Are You a Leader That Listens? Or a Leader That Hears?

Leaders often ask their employees for input when making decisions big and small, and listen with great sincerity and intent. If workers are given the opportunity to provide input, they figure, workers will be more accepting of the decisions, committed to the process, and invested in the desired outcomes, simply because they feel heard.

Not necessarily.

The problem is that while asking for input is important, and actively and respectfully listening to what employees have to say is critical, often workers don’t grasp the “bigger picture” that the leader is trying to address. As a result, sometimes a leader reaches conclusions and implements actions that appear to be contrary to the input provided. As a result, employees aren’t likely to get on board, and are more likely to question both the process and outcome. Even worse, they may get angry and lose trust in the leader because they feel as if their thoughtful advice was ignored. If this becomes a frequent pattern of behavior, employees will come to believe that leaders are just pretending to be interested, gathering input primarily to keep people from complaining.

Clearly, the answer is not that leaders should abdicate to mob rule and blindly follow the advice given by their employees. But, there are actions leaders can take to help employees feel as if they were heard, even if the final decision isn’t precisely what they recommended, to maintain trust within the organization.

Make certain employees actually understand you are actively seeking their input. Many is the time a leader interacts with those down the ladder. Usually, associates appreciate the attention, and the respect that such acknowledgement of their presence and contribution such interaction subtly signifies. However, many is also the time that a leader uses such interaction to seek input, without the employee understanding that they have become involved in a decision-making process. The risk of this is that once a decision is made, an employee might disagree with it. When they subsequently complain, they may be told they had been given the opportunity to provide input when in their mind they had not. This will not only erode trust but will actively arouse suspicion and impair future efforts at seeking employee input and engagement.

Be clear on the goal. One common issue is a cognitive disconnect regarding how employees and managers each perceive the desired outcome. If each party’s goal is different, the approaches to reaching it will often be different. As a result, when asking for input, a leader has to clearly, but not paternalistically, explain what the goal is, how the goal as leadership defines it is important, and why that particular desired outcome should take precedence over other possible goals. Successfully communicated, even if employees may disagree, they should be able to see the rationale of the decisions made, and the fact that management has a logical argument and takes the time to articulate it will help the worker feel heard.

An understandable hypothetical example could be as follows – A business owner asked associates for recommendations about how to increase employee retention. Given that request for input, a high proportion of employees might cite salary as an issue causing people to leave. If the leader then unveils initiatives to increase retention, with improved salary not included as a potential solution, employees might be puzzled and feel ignored. If employees then ask why their feedback wasn’t being acted upon, they might be told that salary just wasn’t a financially viable option in their competitive business.

Had the leader been clear upfront, the leader likely would have received better recommendations. If he had stated the rational and specific goal about seeking ways to increase retention, given salary constraints on the company, employees would have been less angry about their advice being ignored, and might have been more motivated to provide useful suggestions in the first place..

Even if a manager thinks the goal is clear, he or she needs to define specifically what types of recommendations are being sought—and what are not. If there are areas that are off-limits, he or she should disclose that to keep employees from feeling resentful about having their recommendations shunted aside.

Show how recommendations contributed to the decision, even if the final decision differs from the advice. Being specific about how the recommendations are reflected in the decisions and actions being taken is a critical step in helping employees see that someone was not only listening, but that they were heard. For example, Leadership of a manufacturing company sought to reduce the time it took manufacturing to respond to customer orders. Across the board, first line supervision and middle management strongly felt that equipment setup and changeover times had a huge impact on shop floor responsiveness. Looking further into the issue while trying to identify all the potential non-value-added activities to eliminate, Leadership discovered that a different function entirely was driving scheduling decisions based on metrics entirely unrelated to customer service. Ultimately, Leadership made changes to the company’s production planning methods first instead of immediately attacking setup reduction, and profoundly improved customer service almost overnight. However, Leadership did sit down the employees who had so passionately provided input and explained why, right now, different improvements were being pursued, but that their set up and changeover suggestions were next in line as valuable continuous improvement activities that would help the company become even more competitive.

Explain why recommendations weren’t followed. Rather than just talking about the solution that was going to be implemented, the manager who sought to speed up responses to customers’ requests also talked about why she wasn’t doing what employees recommended right now, and included specific reasons why the recommendations from the employees weren’t acted upon.
While employees would like to see their recommendations followed, in the final analysis what they—and their managers—want is for the issues to be addressed effectively so the pain point goes away. Employees’ recommendations are focused on issues that employees see and believe need to be fixed, so addressing them is critical to maintaining open lines of communication within the organization.
If employees feel managers incorporate their perspective into the decision making in a meaningful way, they are less likely to be upset if the specifics of what they recommended aren’t followed exactly, as long as the resolution is effective.
In summary…
• Make sure you employees clearly understand you are purposefully seeking input.
• Be clear up front about why you seek input, and about the boundaries and parameters that are “in bounds” and “out of bounds” for potential recommendations and advice.
• Show how employee advice impacted and influenced the ultimate decision, even if the decision took a different direction than employees advocated for.
• Respectfully explain why suggestions were not followed.
• Follow this blog to keep informed

What can you do?
• Bookmark this blog to stay informed (press CTRL + D for Windows users or Command + D for Mac users)
• Follow MAGNET on LinkedIn and Twitter
• Reach out to john.hattery@magnetwork.org if you want to discuss your organization’s project and program management, cybersecurity, procurement, product, operations, quality, workforce, specialized custom equipment, or other challenges

Print
Posted by John Hattery in Culture, Management, Workforce

Most Recent

MAGNET’S 2018 NORTHEAST OHIO MANUFACTURING SURVEY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

February 22, 2018 by Sam Wasylyshyn

HEADLINE The survey definitively shows that product innovation leads to more growth, while “grow your own workforce” strategies will be needed to fill the major labor shortages hampering small manufacturer growth. Emerging technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, and digital manufacturing are beginning to enhance innovation and productivity, but still have significant room for adoption amongst Ohio’s small manufacturing businesses. ABOUT THE SURVEY Under the direction of the Ohio Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Ohio MEP), MAGNET: The Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth Network conducted a thorough survey of Ohio’s manufacturing base. Contributing approximately 20% of Ohio’s jobs (and driving in some regions up to 50% of Ohio’s economy), and generating a disproportionate amount of export revenues and Gross Regional Product, manufacturing is critical to Ohio. Greater than 95% of Ohio’s manufacturers are small (under 500 employees), and these manufacturers need to remain competitive both nationally and internationally to ensure our economy’s health. Ohio’s Development Services Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which runs the MEP, recognizes the importance of this sector and fuels MAGNET and the Ohio MEP program to directly serve and support innovation, efficiency, and growth in small and medium manufacturers. What manufacturers need

Manufacturing is Facing a New Reality

February 06, 2018 by Sam Wasylyshyn

How Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Can Help Keep Our Engineers Safe and Our Manufacturing Strong Recall how difficult it was to put together complex LEGO creations when you were a child or helping a child. Now, picture assembling a fighter plane from a room full of parts. Even highly trained engineers can benefit from technology to help improve consistency and quality. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are making near-perfect assembly a possibility in the manufacturing space. By wearing AR glasses that use cameras, depth sensors and motion sensors to overlay images onto the real working environment, engineers and factory workers can visualize the exact bolts, parts, part numbers and instructions on how to assemble a particular component correctly. Lockheed Martin began using AR goggles and improved F-35 assembly time by 30 percent, in addition to increasing accuracy to 96 percent[1]. In order to remain competitive, businesses should consider the ways VR and AR can improve efficiency and supply chain productivity. According to a recent BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research report[2], AR platforms can provide companies up to 25 percent in cost savings on installation of equipment. Here are four ways VR/AR is disrupting the mid-market manufacturing space:

Is Technology Your Thing? Connect with TechLink

February 06, 2018 by Sam Wasylyshyn

Why should you consider TechLink? To date: More than 1,270 technology transfer partnerships brokered between companies and 110 DoD labs or centers, including all 65 DoD labs that generate patented inventions More than 600 license agreements facilitated between DoD and companies nationwide, transferring over 1,000 DoD inventions to industry Facilitated 60% of total DoD licensing agreements over the past 10 years What does TechLink Specialize in? TechLink specializes in 10 technology areas: Energy, BioTech, Materials, Sensors, Photonics, Software/Info Technology, Military Technology, Electronics and Environmental Technologies. 4 Ways TechLink can help you: Actively market DoD inventions to industry nationwide Help companies evaluate these inventions and submit license applications Facilitate communications between DoD labs and companies leading to “win-win” license agreements for both parties Maintain the nation’s only comprehensive database of DoD-patented inventions, fully searchable through techlinkcenter.org Why should you believe in TechLink? Check out the TechLink technology database and the Technology Spotlight for regular updates on available technologies and contact information for the related Technology Manager. The Manager will help you assess the technology for your company needs, facilitate your connection with DoD, and walk you through the licensing process. Most DoD inventions have civilian and commercial applications. DoD technologies licensed by TechLink have generated