Summing Up
Why Not Turn "No Surprises Management" On Its Head?
If "managing up" with a "no surprises management" (NSM) philosophy is popular, "managing down" with NSM makes just as much sense, according to respondents to this month's column.
As Dan Wallace commented, ''No Surprises Management seems pretty obvious. Why in the world would you want the people you're counting on to help you achieve your objectives to be blindsided?" Roger Studer added, "Take care of those who take care of you." Bob Gunsallus put it this way: "Once you get to the top, quality people keep you there."
Other respondents helped develop a kind of construct for NSM, one encompassing a number of other management behaviors. For example, Gerald Nanninga couched his support in these terms: "This is not just about trust … this is about respect … keeping employees in the dark and constantly surprising them is a serious form of disrespect." Bert Baker linked it to integrity with this comment: "When I know that my manager is a person of integrity, then I know they will not surprise me… My working definition of integrity is: what you believe is what you say is what you do."
Larry Slate, in commenting on how NSM works in his organization, said, "Employees are expected to (be) 'dedicated, professional, accurate, and ethical.' As employees we expect the same from management." Ashok Jain added, "When senior management practices NSM, they are able to build affective engagement with their employees … in creating a learning environment where each employee feels respected and fulfilled in an environment of trust.'' Kim Forbes observed, "This ties in nicely with Servant Leadership.… Treat your organisation's people with respect and understanding. The payback is impressive."
Several commented on the demands that NSM places on management in an uncertain environment and the need for communication. For example, Amitava commented that NSM is a good idea but might take some time to implement. Kamal Hossain put it this way: "When the world is full of surprises …bosses can hardly control drastic actions to keep surviving and that means employees will get their share of surprises … However … a good leader will always communicate … all possible outcomes of decisions, both positive and negative …" Mira added: "A world without surprises or bad news is utopian… I often coach employees to expect the worst and prepare for it… studies should focus on preparation rather than prevention." Paul McKay commented that "By having a clear, focused strategy that is well communicated throughout the organization, and by having all activities aligned with that strategy, the chances of surprises is greatly diminished." And Yadeed Lobo said that it is important for leaders to set expectations early on.
A question appeared to be posed by Gauray Goel when he commented, "downwards NSM is more of a symptom of competent managers than (a) cause of good performance…" Another may have been provoked by Kapil Kumar Sopory when he offered the opinion that "NSM is an ideal concept. However, it will work upwards only if it is first crystalised upside down." Why not turn "no surprises management" on its head? What do you think?
Original Article
Managers often tell their direct reports, "I don't want any surprises." No surprises management (NSM) is a term long associated with the idea that the best way to succeed is not to surprise your boss. Better that superiors should be informed early on of such things as expected shortfalls in performance, changes in tactics, new information impacting a business, and the like. The intent is to flag potential problems early on so that help can be provided in planning a response.
In reality, employees too often cover up or are reluctant to risk carrying bad news up the chain of command, making a bad situation worse.
What if the NSM concept was extended downward, to entreat managers not to surprise those reporting to them? The potential benefits were suggested by research I carried out for my book, The Culture Cycle. In it, I compared data collected from the offices of a large marketing services firm to which I had been given unusual access. Here are some data from employee engagement studies, human resource reports, and financial statements that the company shared with me:
Office 1 | Office 2 | Office 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
In my office, senior leadership's actions are consistent with what they say | 46% | 54% | 67% |
I know what is expected of me at work | 91% | 76% | 94% |
In my office, management is trusted | 46% | 30% | 69% |
Employee engagement index (five is highest) | 3.93 | 3.53 | 4.17 |
Two-year average annual employee defection rate | 32.3% | 21.3% | 19.2% |
Two-year average annual client defection rate | 37.8% | 48.4% | 31.7% |
Two-year average annual operating profit as a percentage of revenue | 13.3% | 3.7% | 22.5% |
This data suggests (without proof of cause and effect) that significant improvements in performance can be associated with leadership that produces no surprises for those lower in the organization.
Senior managers who practice NSM apparently create few expectations among their employees that go unmet. Training and development commitments to employees are kept. Decisions agreed upon in meetings are implemented. If expectations are not met, employees are informed with a timely explanation of reasons for the shortfall. Relatively small differences in the degree to which expectations are perceived to be met and trust established appear to be associated with significant differences in operating performance.
This raises questions for us as leaders. Once we establish expectations among our direct reports, do we try to make sure that we meet them all? Where it is not possible, do we attempt to provide reasons in a timely manner? What levels of trust does your leadership create in your organizations? How do you know? What, if anything, might you resolve to do to measure and remedy low levels of trust? Do we need to extend the "no surprises management" philosophy? What do you think?
People are our work family. Imagine a family with secrets, concealment, distrust and lack of respect; dysfunctional. That is what you get without trust and repsect; a dysfunctional business, low profitability, high staff turnover, cost, cost, cost. Then you wonder why you cannot get ahead or get the time you need for a holiday and so on.
OPM 6
The University of Michigan hospital has a program to engage all employees in such conversations. The program is called, "Expect Respect".
Having said that, this can be a good benchmark for managers to assess their effectiveness and determine the focus areas to improve the same.
When we say that the leadership should not produce any surprises for those lower in the organization, it basically does not mean totally. Surprises that can enhance the employee performance should be disclosed which will help gain trust and more productivity. This will in return reflect to bosses as "No Surprises" from their direct reports.
Thankyou for this important question. I believe that a trust is a key ingredient for a healthy relationship that lasts long. Hence, an employee being happy in the same company for a long time can happen if there is mutual trust between the employee and the boss. The trust can build when there are as little as possible negative surprises.
But when the world is full with surprises like economic downturn, job cuts, pay cuts, inflation and many more then bosses can hardly control drastic actions to keep surviving and that means employees will get their share of surprises. However, I believe that a good leader will always communicate of all possible outcomes of decisions, both positive and negative and thus make sure there are almost no surprises.
Regards
Kamal Hossain
Faculty of Business
London School of Commerce
be! I view the decline of AT&T as symptomatic of senior managers who are blind to the "handwriting on the wall."
Employees work as full human beings whose productivity is not limited by their functional identity. This is reflected in high employee engagement index and higher operating profit as percentage of revenue. The organization is perceived as one that follows 'long termism' - lower client and employee defection rate is a natural corollary of that.
Much depends on the leadership style of the boss as his juniors would behave in a parallel fashion, coming out timely with developmental and other news without fear or hiding such news- good as well as bad- as long as possible.
There is one "right" way to lead and manage. It starts treating the people who report to you (and everyone else) with dignity and respect. The basis for that is the recognition that they are not 'inferior' to you, but simply occupy different roles. Every role is critical - the team is only as strong as its weakest link. (I once ran a small specialty lending company. When asked why I was putting a performance management and incentive comp system in place for the hourly workers before the salaried staff, my answer was simple: "I can disappear to our LA office for a week and no one will miss me. But if we don't open the mail, we don't work.")
Your job as a leader starts with making sure that the direction of the organization is crystal clear, and that the lines of responsibility and accountability are as simple and clear as possible. Next, make sure that each seat is filled by someone who gets the job, wants the job, and has the capacity to do the job brilliantly, and that everyone understands how each seat contributes to the achievement of the organization's goals. Once that's done, you need agreement about exactly what each person is going to accomplish by when in order to move the team down it's path (I like doing this via quarterly goals that are developed collaboratively; they shouldn't be imposed from above). And you need to make sure all of your people have the resources they need to get the job done.
After that, YOUR job is to get the hell out of their way and let them do THEIR jobs, being available to help when needed. "Help" mostly means coordinating, resolving conflicts, breaking ties, and using the resources at your disposal to get obstacles out of your peoples' way. If you have to do more than that, you've made a hiring mistake. "Help" absolutely does not mean doing their jobs for them.
In that context, "No Surprises Management" seems pretty obvious. Why in the world would you want the people you're counting on to help you achieve your objectives to be blindsided?
Perhaps we could borrow a leaf from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy.
The meetings of the Board minutes are made available. For all practical purposes these should be sufficient. But as analysts from different large investment firms could interpret this information in different ways, it is the statement and speech of the Chairman that appears to drive behavior.
It is this clear setting of expectations and where the economy could be headed for the foreseeable future, which conveys optimism or pessimism in the United States and, by that token the world economy. Its almost as if the financial sector as an institution (which allocates capital to its most productive uses) takes its cues for confidence or temerity based on a single speech.
The outcomes of this setting of expectations are evident in the movement of asset allocations.
There might be one other thing that organizational leaders badly need as stated by Prof Heskett. The onus to follow through.
As an example, the Chair said that even though they think quantitative easing could be slowed down and completely removed by next year, that they will revisit that question and will continue to provide support to the economy as long as it is needed. This shows that they will follow through by continuously monitoring the state of the economy.
Similarly if executive management and the board clearly sets and monitors performance or other expectations (without recalibrating it unless absolutely necessary) then no surprises management could be a very effective management mantra.
But I wonder....is "No Surprises Management" just another re-incarnation of the Zero Defects Quality concept that's been around for decades? To me, the parallels are obvious.
Our brains are attuned to seek surprises - threats and opportunities catch our attention that way - and some elements of surprise, such as surprise dependent learning, can be both powerful and beneficial. I often try to bring this aspect of surprise into my work - the one essential proviso being that the surprise is a positive one and kicks in a positive emotional response.
Simply stated, "No Surprises Management" (NSM) should be incorporated as a standard of operation, not just a requisite response to its backlash. Therefore, by acknowledging employees' intellectual/personal contributions - management stands a better chance of increasing: the continued development of its human capital and profit margin.