Menu
The subject of choices is an interesting one for business leaders, both in the area of decision-making and in what we expect from people who work with us. For employees, choices abound – the freedom to move between jobs has probably never been better and barriers to education are generally lower – yet people allow themselves to be ruled by fear and limiting beliefs and default to persisting with the status quo even if it makes them unhappy. On some level, they make a choice to accept a situation they are not happy with.
Leaders must decide – decisiveness is a key trait of successful leaders, a willingness to trust your instincts and have the confidence to act and be accountable for those actions.
Decisions begin with choices in a given context. We try to be objective, we take consideration for other stakeholders, we look at the data and where time allows we mull it over in our minds. But ultimately, we have to take a choice and follow through.
We sometimes label our elected choices as the “lesser of two evils” or say that “we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t” – what an outlook?! What does that say of our mindset when it comes to making decisions? There is an inherent pessimism in the consequence of the choice we have to make and we’re consigned to accept a negative outcome. This, I believe, boils down to fear. Great leaders display a fearlessness when it comes to making decisions.
But how do choices impact our colleagues and employees? In the book “Choice Theory”, author William Glasser dedicates a whole chapter to Choice Theory in the workplace and argues that low-quality work is mostly caused by a poor relationship with the person you report to or work with. He references W.E. Deming’s 14 principles of management in the need to drive out fear in order to foster high performing teams. In every workplace hierarchy, leaders (or managers) have a choice in how they approach their relationship with team members – the longstanding standard is to tell them what’s expected and evaluate their work without much consultation or employee collaboration. Over time, the quality of work diminishes as employees do enough to “keep the boss happy”, a cycle of fear persists and if colleagues independently go the extra mile (regardless of their motivation) they are often ostracised. The evolving culture is a toxic ‘divide & conquer’ environment where colleagues are adversaries and progress is suboptimal. But the leader(s) had a choice, which to some degree led to this difficult situation.
The alternative choice is an investment in time and effort on behalf of the leader – empowering all staff to be active collaborators in how work is carried out, leaders demonstrate how work might be done but leaves room for employees to find a smarter way of operating. It gives employees a choice – be an active participant in a better way of working or be ‘bossed around’.
With appropriate performance indicators, operational efficiency can be measured and provides a platform for greater accountability and employee engagement. Where there is an understanding of quality in terms of output, leaders need only provide the tools, environment and measures of success for a business to thrive – team members can and should do the rest.
At the core of this choice for managers and leaders is the care factor – do they care about matters such as adversarial work environments, job satisfaction, eliminating fear? Or do they just care about making more money faster and at a lower cost? For some managers, the problem originates in the choice they made for themselves to be measured on financial metrics alone, instead of the fostering a winning workplace culture which can reap rewards over the longer term. For others, simply creating the impression of caring will suffice – but eventually this insincerity gets found out and the toxicity mentioned earlier bubbles to the surface.
Viktor Frankl’s chronicle of life as a prisoner in Nazi prison camps – “Man’s Search for Meaning” – illustrates that choice exists even in the most dire human existence. The human spirit is capable of enduring far more than the world of business and work can throw at us, yet people seem shackled to unfulfilling jobs and unsatisfying workplaces. They cling on to the notion of “a good job”, even though its impact on their physical and mental health is far from good. Very often, they are clinging on to a pay cheque and associated benefits and will ‘grind out’ their days to protect it.
I heard an anecdote recently of a middle-aged woman who really didn’t like her job (a job she’d held for more than 20 years) – she said she couldn’t wait to retire – SIXTEEN YEARS from now! A life sentence. Her choice is to suffer through a job she dreads for 16 more years, in order to enjoy retirement. That seems a risky bet, no matter how grand the retirement plans might be.
When a job becomes too difficult or frustrating or too boring or overwhelming in some way, it’s largely because of the choices we either make or fail to make. And yet still, there is a choice. Business leaders need to recognise that if they don’t value their employees by providing them with a choice, the smart ones will eventually provide themselves with one while the disinterested sleepwalkers will ‘grind it out’ to retirement.
“If the path be beautiful, let us not ask where it leads,” is a quote from famed 19th century French poet, Anatole France, which feels pertinent here. We don’t always know where our choices will take us but taking the less beautiful path to the unknown reward of idyllic retirement seems like the wrong journey to be on.
Ultimately, we only have direct control over our own behaviour and the choices we make as individuals. If we focus on fulfilling our own needs while respecting the needs of others and fostering healthy relationships based on a mutual understanding and collaborative effort, then the path can be more beautiful and the destination more fruitful. It sounds easy in theory but in practice, it can be challenging. Regularly communicating on mutual understanding and being mindful of the fact that we all approach work from different contexts leads to a more harmonious environment and a greater likelihood for ‘all hands on deck’ to face the challenges that present themselves.
