Police or Purpose

Many moons ago I was a Youth Worker. I once saw a great act of policing. There was a group of young people from a country town visiting Freo. They had gathered in a car park drinking around a mate's ute. They were loud and dropping empty cans/bottles everywhere, but not causing any harm.

A couple of local cops turned up and the older of the 2 leant on the back of the ute and had a yarn to them about street drinking, noise and drink driving. He politely asked them to chuck all the empties into the back of the ute, identified a guy who hadn’t been drinking, eyeballed his licence and then said, “My partner and I are off on patrol, when we get back it would be great if you had cleaned up the cans, and moved you and the ute back to wherever you are staying. If we come back we might need to write some cautions”.

He could have technically thrown the book at them and been much more pushy in his approach. His explanations and requests made sense, and had the group immediately on side. If he’d taken another approach it could have easily escalated with undesirable outcomes for all.

Workplace policy and procedure is similar, I reckon. As a supervisor, employer, or business owner you know that they have their place. From there you have 2 choices:

1. Use them to ‘police’ behaviour and productivity. This approach usually has lots of black and white compliance, criticism, right and wrong involved. The problem is that it rarely motivates people to do a great job. It’s more likely that they’ll adhere to the minimum standard, and/or hide stuff that will draw attention and heat.

2. Tell people about the purpose of them. Involve them in discussions about why they exist and what ‘good’ work looks like in your context. Get people focussed on a good job, not just a compliant one. They’ll be more likely to follow your lead, get excited about doing great work, and evolving great procedures to do it.

That's Encouraging

Encouragement is twice as likely as criticism to create improvement, said Col Fink on Linked In. I asked Col if he had any data to back it up. ‘It feels intuitively right’ said Col. I agree. And there are some numbers too.

Losada and Heaphy did research looking at this in 2004. They don't quantify what "high" vs "medium" performance actually looks like. There has been significant criticism of their methodology since. I reckon as leaders, there are several actionable observations, regardless of validity of the numbers.

1. There is a disproportionate effect of positive reflection vs criticism - this spans territory like saying thanks and well done, gratitude practices, feedback and more.

2. 'Room for improvement' observations have greater traction in an environment biased toward the positive. Maybe that's because it feels like the person making the observations actually cares about us and notices the good stuff too.

3. We are biased to notice problems. I reckon that's the engine room of human success. We notice stuff and forget after improving it. This bias also reduces the likelihood that we'll repeat mistakes. That's the upside. The downside is we feel as if we are not getting anywhere especially in situations when the work is not physically visible or tangible. Positive reflection creates a sense of progress - It's a modern leadership imperative!

4. Whether praising or criticising (self or others) the good stuff happens when we are as clear and specific as possible. "Good Job" is less useful than "The simple layout of that project plan really helped me get my head around it. Thanks for the effort you put into that."

It's counterintuitive to pause and reflect positively on what’s been achieved. You'll be more likely to focus on the intense transactional cadence of getting the next thing done - but it has massive ROI. I reckon Col Fink's intuitive 2:1 is somewhere near the mark and it may even be higher.

How can you encourage someone right now?