Are managers paid to provide answers or ask questions?

Let me say at the outset that the headline of this post is not applicable in situations where life threatening matters have to be addressed or there is an emergency.

However, once the situation is in control, the information in this article will be of immense value to those who manage teams and are deeply interested in making their team members self-reliant.  

Now that we have some clarity on the scope of the discussion let us explore the background behind employees asking questions and managers providing answers.

Why employees ask questions?

Employees or colleagues ask questions when they face a dilemma or they need clarification on an issue. The employees are justified in asking questions from their managers and supervisors. Where else would they go? On the other hand, employees use their managers as a Go-To person because soliciting response from someone else is lot convenient compared to mentally stretching self.  And by the way, if the answer does not lead to the desired outcome the responsibility can be easily shifted to the one who provided the answer.

Why managers love to answer questions?

Managers are doers and therefore the natural response when a question is asked is to provide the answer.  It is also true when we answer questions it massages our ego and when we direct the action of others we feel like a super human. Many employees can sense this weakness and leverage the desire of the manager to be superman to their advantage.  Needless to say that there are obvious benefits for making the boss feel good.

Unfortunately when we provide answers we miss the opportunity to coach and develop the employee. There is a Buddhist saying that when the student is ready the teacher will come-and when the student asks a question he is ready to learn. The manager does not have to be the teacher in the traditional sense as a slightly different approach is required to convert the situation into a learning moment.

How does it work?

If someone has managed a team than they have definitely been asked some time or the other-boss what should I do? The natural inclination is to provide the answer to the hapless fellow. This benevolent attitude may become a obstacle when it comes to developing employees.  On the other hand, it is an ideal situation for helping the person develop his/her own insights.

 Let us review a conversation between a manager and an employee. The employee was asked to develop a curriculum for an induction program and he has not started on the project. During a routine meeting following conversation took place:

Employee: Boss what are some of the topics that should be included in the induction program?

Manager: What is your intent here do you already have a list of topics that you want to share with me or you would like to generate some ideas?

Employee: I could not come up with any good topics

Manager:  It looks like that you have given it some thought, what would be some of the topics that came to your mind?

Employee: I have never managed an induction program so I do not know

Manager: Let us put our thinking cap on-put yourself in the shoes of a brand new employee; what would be some of things that you would like to know about your new employer? (Let the employee think aloud with some answers). 

By now if the employee has a healthy list of topics, the manager can follow-up by asking topics that should be covered from the company’s perspective. The conversation can be extended to cover validation of the topics by other stakeholders, ensuring that the agenda can be covered in the stipulated time frame, short listing speakers etc.

Last but not the least; the manager must inquire about the learning from the discussion and how the insights developed will be useful for the employee in handling similar situations.

In case this line of questioning does not help, the manager can direct the employee to other sources for information (speak to someone in similar situation; or read an article—the employee is supposed to do the legwork). If the employee is unable to develop a robust agenda the manager can fill in with some additional information but the answers should be offered in a manner that it does not give an impression that the manager is attached to the information. Otherwise the employee will not take ownership of the ideas and nor would any learning take place.

Why not just give the answer it is quick and easy?

Yes, it would have been easy to rattle off the answers as soon as the question was asked; there is a possibility that the quality of the manager’s list would have been slightly better than the one which the employee created but the ownership of the employee would have been limited. Moreover, in future every time the employee would have been stuck he would be back at the manager’s desk.

What are the benefits?

Plentiful for all the stakeholders. The manager gets an opportunity to develop an employee and make him self-reliant. Work situations where such dialogues are routine succession planning and talent management get on the auto pilot. The employee is motivated as he or she has learnt something new which can be applied to other situations.

As I had said earlier the role of the manager has evolved over the years. In the knowledge economy workers despise managers who are just score keepers. When the manager and the employee are job satisfied, it means higher performance, greater engagement and retention; all this translates into higher top and bottom line for the organization.

Have you worked with a manager who encouraged you to find your own answers? I am eager to hear your experience.

Tenure and success in the IPL: lessons for the business world

Chennai Super Kings won the IPL 4; by the way they also won IPL 3; and have appeared in 3 of the 4 finals since the tournament began. Volumes have been written about the underlying reasons for the success of CSK. Depending on who is commenting, several theories have been forwarded by the experts. Some claim that it was the magic of Dhoni’s captaincy, others say that it was the team composition (Steve Fleming claimed that team selection was done keeping in mind the home condition) and some also point out that CSK benefited by retaining maximum number of players from the past editions of the IPL. It is public knowledge that during the auction CSK retained M.S. Dhoni, Suresh Raina, M Vijay and Albie Morkel; and also aggressively bid for R Ashwin, S Badrinath and Doug Bollinger.  What should not go unnoticed is the fact that Stephen Fleming, the coach, has been part of the team since the first edition first as a player and now as a coach.

Experience and tenure

It may be difficult to identify a single reason for CSK’s success, as each of the points shared by the experts had some role. It is well known that leadership plays an important role in professional sports and in corporate world. Further, good team composition is essential for achieving success, as it is the team which implements the strategy. The third point, retention of high performers from the previous editions of the IPL says a lot about the management’s attitude and faith in experience. It is open knowledge that decisions in the IPL revolve around money but in the end retaining talent was not only good business but also the winning strategy.

On the other hand, Royal Challengers Bangalore had a good tournament last year but barring Virat Kholi they went for a complete makeover of their team-unfortunately the results did not change much. Delhi Dare Devils and KKR cannot be questioned for rebuilding their teams.

Retaining talent, encouraging tenure has several benefits:

Most of the time talent development efforts are limited to the top 2-3% of the employees, completing ignoring the core. There may be a differentiated and less featured program for the core but nonetheless attention to this group is equally critical. This is your middle class solid and gives continuity to the business. In an organization, the HR is responsible for promoting talent development but the onus of execution is with the immediate managers.

Companies which focus on developing and retaining talent enjoy all round benefits. By the way, organizations who don’t invest in developing talent don't focus on retaining talent either. They are happy recruiting talent from other sources. The jury is still out on how beneficial is this strategy in the long rum. Some of the benefits of having a specific talent retention and development strategy are:

• It reduces costs of hiring and retraining employees
• It is a great way to build a management bench and attract new talent
• Investment in further developing tenured employees is proportionately less
• Talented tenured employees are great ambassadors for the organization- they help build culture

Why do talented employees leave?

There are several reasons why employees leave their organization. The key among them is that they are no longer growing in the organization. And people and products have one common trait; if they don’t grow they go. Therefore, it is important for organizations to create an environment in which their most important asset can flourish.

Is growth the only driver?

Not really. The current tangle between Chris Gayle versus West Indies Cricket Board is a good case in point.  An organization may bestow all the money, training and title to an individual but if it cannot fulfil the basic human need of appreciation, respect, love and recognition the employee would look elsewhere. The current crisis is a timely reminder to all managers; don’t forget to hug and appreciate your employees from time to time, they may not be asking for a raise or a promotion but just a pinch of acknowledgement of their services to the organization.