For leaders and “coaches” in business, education, and today’s “remote-friendly” office environment, meaningful connection with subordinates who need our wisdom and guidance can prove challenging.
Lou Cartier (Courtesy/Lou Cartier)At stake is the fragility of productive “face time” with direct reports and key personnel. Since COVID, the tyranny of flattened organization charts, adaptive technology, and depleted emotional reserves tasks even the most self-aware, empathic manager.
As working from home has become normative (despite pushback from C-suites), so too is familiar management hierarchy being “delayered.” Leaders at every level, responsible for more and ever larger teams, pressed to decline legitimate meeting requests from subordinates, are overwhelmed.
Absent sufficient “bandwidth” to provide actionable project and/or career guidance, some managers delegate one-on-ones to a junior associate or senior peer. That may satisfy high-performing risk takers, one might say, but reasonable accommodation for every valued employee with an annoying itch to scratch?
Documentation of this new paradigm by the Wall Street Journal (“Your boss doesn’t have time to talk to you”) speaks to me. Notwithstanding my reduced teaching load this fall, the new semester demands prudent management of my own time and mental bandwidth.
Come November, in a five-week certificate class on business ethics and values, students will tackle the why’s and how’s of ethical decision-making at work. Ideally, prompt, purposeful feedback from their wise, battle-tested instructor will help them learn and grow.
As the Journal reported last weekend, business largely has accommodated the evolution of World War II era “command and control” management to a more selfless model, one capable of nudging both productivity AND professional development from subordinates.
“Bosses have become not just supervisors, but leaders, meant to build trust, inspire employees, and give them a sense of purpose.”
And yet, expectations continue to mount. These days, “engagement” is built on mutual trust and respect. “Servant leaders” nourish potential through collaboration and humility, where employees “are seen for who we are at our best.”
From my own experience with performance evaluations — as giver and receiver of purposeful feedback — I wrestle with competing notions of philosophy and practice. For example, can managers reliably and consistently provide objective feedback to those under their supervision? Can students be trusted to rate themselves — if only they are asked?
Or might we folks in authority worry that our pointed feedback leads to hurt feelings, diminished productivity or other unintended harmful consequences, and thus temper authentic counseling?
Given impressive evidence over the past decade or so to explain human motivation and extol trust as a cardinal workplace virtue, how maddening this accountability “dance” must seem to the boss who shudders at being thought of as servile, or simply too burdened.
For the record, let us characterize helpful feedback as prompt, transparent, personalized and “actionable.” Such interaction reinforces a goal and invokes concrete examples, consistently over time. For college faculty, it looks like this:
A required teaching observation finds, “Your students were bored!” Ouch. No matter the tone, these words convey judgment rather than advice. A defensive reaction from the instructor is likely to color this developmental opportunity.
Alternatively, “I observed 10 students texting or whispering during your lecture. However, once the small group exercise began, I saw such behavior in only one person.” Better?
Concrete, specific, actionable feedback is not necessarily up for debate. With credit to a complementary research article in the Harvard Business Review, the aim is to spark a conversation about what you have tried, what you learned, whom you have helped, and what difference was made in their work and yours.
On another scale, would a coach wait days, weeks, even months to exploit a “teachable moment” on the practice field or after a gametime play? Surely not, for feedback received in real time allows athletes to quickly adapt their performance and ready themselves for positive, lasting change, if not short-term improvement.
Ideally, supervisors regularly engage employees in thoughtful conversations about their current strengths, future goals, and how to bring those elements closer in line with corporate expectations. They delight in exercising their coaching chops.
Absent sufficient “bandwidth,” how will the modern manager cope?
The Journal found one who simply refuses to ask about personal matters. She will “not chitchat about life outside of work unless a team member brings it up.” Another makes up for limited one-on-ones with subordinates by blocking out “coaching hours” every Friday.
Readers may suggest other “people strategies” to respond to employees feeling adrift and bosses lamenting their disconnect. Love to hear more … to be shared in a future column?
Cartier has enjoyed a 55-year career in journalism, educational advancement and teaching. Transitioning into formal retirement, he values opportunities to explore ethical leadership and personal behavior that underlies success at home, in school and at work.
Hence then, the article about opinion lou cartier employees need attention bosses bandwidth was published today ( ) and is available on GreeleyTribune ( Saudi Arabia ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( (Opinion) Lou Cartier: Employees need attention, bosses, bandwidth )
Also on site :
- Blackhawks vs Jets — Toews’ Return, Lineups, Broadcast Info, Game Thread
- Miguel Delaney answers your Premier League questions – from the next manager to be sacked to surprise January transfers
- Bishop Barron Says ICE Should Focus On 'Serious' Criminals, Urges Protesters to 'Cease Interfering'