Over the years in organizations that I have been in or involved with, a question keeps coming up. It is one that affects morale in the organization, that many never truly consider its full impact. Is the environment safe? Now there are many ways to look at this question depending on the type of organization. For example, if the organization is a manufacturer, construction, or even works with equipment, there are many safety concerns in the proper use of this equipment. The context that we are examining here is in regards to, do your employees feel safe enough to bring up concerns and issues. Often times we in management assume that this environment exists in our organizations, in reality that is not the case. Many executives ask me over and over again, why is the environment not safe? I thought that I could help enlighten this matter with some concepts that many are not aware of, or do not consider.
Trust – knowing the leader
One of the key factors in creating a safe environment is trust. Let’s be honest, there is risk telling another person your deepest feelings. This is not dependent on the setting either. The only way this is accomplished is through trust. There has to be trust in the person you are giving the information to. Trust that they will use it appropriately, not against you; that they understand that it is important to you, otherwise why would you be bringing it up. Let’s put it into another form, when you first started your relationship with your spouse or significant other, at what point did you start to confide in them? How much was trust a key in that decision? In order for a leader to build that trust they must be involved. There must be a strong relationship. Humans, by design, are relational, since creation. As humans we will not confide in those we do not know. This comes down to a simple fact, how will this disclosed information be used. A leader that is absent does not build a relationship, thus they do not build trust. A leader that “appears” to be involved cannot build a relationship with others as well. There must be genuine involvement for trust to be built. If this trust is not built than the individual is an ineffective leader. One of the best questions to ask individuals that are led, “Do you trust your leader?” No one ever agrees with every decision that any of us make, but if we trust the individual, who is leading us, we will follow them and their decision. That is what leadership is all about. The best definition of leadership is, getting others to do what you want them to do, willingly. The key here is trust, which is how you get the buy in by those that are being led, for the “willingly” aspect of this definition. Many leaders fail to look at themselves in this light. This can, and often does lead to a failure in leadership.
Observation – data verses practical
A skill that is absolutely invaluable as a leader is observation. Law enforcement and medicine have developed this skill to a level that most individuals don’t understand. In these settings poor observation skills can cost someone their life. In management, for most situations, the lack of this skill will not have the same result. But it will cause the misidentifying of internal resources available within the organization. Many managers rely on Meta Data, far too much. Meta Data is very valuable, in a proper context. When data is collected, it has a presupposed purpose. When taking that data, and applying it outside that purpose, it can and often leads to poor results. As a leader, if you are involved with those you lead, you will observe factors that are not easily measured in Meta Data; at least most of the time.
To create a safe environment, when using Meta Data, especially in the evaluation of performance, it must be unequivocally accurate. Those that are being led, in most instances, know exactly how they are performing. They may not have “data” to prove it, but they are very aware of their own performance. When a leader is relying on inaccurate Meta Data, and approach those they lead with it, in the evaluation of their performance, trust is destroyed. As a leader, it is your job to know more about the information you are taking to the ones you lead, then they do. When this does not happen, it demonstrates that it is an unsafe environment. In communication, most of the messages that are transmitted to others, are nonverbal. What message does it send when a leader is using inaccurate information for evaluation of performance? With the advance technology, we have today, it cannot be over emphasized. Accuracy in Meta Data is one of the most critical issues facing management today. It is not just a matter of “knowing” that the information collected is accurate, it comes down to “verifying” that it is. This is another key in creating a safe environment.
Words – encourage or discourage
Another aspect to creating a safe environment are the words that we use to others. Words create emotions, “feelings”; these feelings can be directed in a positive way, resulting in a better outcome of a situation or issue. All words can be placed into two categories, encouraging or discouraging. Some words can be placed in both categories, depending on the context they are used. As a leader, you can approach a negative situation or issue with positive words rather than negative words. This will often lead to many results; correction of the situation or issue, a “buy in” to a resolution, and above all a better “feeling”. All this strengthens relationships, which build trust, which leads to a safer work environment.
Now to build on this concept, as a leader how are you perceived to those you lead. Do they think, when they see you, “what is going wrong now?” This indicates that just your appearance strikes negative emotions. Could this be because as a leader, you might not be as positive, as you think you are to those you lead? This perception can occur for two reasons, the words you use, or how you say the things you say. In other words, as a leader, do you spend more time and effort, when speaking to those you lead, on situations or issues that are negative? This could give the perception that all you see is bad, nothing good. This leads to poor morale and the perception that it is an unsafe work environment. A great concept for a leader is that for every thing that “must” be said that is negative, you need to say two things positive. The challenge with this is it requires a conscious evaluation by an individual. This requires courage and strength.
Openness – unrestricted input
Openness to input encourages the free exchange of ideas and information. This must be internalized for it to be a successful tool in leadership. To place this into a usable perspective let’s look at an application. You decide on an issue or situation; an individual comes up to you and questions your decision. Is the first thing you do or feel a defensive emotion? Better yet, is your reaction to this individual, conveying to them a defensive emotion? If this occurs as a leader, you just demonstrated an unsafe work environment. Again, the key is perspective, and it is not your perspective that is the most important. Being able to understand another point of view, without emotion or the appearance of emotion, builds an openness to the exchange of ideas. This encourages others to do the same. The first ten seconds after someone says something, demonstrates your openness, and determines the perception of a safe work environment. Again, for this key to be useful, it must be internalized; how often do you look at what you say and do as a leader?
Knowing the Job – perception is everything
Another aspect to a safe work environment, as a leader is, do you know the job of the individuals you lead. If you have little experience, and the ones you are leading have little experience, no one is going to know the difference. The expectation would be that you all grow and learn together. This truly takes a different kind of leader, with great skills. On the other hand, if as a leader, you are leading an experienced team, it is quite easy to identify your weakness as a leader, if you do not know the job they perform. It is this situation that screams unsafe work environment. Unfortunately, this is what happens all too often. This does nothing to build trust and a relationship, this is what leads to the perception that it is an unsafe work environment. A key to a great leader is knowing that you must know the job of those that you lead. It does not mean that you can perform the job as well as they do, but you need to understand it to a higher level than they do. This comes down to understanding and seeing a vision rather than just an application of a process. This is demonstrated in every episode of CBS’s “Undercover Boss”. Very often, individuals will say things to each other that they will not tell their leader, this is due to the unsafe work environment. What is most amazing about watching these experiences in these episodes is the question it raises; why are our visions as executive leaders not being relayed correctly to the whole organization? Could the answer be that not enough individuals within our organizations have the same drive for “perfection” as we do?
When a leader, says something to those they lead, that indicates they do not truly understand the job, it does not build trust. If trust is not built, then safety will never be demonstrated. The character of a great leader is to learn that which they do not know, rather than have those that they lead “justify” their actions. When a leader is taking over a new area they do not know, it requires them to spend more time learning, this is often not realized by ineffective leaders. The problem with this situation, these same leaders are never identified either. An organization that has a perceived unsafe work environment needs to evaluate all their leaders for effectiveness. This is the only way to build trust and make it a safe work environment.
Close to Front Line Employees – what the customer knows
Tom Peters in his book, ”In Search Of Excellence” outlines eight principles that excellent organizations have to make them what they are. One of these principles states that they are close to their customers. Many years ago, this looked much different than it does today. The key in this principle is “close”, this does not mean occasional contact, more like daily contact. Unfortunately, for most senior and executive managers, the only way they know their customers today is through their front-line employees. In many cases managers, have not been close to the customer in many years. This has far exceeding implications in the fact that these managers coming up with processes are out of touch with what the job is all about. One great way to build a safe environment is to incorporate these front-line employees with the design of processes that affect their customer interactions. The next aspect is how to know which of your front-line employees are the best at what they do. Often some of your greatest employees are overlooked. This could be attributed to the old saying, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Many times, the quietest employees are the best. They are focused on taking care of the customer, not bringing attention to themselves. These are the “prized jewels” that should be noticed. This is a great characteristic in a leader. The focus is on the team, not an individual. This can also be a good indicator on the effeteness of a leader as well.
Conclusion
One of the most important aspects to any organization is the free exchange of ideas and information. The only way this works is through a safe working environment. In other words, remove the egos. Many of the issues that occur to make a work environment unsafe is the wrong focus. The focus should NEVER be on one person or group of people. It is everyone that makes up the team. Everyone succeeds or fails together, not one person or a group of people. As the information presented here is not to be all inclusive, it is a great start to developing a plan to make your work environment safe. What needs to be kept in mind are that changes like these are not easy. There must be a dedication to implementing them from the top down. In some cases, it requires decisions to be made about ineffective leaders that are not pleasant or easy. It also requires all managers to become much more involved with those they lead.