourth, do not shut out your family and friends.  I have known so many people over the years — mostly men but some women — who have, for a variety of reasons like false pride, tried to shield loved ones and friends from the troubles facing them.  This is almost always a bad idea.  It is times like this that we all need support to help us get moving and maintain our sense of mental and emotional balance.  It is important in times of employment uncertainty to let those who care for us, care for us.  Seek, listen to, and weigh carefully the advice of those who matter in your live.

Finally, unless for some reason you really deserve to lose your job, try your best not to take personally the prospect of temporary unemployment or the need to move on.  This is not the time for feelings of persecution, self-pity, or losing your self-confidence.  In the vast majority of cases, losing one’s job is not about the individual.  Rather it is about a set of circumstances generally beyond that individual’s control.

Nothing I have said in this article can ease the emotional stress and daunting set of challenges associated with losing a job.  But being in control of how you respond is far better psychologically and for your sense of self-esteem, than remaining in a passive, reactive mode.

It is almost impossible to take a management course or read a management book that does not drive home the importance of delegation, if a manager is to do her or his job properly and succeed.  And when the discussion turns to managers who have delegation difficulties, these discussions tend to focus on the scourge of “micromanagement”.  When, for whatever reason, a manager just cannot let go or trust subordinates to do their job sufficiently well, the micromanager steps in and either does it her or himself, or insists that the job be done as he or she dictates.

The subsequent organizational results from chronic micromanagement include lowered unit morale, subordinate underdevelopment, unit underperformance, subordinate turnover, management tasks that go ignored from lack of attention, and over time, usually a burned out manager as well.  This is never a pretty picture and the habit of micromanaging will eventually impede a manager’s prospects for success.

But what if the manager’s delegation difficulties run in the opposite direction?  That is, what if a manager ends up delegating far to much of his or her own work, or as often occurs, simply ignores basic responsibilities forcing subordinates to  pick up the slack?  This is an equally dysfunctional working arrangement, with many of the same negative organizational impacts mentioned above.

The art of effective delegation is often a matter of sound judgment.  While some things are obviously management responsibilities, and others are not, the difference can seem blurry at times.  So here are a few general hints that may help a manager make some important delegation decisions.

First, non-managers are responsible for doing the actual daily work of the organization, while managers are responsible for doing what is necessary to make that happen in the most efficient and productive ways.  Requiring subordinates to undertake tasks — via delegation or by default — that pull them away from their core jobs are best weighed carefully against the cost.

Second, if the task is essentially administrative — meetings, planning, data gathering, briefing preparation, resource allocation, personnel administrative matters, negotiating, etc. — these are most often management responsibilities.  Many senior managers have staff officers to handle some of these tasks but most line managers do not.  Delegating these to subordinates is rarely the correct call, since they fall outside their job jar and pull them away from their core jobs.

Third, if the task involves a difficult conversation with another employee, manager, or superior, those come with the management job.  Unpleasant though these conversations are at times, delegating them, or forcing others to intervene by your avoidance, is an abrogation of management responsibility.  Delegation is not appropriate in these situations

Fourth, representational duties — representing and accepting responsibility for, as opposed to selling, your product or service with clients and customers — are generally a manager’s responsibility.  You can choose to have experts and specialists accompany you in these situations to address specific substantive issues, but a manager must assume overall responsibility for the quality and value of the products and services they represent.

Fifth and finally, personal tasks are — except in extraordinary circumstances — personal tasks and are usually inappropriate matters for delegation.  Asking subordinates to run errands or do favors for you is an illegitimate use of management authority, bound to irk most subordinates and slowly undermine your management credibility.

While micromanaging has an inevitable negative impact on subordinates, a boss who allows others — directly by request, or by abrogation — to do his or her work for them, creates considerable irritation, animosity, and disrespect as well.  It is hypocritical to expect subordinates to work hard in support of organizational objectives, when a boss is too lazy or hesitant to do her or his own job.  Moreover, it breeds considerable cynicism among a workforce when a boss is allowed to function in that way by his or her superiors.

Being seen as LEGITIMATE as a manager is essential to the exercise of the full range of a manager’s authority and responsibility.  As a manager, allowing or encouraging others to do significant portions of your job, is a guaranteed way to squander that legitimacy and fast.

When one becomes a manager in many organizations, there are numerous symbols of power and authority that often accompany this newly acquired status.

An office, for example, is generally construed as quite a status  improvement over a cubicle in the bullpen.  Perhaps the office comes with a window to the outside and, of course, it’s likely to have a door you can close for privacy.  Occasionally, there is a reserved parking space  as well.

Managerial status also comes with a figurative “admission ticket” to a variety of closed-door, management meetings, off-limits to most of your non-managerial colleagues; you know, those gatherings where you supposedly get to become “in the know”.  I recall I once opened up my staff meeting to everybody in a fairly large organization, after hearing numerous complaints about them being exclusive and supposedly secretive.  For the first few meetings after my decision, the room was packed.  Soon, however, almost nobody except those required to attend, showed up.  When I asked my partner why they were now avoiding the opportunity they had clamored for, she simply said:  “it was the right to attend they were after, not the content that bores even us a lot of the time.”

Many managers also add their own symbolic touches over time designed — consciously or unconsciously — to signify their status and importance.  I refer to those embossed name and title plates on their desk, fine and expensive (not from the supply room) wood or leather “in” and “out” boxes and pen holders, signed pictures of themselves with luminaries on their walls, various certificates on display, even in some cases a new wardrobe to symbolize their elevation in status.

Don’t get me wrong, in moderation this is not a “big deal”, I’m not against offices, and yes, I engaged in some of this myself during my management career.  But if you have followed all of the articles in this “Little Things Matter” series, you know by now that an underlying theme in each of them is that the less distance — whether personal or symbolic – you put between yourself as a manager and those you manage, the better.

The trouble is that those you manage really notice these symbolic things.  What might seem like light-hearted affectations to you, are often given quite a different, unflattering connotation by others.  When that connotation takes the form of “he or she sure  thinks they are better than us”, you are in trouble.  So give those power symbols you have access to as a manager some careful thought.

I began to learn this lesson early on when I was assigned to manage an organization, housed in a large open space; one door in and out, no windows, and no real privacy to speak of.  Having had a private office in my prior assignment, it was quite a shock.  How was I to conduct private phone conversations?  How was I to shut out hearing everything that was going on around me? And certainly, how was I to have a private, performance-related review with subordinates, without broadcasting it on what in those days was our version of You-Tube?

In this environment, symbols of power and separation were useless.  We were in it together and in close proximity, yet with different roles.  It turned out those were perhaps the most educational and beneficial years of my early management career.  I discovered the power of being involved without getting in the way, of supervising close at hand without taking over,  of coaching without doing, of hearing things I wish I hadn’t and then ignoring them, and most importantly, of being flexible, adaptable, and creative in approaching managerial tasks.  For example, I discovered the value of having a performance discussion with a subordinate while walking outdoors; a  tension reduction habit that facilitated dialog, that I continued over the years.

Managerial roles are important within an organization but so are the hundreds of other roles that make an organization a success.  When everybody recognizes and celebrates the contributions of those around them — managers and non-managers alike — the barriers of separation quickly disappear.  As the best managers know and do, it is always wise not to rebuild them unnecessarily in symbolic ways.

Back in the 1950′s, one of America’s most popular television shows was a program called “Father Knows Best”.  Once I became a father myself and gained a little experience at the demanding fatherly task, I began to seriously doubt that was always the case. And once I became a manager, it became quickly evident that most of the time, I — the designated authority figure — certainly did not know what was always best for others.

But tradition is a powerful force to overcome.  Fifty years ago, the management of most organizations operated on the belief that management most certainly knew best.  They believed that their company’s success demanded that their employees be owned and controlled. Management needed to dictate assignments, work, and career development opportunities. In exchange, the employee would be taken care of, assured of job security, granted reasonable pay and advancement opportunities, and could expect a good retirement. Paternalistic? Yes and it worked.

How times have changed. With today’s businesses and companies constantly concerned about their product or service competitiveness and staying power, few guarantees remain; especially the promise of lifetime employment. More importantly, in the face of mergers, layoffs, and the latest salary and benefits crunch, employees can no longer afford passivity. The global, socio-economic evolution that is changing the world of work, demands that all of us think for — and take care of — ourselves.

So as a contemporary point of departure on this subject, I believe it is wise for today’s managers to remind themselves whenever necessary, that managing is not synonymous with parenting.  One’s subordinates and direct reports are adults, not children; although you may think they act that way sometimes, as undoubtedly you do as well.  As adults, those you manage have a right to expect that you will respect their right to think for themselves, when it comes to matters of “what is best” for them.  Moreover, they are likely to rebel when their boss presumes to assume that role on their behalf.

Similarly, those you manage do not require you to protect them, like children, from the harsh realities that befall many of today’s workplaces.  Many of your subordinates have had to cope with far worse in their personal lives — death of loved ones, cancer, dysfunctional relationships, substance-abuse issues, child-rearing challenges, for example — than what work dishes out.  Most have learned to bear difficult burdens with maturity, adaptability, and to move on.  As I wrote in an earlier article in this “Little Things Matter” series, they deserve the straight truth.

Certainly as a manager gains experience, she or he has an important role to play as a mentor, councilor, and advisor from time to time.  Subordinates look to good managers to share their perspective and work-related experiences as one of the factors they need to ponder when facing an important decision.  But almost certainly most adults will resent and resist the notion that someone else alone presume to know what is best for them.

Still the instinct is strong in many of us –confident in our point of view — to lean heavily on someone else to follow our desired path.  The best managers work hard to resist this instinct, reminding themselves frequently of the paradox, that most of we humans are far more likely to accept advice, when we have the option of rejecting it.

The scene was the US Army’s 5th General Hospital in Stuttgart — what was then — West Germany.  I was a First Lieutenant in the Army Medical Service Corps and was serving as Officer of the Day, occupying, as usual, a small corner of a very crowded Emergency Room.  It was a Saturday and we were way too busy with a rash of accidents and the usual variety of illnesses.

When I heard the sound of an unannounced helicopter descending toward our landing pad about 200 yards south of the hospital, I quickly glanced around for a spare medical corpsmen or two to dispatch to assist with whomever the chopper was about to deliver.  Finding nobody not otherwise occupied, I took off on the run myself.

At the chopper, I found only the pilot and one semi-conscious soldier strapped firmly to a litter, with undetermined back and neck injuries from a parachuting accident. Lacking any obvious alternatives, the pilot and I grabbed the handles of the litter and carried the soldier back to the emergency room for examination.  Shortly thereafter, one of our corpsmen — let’s call him James –informed me that he had just taken a phone call from a very angry Hospital Executive Officer (XO) demanding to see me in his office at once.

Arriving at the XO’s office, I was immediately subjected to a stern lecture on “how officers are never to carry litters”, accompanied by an admonition not to repeat the offense.  My attempts to explain the lack of alternatives and the serious nature of the patient’s injuries proved fruitless, so I returned to my emergency room duties.  Seeing my return and apparently having some notion of the message I had received from my superior, James approached me, smiled, and simply said “thanks for helping out sir”.

Funny how all these years later, those events remain so clear in my memory.  All I had actually done was to pitch in at a time of need.  And in the grand scheme of the events at the time, this small thing mattered.  Perhaps it was the absurdity of the admonition that keeps the memory alive.

There are plenty of things that separate a manager from her or his subordinates, starting with the disparity in power.  It is foolish for a manager to add to that separation by adopting an attitude that certain things are beneath their status or dignity.  The reality is that managers and subordinates are essentially all in it together; they simply have different jobs to do.  No manager succeeds without outstanding subordinate performance and bad managers are capable of undermining even the most dedicated and talented subordinate’s performance.

Moreover, in every workplace there exists a large quantity of what you might call basic, non-glamorous, maintenance work — drudge work for the cynical minded — that must be accomplished to keep the overall organization working smoothly.  The new folks are often assigned these tasks whenever possible but over time, almost everybody ends up pitching in.  The question is, how about the managers when necessity requires?

We have all experienced those managers who would not think of getting their hands dirty with the non-glamorous chores, and can recall how most of us feel about that.  Conversely, there is simply something special about those managers who when necessary, willingly roll up their sleeves and lend a hand.

I am not talking about a manager’s doing it daily, nor am I suggesting that a manager routinely do the work of her or his subordinates.  Rather, I am referring to those managers who, when sensing a need, pitch in no matter how menial the task.  Believe me, it makes a big impression, demonstrates that the manager considers her or himself a member of the team, and role models the spirit of collective cooperation.

The act of pitching in usually speaks louder about teamwork and unity of purpose, than all the lofty speeches a manager may deliver.  A little thing, yes, but it really matters and the best managers do it.

In a previous blog I entitled “Being Smart”,  I referred to Stanford Professor Carol Dweck’s remarkable study of over 400 New York City fifth graders in which she demonstrated that simply by creating the mind-set and expectation that one group of the study’s participants were hard workers, she was able to encourage them to rise to new challenges, take more risks, and improve their performance on a series of puzzle tests.

The power of positive expectations was also the focus of a 1968 research  effort conducted by Professors Rosenthal and Jacobson, the results of which are often referred to as the “Pygmalion Effect”*.  After pre-testing a group of elementary school students on an intelligence test, Rosenthal and Jacobson selected a randomly chosen cross-section (20%) of them and told their teachers that all of them had “unusual potential for intellectual growth”.  Re-tested eight months later, all of the randomly selected students the teachers were told would bloom, scored significantly higher on their intelligence tests.  The teacher’s pre-biased expectations and subsequent efforts, had helped make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Applied to adults, especially in the workplace, there is equally ample evidence that the performance expectations established by managers are a key factor in how well subordinates perform; see, for example, Susan Heathfield’s article @ About.com.  Moreover, considering the Pygmalion Effect, managers often treat their subordinates in ways that are unconsciously shaped by what they expect of them.  Thus, it is not just what a manager says but also the many subtle ways a manager’s actions may communicate expectation messages that comes into play here.

Little wonder, given all the evidence, that I consider establishing and communicating clear, positive expectations  for subordinates, something that really matters for success as a manager.

From personal experience, most of us recognize that we tend to perform better when we have clear, unambiguous performance targets to shoot at.  When we understand how our efforts will be measured and evaluated, it allows us to focus our talents in specific and appropriate ways.  This is why I warn managers and non-managers alike, that uncertainty concerning performance expectations is a bit like walking around in a strange hotel room, in the dark, at 3:00  AM in the morning.  Sooner or later we are likely to get hurt.

Consequently, the best managers are those who are able to transfer their personal appreciation for clear positive expectations, into a consistent practice for all those entrusted to their management skills.  These are the managers who are skilled in gaining insight into the individual talents and potential of all those they supervise, and of devising a tailored set of positive performance expectations designed to stretch, develop, and motivate each individual.  These are also the managers who understand that subordinates are just as likely to fulfill negative expectations and thus they strive to avoid communicating them whenever possible.

Most importantly, the best managers understand that realism is essential, if the establishment of clear expectations is to work their magic power.  To establish a set of unrealistic expectations — no matter how personally desirable — that lie beyond the capabilities of even the most determined subordinates, ends up being counterproductive, demotivating, and degrading of overall performance.

Of all the little things I have discussed in this current series of blogs, the communicating of clear, positive expectations for those one manages has perhaps the greatest long-term potential to produce deeply satisfying results.  There are few greater pleasures for a manager, than having the opportunity to sit back and observe  a group of talented, motivated, and dedicated subordinates strive for and fulfill their performance potential.

So give talented individuals clear, realistic expectations TO LIVE INTO — not just standards to live up to — and most of them will not disappoint.

*Pygmalion , a sculptor of Greek Mythology fame, created a female statue of great beauty.  Absent a wife and enamored by the beauty of his own making, he prayed to the goddess Venus for a wife in the statue’s likeness.  Granting his wish, Venus brought his statue to life.

Freud considered humor one of the most sophisticated forms of psychological defense mechanisms. I have long considered it an indispensable asset for succeeding as a manager.  To understand why, let’s look at the nature of work.

Some time ago, I took an evening walk with a colleague of mine after a long day of workshop facilitation.  Our conversation wandered to the question of why work was often so stressful.  Among the things we considered, three characteristics of work stand out.

First, work is timed.  There is always a deadline or two we must meet and in some jobs, quite a few of them on any given day.  On certain days, the pace is often hectic, some deadlines — many self-imposed — get missed, and we leave work with a palpable sense of under achievement.  Result: the stress associated with falling behind.

Second, work is competitive.  No matter how much our work processes involve inter-dependent teamwork, some employees perform better than others.  Those who perform at a higher level, advance more rapidly and end up making more money.  Even in a team-based work environment, there is no way to totally eliminate competition.  Result: the stress associated with being and remaining competitive.

Third, work is ego involved.  How we perform at work absolutely effects how we feel about ourselves. Whether our work involves hard manual labor or exhausting intellectual expenditure, we all love that feeling of a job well done.  None of us like that feeling of under achievement and thus we strive to avoid it.  Result: the stress associated with living up to our own expectations and those of others.

The best managers are keenly aware of stress as an inevitable constant in their workplace and develop a keen sensitivity to its various levels, symptoms, and manifestations from day-to-day.  While there are many ways for a manager to cope with work-related stress — including her or his own — I have found that humor is often one of the most effective.

To be clear, I am not talking about joke telling, wise cracks, or a constant stream of clever, witty patter. Few of us are particularly any good at that sort of thing.  Rather, I am referring to the ability of a manager to see the humorous, sometimes ridiculous elements in many work situations and to use them as a means to bring some tension reducing perspective to bear on the matter at hand. There are few things like genuine laughter when it comes to easing the tension of a stressful situation.

But the truly effective use of humor must occur naturally and it must obviously flow from the realities of a specific situation.  If it is contrived or force-fit, it will appear so and it will lose its effect. To be truly effective, the use of humor must also “do no harm”.  Attempts at humor at the expense of others — personal, sarcastic put-downs or poking at the weaknesses of others, for example — are hurtful and generally do more harm than good.  They may produce laughter but it is often of the uncomfortable variety.

The best managers also understand that occasionally poking fun at themselves and their own foibles and mistakes, is liberating for their subordinates.  When a manager can laugh at her or his own personal expense, it frees others to laugh at themselves and role models the important notion that while work is serious business, there is much about work — and our ways of going about it — that is humorous as well

When I think about this topic, I frequently recall an incident from my Army days where I, in my Captain’s uniform, tripped and harmlessly fell flat on my back in a busy airport and in front of a large number of enlisted men and women.  As I looked up from the floor, I could see the uncertainty in their eyes — laugh at what certainly must have seemed a funny pratfall, or stifle such a response to an officer’s plight.  Embarrassed though I felt, I could not resist breaking into laughter myself, as I lay there, and the rest of them followed suit before they helped me up.  It was an important lesson as an authority figure I never forgot.

So managers, find ways to generate genuine laughter in your workplace as often as you can.