Gallup finds more reasons to micromanage

A new study from the Gallup Management Journal has discovered that igorning your employees may be even more harmful than focusing on their weaknesses. Not unexpectedly, focusing on employee strengths yields the best results of all.  You may know that I'm an unabashed fan of micromanaging, and this data provides more fuel for my micromanagement fire!

Micromanagement yields the best results.
I define micromanagement as actively managing employees' performance, helping them become successful, and gradually providing them with more and more autonomy as they demonstrate competency and earn trust. This definition is very consistent with a "strengths-based" management philosophy.

In Gallup's study, managers that focus on employee strengths have the most engaged employees (61%) and the fewest actively disengaged employees (1%).

Micro-meddling yields worse results.
Often confused with micromanagement, micro-meddling is a management approach that focuses on employee weaknesses. Micro-meddlers don't set clear expectations and spend their time correcting performance rather than encouraging growth. Unlike micromanagers who loosen the reins over time, micro-meddlers make it impossible for employees to earn trust and autonomy.

In Gallup's study, managers that focus on employee weaknesses engage (on average) 45% of their employees while an average of 22% of their employees are actively disengaged.

Not managing is worst of all.
The hands-off approach is even worse than micro-meddling. Gallup found that only 2% of employees who felt ignored by their managers were engaged compared to 40% who were actively disengaged. Managers who fail to provide clear and consistent direction or any feedback often choose this style because they want to avoid conflict, want to achieve a positive reputation with their employees, or are simply overwhelmed with other responsibilities.  Whatever the cause, this is clearly the worst way to go.

Check out an article on Gallup's study here.

Read my post, "Long Live the Micromanager" for more info.

Forget the averages - service happens one person at a time

Most of you have heard about the rash of recent flight cancellations due to bankruptcy (Aloha Airlines, ATA, etc.), safety concerns (American Airlines, Delta, Southwest, etc.), and the usual weather problems experienced at this time of year. Thousands of travelers have been impacted, creating a major customer service headache for these airlines. I'll avoid the statistics for a moment and suggest that our impressions of service in these situations come down to two questions:

1. Was I directly impacted?
2. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes", how was I treated?

Example #1: American Airlines

I was directly impacted by weather delays when I flew American Airlines to Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago. I had to spend an extra night in D.C., so the answer to question #1 was "Yes, I was directly impacted." It's one thing to read about thousands of people you don't know being delayed or stranded, but it's another thing to be one of them!

Fortunately, I encountered a kind ticket agent, Thomas Lee, who gave me a hotel voucher and booked me on the first available flight home the next day. Mr. Lee said they weren't normally able to provide hotel vouchers due to weather delays, but weather hadn't yet been "officially" logged as the cause, so he was able to get me into a hotel at no charge. So, the answer to #2 was "I felt as though I was treated well."

Example #2: A customer service call center
Last week, I gave a talk on Employee Engagement to a San Diego networking group for call center professionals called CCPN. Preparing for the talk reminded me that an organization may have an average customer service rating of 85%, but that doesn't mean every agent satisfies 85% of their customers. More likely than not, some agents satisfy nearly 100% of their customers while other agents may satisfy less than 50%. Your personal impression of their customer service all depends on which agent you get when you call - the 100% person or the 50% person.

Here's an example from a small call center I managed several years ago. Our goal for quality assurance monitoring scores was 85%. Over one particular period we achieved that 85% goal. Pretty good, huh? Well, not really. When you looked at average monitoring scores by individual rep, you noticed some interesting trends (names have been changed to protect the innocent).

Our average was 85%, but I was really hoping customers would get Cara (100% average), Kristy (100% average), or even Betty (95% average). Conversely, I cringed every time Preston (70% average) and especially Steve (55% average) took a call. Preston and Steve were both given opportunities to improve and eventually asked to leave the organization, but that didn't change the impact they had on the customers they spoke with.

Lessons Learned
My call center experience taught me the value of having top performers and how necessary it was to improve or move performers who couldn't meet the minimally acceptable standards. I also suggest companies like American Airlines pay special attention to hiring and developing more people like Thomas Lee. I've flown American since then as a direct result of his service. I have two trips coming up and I'll probably fly American again thanks to him.