After complaining about a perceived lack of reference check calls, I received the second in a week, after a long dry spell. Probably not a trend, but it was heartening to see another company checking references.
The call brought up a few additional thoughts:
- I’ve noticed that when someone who worked for me years ago needs a reference, I sometimes find it harder to remember the specific assignment than to remember how well he or she did the job. I know who I can give a good recommendation to, but once or twice, I’ve fumbled the supposedly “easy” question, “what did he/she do for you?” even when I knew without a doubt that he or she did a good job on the now-forgotten assignment.
- The most recent call came from a company that does contract services in the IT area. While I’m not currently in the market for such services, the fact that they demonstrated at least a degree of due diligence in hiring is a plus that I would consider in evaluating the company for possible work.
- The same company send a thank you note, which in addition to being a nice gesture, provided them with an opportunity to sell their services. It’s rare that an advertisement comes across as a plus, but I admire companies that recognize the importance of spreading a wide net, as long as they don’t overdo it.
Give them the objective, not the means
In a recent blog entry, ‘The relentless search for “tell me what to do,”‘ Seth Godin identifies a crucial tension in the manager/employee relationship. The tension is simple to explain, but hard to manage. Employees want to be told what to do, which is a reasonable request. However, when managers respond to that question, they shift at least some responsibility for the outcome to themselves.
In Godin’s view, the biggest reason employees ask this question is to shift responsibility, and his response is to resist the urge to answer.
I agree, but in practice, things are not quite that simple. Managers exist at least in part to tell employees what to do. If they refuse to provide direction, they abdicate part of their responsibility. At the same time, they need to provide that direction in such a way that the employee takes responsibility for the outcome, even though (to the corporation) responsibility will still ultimately rest with the manager (the buck needs to stop somewhere).
How does a manager address these tensions? In my experience it comes down to the distinction between the objectives and the means used to reach those objectives. This is not as easy as it may seem. We regularly think of objectives as things like, “clean the floor,” “remove the appendix,” or “convert all user documentation to XML.” While these things sound like objectives, I would suggest that the real objectives in these three examples are more like the following, respectively, “limit the damage that dust in the facility can cause to people and machinery,” “avoid the potential internal infection a burst appendix would cause,” or “reduce the cost of producing both online and print documentation.”
The necessary actions may be the same in all three cases, but by dealing with the actual objectives you gain some important advantages:
In general, if your objectives embody the organization’s goals (for example, making money or saving lives) you’re headed in the right direction. Then, engage employees in determining the means used to reach those goals, giving them as much latitude as you can. Finally, get out of their way and let them own their work.