Relax, don’t worry about the title: I will be limiting this post to ‘work relationships’…and I don’t mean ‘relationships at work’.
Peter Scholtes wrote that, to understand people, we need to understand relationships. In particular, leading people requires the establishment and nurturing of personal relationships on a daily basis and the encouragement of others to do the same.
He sets out some characteristics of what he calls “a good, old-fashioned one-to-one, face-to-face, first name to first name personal relationship”:
- You listen to each other. You are able to talk to each other;
- Each respects the other and knows how to show this respect; and
- Each knows the other well enough to know their vulnerabilities and cares enough to avoid them.
Now, relationships are hugely important between manager and employee. Unfortunately, these relationships in most organisations are patronising and paternalistic.
The psychiatrist Dr Eric Berne (1910 – 1970) set out three ‘ego states’ – postures that we assume in relation to each other. These are:
- Parent: from nurturing and supportive through to judgmental and controlling;
- Adult: from realistic, logical, rationale through to affectless; and
- Child: from playful and creative through to rebellious and spiteful.
Command and Control management systems necessitate ‘management’ to assume a parent ego state, which often ends up causing the employee to adopt a child-like ego state in reaction. The words ‘boss’ and ‘subordinate’ (both of which I dislike) fit this parent – child relationship narrative.
In reality, we are all adults at work. It just happens that we are employed to play different roles – from helping customers through to running a business division.
It is each leader’s choice as to the ego state they adopt…and therefore the likely ego state that their employees will take in response.
As an example: I find it odd when a manager verbalises to ‘their’ employee that what they are about to say to them is a ‘coaching moment’ (i.e. “…so listen up and take note!”) – how much closer could you get to a parent – child presumption by the manager? It’s akin to what my youngest son refers to as “getting a lecture” from me.
To be clear, I am most certainly NOT saying that I can’t be coached (I clearly can)….but:
- A coachee needs to a) have a personal goal and b) a desire to be coached towards it. You can’t ‘coach’ without these two requisites;
- A leader can equally (and often) be coached by employees, but only if they have their mind opened to be so; and
- Pointing out to someone that ‘this is a coaching moment’ is patronising and presumptuous and demonstrates an (often sub-conscious) intent to enforce a superior (‘alpha’)/ inferior relationship signal…and it generally breaks point 1, so it isn’t actually coaching.
Right, coaching rant over, back to it….
Leaders need to recognise that we are all people (organistic systems), with our own separate purposes (just like them). The need is to establish adult-adult relationships, in which no one sets themselves out as being ‘above’ or ‘better’ than anyone else. If an organisation’s leaders succeed in this then they will have created a hugely powerful environment.
So, moving on to trust:
Healthy relationships require trust. Here’s an interesting figure from Scholtes showing the two converging beliefs that need to coexist for one person to trust another:
I find this figure illuminating. It makes me see that (and understand why) I have had some managers that I have respected and some that I have had (professional) affection for…but trust is much rarer.
Scholtes writes that “When I believe you are competent and that you care about me, I will trust you. Competency alone or caring by itself will not engender trust. Both are necessary.”
A couple of comments on trust:
- I doubt it can be over emphasised that trust is in the eye of the beholder! ‘You’ can say that you care about me and that you know what you are doing but only ‘I’ decide whether I believe this…and I will be looking closely (and constantly) at your actions, not taking your word for it;
- Some command and control managers have the view that employees need to earn their trust…this is the wrong way round! If someone wants to lead, they have to earn the trust of those that they would like to follow them.
KITA management (aka the picture at the top):
Now, onto the idea of KITA management: the term ‘KITA’ was coined by the psychologist and Professor of management, Frederick Herzberg (1923 – 2000)*. It stands for Kick-in-the-(pants)…he was too polite to write what the A actually stood for.
Herzberg wrote about positive KITA (carrots) and negative KITA (sticks)…and here’s why it isn’t motivation:
“If I kick my dog (from the front or the back), he will move. And when I want him to move again, what must I do? I must kick him again…” (Herzberg)
The related problem with KITA thinking is that it locks manager and employee in a highly unhealthy parent-child relationship. Further, when rewards are competitive (which they usually are in some way) KITA thinking creates winners and losers and adversarial relationships among those who should be colleagues.
* Note: Herzberg wrote the classic 1968 article “One More Time, How Do You Motivate Employees?” This is one of the most requested HBR articles of all time and has sold well over 1 million copies.
I’d like to share with you some wise words written by Alfie Kohn under the self-explanatory title ‘Rewards rupture relationships’
“We need to understand what the process of rewarding does to the interaction between the giver and receiver:
If your parent or teacher or manager is sitting in judgement of what you do, and if that judgement will determine whether good things or bad things happen to you, this cannot help but warp your relationship with that person.
You will not be working collaboratively in order to learn or grow; you will be trying to get him or her to approve of what you are doing so that you can get the goodies.
A powerful inducement has been created [through the regular judgement and resulting outcomes] to conceal problems, to present yourself as infinitely competent, and to spend your energies trying to impress (or flatter) the person with power….
… people are less likely to ask for help when the person to whom they would normally turn wields carrots and sticks. Needless to say, if people do not ask for help when they need it, performance suffers on virtually any kind of task.”
…and, in so writing, Alfie eloquently uncovers the damage caused by rewards and the stunting effect they have on the ability of an organisation, and its people, to improve.
The positive bit: It would be great if all of us worked really hard to attain an adult-adult relationship footing…realised when this had been broken by our words and deeds …and, through humility and dialogue, worked even harder to bring it back again.
An apology: I have a rule that a post should only cover one thing…and this one doesn’t appear to! It’s a bit of a journey from relationships, through leadership, coaching, trust, motivation and ending at rewards, which brings it full circle back to what rewards do to relationships.
In fact the topics in this journey do all belong together, under the competency of ‘Understanding people and why they behave as they do’. My intent was to show how they are all so tied up together so I hope you don’t mind me bending my rules 🙂
4 thoughts on “People and relationships”
I’m currently reading, and nearly finished, Barry Oshry’s “Seeing Systems: Unlocking the Mysteries of Organizational Life”. In relation to the subject of this blog post, it’s well worth a read.
It looks at the human systems in organisations, and common archetypes (e.g. ‘tops’, ‘middles’, and ‘bottoms’) and the relationships (or ‘dances’) that often play out both between and within those groups. It reinforces that systems – and in this case organisational hierarchies – are the real drivers of behaviour and performance, and not the people within them. When you put people in to these systems then they typically and frequently fall in to these same patterns of behaviour – which can be destructive for relationships and organisational performance.
Thanks for the recommendation. Sounds interesting…I might add it to my list!
Just came across this article, if you’re interested in a shorter introduction to or summary of some of the key concepts in the book: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1011358770022-122/People+in+Context.pdf
Many thanks for the link to Barry Oshry’s article. I have read and, yes, very interesting stuff!
I am very comfortable with (and really like) his explanation about context.
I’m not sure that his case study works well for me – it rings of applying his thinking within a ‘command and control’ paradigm, with ‘consultants’ coming in to ‘do things to you’ and having a ‘boss’ who looks at your results, rather than comes down to the gemba and thus truly understands what’s going on – i.e. the context!
On reflection, I agree that context is hugely important and we should always ‘stand back’ but I think the underlying management system (which comes from management’s underlying beliefs and behaviours) will have a huge impact on the nature of tops, middles and bottoms.
Again, thanks for sharing and it definitely got me thinking 🙂