Workers want to be mentored, not managed

Some would argue that the look of leadership in the workplace has changed in the past decade. With the dizzying array of new books and updated concepts in management-think, the days of autocratic command the likes of "Chainsaw Al" and Frank Lorenzo have gone the way of the dinosaur, right?

By Gordon Miller

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/business_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_82_3240931,00.html

Maybe not. I regularly put on teleconferences and workshops for job seekers and career changers. According to the results of my recently completed, nonscientific interview of about 500 workers in the Denver area, close to two-thirds of them classified their boss as a "lousy manager." The three top reasons given for that response: Top management doesn’t involve employees in decision making; leaders still endorse the "churn and burn" concept; and most bosses talk a good game but don’t really believe in work-life balance for their people.

So what’s the problem? Shouldn’t the owner or CEO be able to dictate what the company and its workers are going to do? I guess so. But they need to understand that in continuing to practice military-like tactics, they risk losing key staff members in 2005. In fact, one-third of all the employed folks I spoke to said they would switch jobs in 2005 if things don’t change soon.

Employee disloyalty is costly. My anecdotal research of several Denver companies shows that it costs an average of $36,000 to replace a departed employee and $100,000 or more to replace a star performer, the most significant costs being loss of intellectual capital and the negative impact on remaining employee morale and their productivity. And how do you assess the value of those two items?

There is some encouraging news. Approximately three-quarters of the employees who said they will leave in the coming months if things don’t change said they will consider staying with their company if management acknowledges there is a problem and begins seriously considering employee concerns and possible solutions. The operative word being seriously.

Notably, most of the people I talked to say that they want to be mentored, not managed. Their primary driver was the proliferation of bad bosses, or managers who have little training or expertise in dealing with today’s workers. Many said they have a difficult time with old-school leaders who automatically demand respect and support just because they have the title of boss.

Most of the people I spoke with don’t expect that conditions will change overnight, but they do want to see progress. My assessment of the actions they want to see:

• Don’t just ask the work force for their ideas and then routinely dismiss them by not experimenting with some of their suggestions.

• Don’t say in the company mission statement that "employees are our most important asset," then treat them as expendable commodities. Most surveyed workers told me they understand that a poor economy may require a reduction in work force numbers, but strongly believed that there are other ways to reduce costs. Specifically, they want the company to ask them first for their help in creating a plan to cut overhead.

• Quit trying the latest thinking in management strategies every time a new executive arrives.

• Realize that today’s workers will be more productive and perform at a consistently higher level if their bosses learn how to become coaches, cheerleaders and collaborators.

• Focus on promoting into management the people who are skilled at mentoring and coaching people, not the ones who have been successful in other areas or have been around awhile or who have a certain degree

• Bosses become resources to brainstorm new ideas, activists in finding ways to get around company "roadblocks" and trumpet- blowers for their staff.

Will mentoring (not managing) employees work for every company? Probably not. But I’ve seen impressive results from organizations that have made a commitment to create a more positive working environment for their employees. Typically, they include reduced turnover, more open communication, better support of strategic goals, increased productivity and improved morale.

One final thought: The Information Age in business means the continuing emergence of the amount of intellectual capital retained by employees. Companies routinely have invested money and resources in developing their competitive advantages in facilities, equipment, products and the like. Doesn’t it make sense to reroute some of that effort in the direction of the employee and, specifically, what will likely make them more valuable, at least according to them?

Gordon Miller is a workplace strategist, speaker and author. He can be reached at [email protected] or 303-282-9001.