K-State Research and Extension

“The Key to Communication”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

We’ve all seen effective public speakers, and we’ve all probably met somebody who likes to listen to themselves talk. But in the management context, listening may be the most under-valued skillset of the effective communicator.

A wise man once said, “When the quiet guy in the meeting speaks up, pay attention. While everybody else has been talking, he’s been listening and thinking.” How can a team leader really meet the needs of the team if those needs aren’t known? And the only way to learn those needs is to listen—all the time.

Many managers tire of being told the value of the periodic review process. The workplace usually affords the manager plenty of opportunities to tell their team what’s not going well or what’s being done wrong. But without an intentional, purposeful, regular time set aside for 2-way dialog about the workplace, the needs of the team will likely never be heard, until it’s too late to effectively address these needs.

The needs could be personal, professional, or work environment-related. There could be problems—or good things—going on at home that the manager should be aware of. There may be potentially unsafe work conditions that a few minor changes could rectify. The team member may have both aspirations and abilities for greater challenge and opportunities; if the leader doesn’t capitalize on these abilities, the team member’s next employer will.

The point is: Catch people doing something right 7 times for each 1 time you correct them. To do that, you’ve got to spend time with them. And one way to do that is by regularly scheduling time to discuss issues well before they become crisis.

“You’re a Great Communicator, But is Anybody Listening?”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

It’s been said by experts many times, “Catch your team doing something RIGHT!” But do you?

This is something that seems so simple to say, and seems like exactly the right way to keep people motivated, but it just doesn’t seem to be all that popular. I’ve even heard a suggestion that we should catch the team doing something right 7 times for every criticism we make. I’m not sure I manage a 1:1 ratio, let alone 7:1.

But what if your supervisor followed this principle? Would you feel better about the choices you made, feel more successful in your duties, and feel motivated to get after it and improve the 1 thing out of 8 that needed improvement? Of course you would—we all would.

Just like many practices for effectively managing people, this is something that requires vigilance and intentionality on your part. It may not be “who you are”, but that doesn’t matter if it’s the right thing to do. Set your ego aside and say to yourself, “I can do better.” Make a point to catch your team doing things RIGHT, instead of always simply looking for things they’re doing wrong.

This shouldn’t just be a mechanism to get people to do what you want, this is how we treat human beings when we genuinely care about them.

If we have good people on the team, they’re not going to storm off the job because you didn’t give them their daily warm-and-fuzzy. But they may quit listening to the constant “constructive criticism”, simply because they’re numb. They can probably finish your sentences for you because you’ve corrected their work hundreds of times. Not that your comments are off-target, but if they’re not heard, are you even getting through?

We all have a different “language” in which we prefer to communicate. Unless you hire clones of yourself, it’s a pretty sure bet that someone, if not most people, on your team may want to communicate differently than you do.

So your simple choice is to keep communicating how YOU prefer and risk being tuned out by your team, or stop and listen to the signals your team is sending. I guarantee that they’ll be loud and clear, if you care enough to listen for them.

“Buses, Horses and Bridges”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Communication – a pretty good word. Unfortunately, we (mea culpa) in the management and human resources community have so abused, infused, and over-used this word in every conceivable manner, that it has become impotent. Simply reading it our mind glazes over with a milky residue. We’ve wasted and ruined a really good word.

But although effective communication is a critical part of effective leadership, most managers are so bogged down in the grind of daily decision-making, improved methods of communication are rarely studied by most managers. There may be a perception on the manager’s part that they were promoted because one of their myriad skills is an innate ability to communicate. Or, as is often the case in agriculture, “I own this outfit so when I talk, you’ll listen.” The latter may be a reality, but it doesn’t make anyone an effective leader.

We are probably by now all familiar with Jim Collins’ “Good to Great” metaphor of getting the right people on the bus—it seems pretty intuitive. Even a bad manager probably gets that one, and gets it right. But what happens after they’re all on the bus and it’s pointed down the road? That’s when we see differences between effective management and less so. If you’ve gotten the “right” people on the bus, then how much management really needs to happen? Wouldn’t you do everything possible to remove obstacles from productivity and give these “right” people increasing freedom to accomplish what they’ve been put on the bus for? This is when effective leaders give their “horses their head”, and trust them to move out in the right direction and with confidence. Or else they weren’t the “right” people to begin with.

Or maybe they are only considered “right” if they are automatons which only perform those actions directed by the team leader. I would imagine that would be very satisfying for some managers, but it would also put a very firm ceiling on productivity. Team members couldn’t function independent of the leader, and since the leader couldn’t be everywhere, the bigger the team, the lower the ceiling on each member’s productivity. So let’s go back to step one: getting the right people on the bus. Automatons which are incapable of functioning without constant, intrusive, direction from above may be right for some types of businesses, but not many.

Now let’s get back to communication. We’ve hired creative, ambitious, energetic, and qualified people to take the team forward. Most times the effective manager needs to get out of their way, remove obstacles and let them produce—give them their head. But certainly other times, the manager needs to effectively communicate. You can choose two approaches at this point. One: assume all people are just like you and want to be communicated with in exactly the same manner that you want to communicate. Or, two: assume that few if any people are exactly like you and may actually receive the message more effectively if brought in a slightly (or dramatically) different package. This is where the truly effective communicator ALWAYS crosses the bridge to the person to whom they are communicating. Insisting on staying on your side of the valley separating two completely different communication styles and yelling across the chasm may be the most expeditious decision, but rarely the most effective. This may involve using a different media, a different setting, different words, or simply a different tone. .

Management is hard work. But it’s not just hard because it requires difficult decisions in a challenging economic environment, it’s also hard because it requires homework and preparation. The best coaches come in early and stay late—long after the players have hit the showers. Part of this homework is getting to know who you’ve got on your bus. The only way to achieve effective communication to a diverse audience of team members is through intentional study of each team member, knowing how they’ll best hear your message, and cross the bridge.

“Alert the Media: People are Different!”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

People are different. We all understand that implicitly. But in reality, our nature and our reflex is to interact with people like we would interact with ourselves. Unfortunately, that might not be the straightest and smoothest path to good results.

During Operation Desert Storm, General Norman Schwartzkopf posted his Myers-Briggs Type (an assessment of preferences for how you relate to the world) above his cot, and his Chief of Staff required that every single person who ever needed to meet with the General read a synopsis of this Type before having the opportunity to interact with the General. This ensured that each person understood how to most efficiently communicate with the General to save time. It is probably unnecessary to state here that the General DID NOT read everyone else’s Type.

It is seductive to think of this type of management style for your individual organization. “I’m the General of this team; you need to communicate with ME how I want to be communicated with!” Well, that was a war, and that General had the very lives of over 500,000 men and women in his hands.

You and I are not in a war, and the lives of thousands don’t hang in the balance—although sometimes we feel like it. And we respond to those very real business pressures by pushing and demanding. Unfortunately, while that was needed during wartime, it is most certainly counter-productive in our business and in our teams. We would never dream of treating our customers like we sometimes (hopefully rarely) treat our teammates.

It requires planning, patience, compassion, and understanding, to stretch ourselves as managers and reach out—cross the bridge, so to speak—in order to relate to those around us how they will best respond. It seems reasonable to assume that once we start speaking the language of our colleagues, they just might more accurately interpret and better understand what we’re saying.

“Opportunities”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

“Opportunity”. I used to be part of an organization that used that very word euphemistically. The top-down leadership in that organization mandated that the team was not to use the word “challenge”, but instead replace that word with “opportunity”. “We don’t have ‘challenges’”, they insisted, “we simply must view those challenges as “opportunities’”.

Well, when it doesn’t (hardly) rain for a year, or when the entire global economy falls over like the guy who stayed too long at the Christmas party, or when a key team leader leaves an already-shorthanded team—those are challenges, not opportunities, let’s be honest. Intelligent, loyal, hard-working people need to be treated as such.

I’ve had a couple of bosses who were pretty honest about their HR commitments. Both told me essentially the same thing: “We do an annual review to appease the unwieldy HR megalith we’ve generated, not because we’re going to reveal some heretofore undiscovered deficiency or merit in your performance. If you’re doing something that needs either changed or commended, we won’t wait until the end of the year to tell you.” I like and appreciate that kind of honesty. Maybe HR doesn’t, but I do.

That’s not to say the annual review doesn’t and can’t have value. For the HR megalith, they (may) need a record trail if anything goes haywire down the road in your career path. But for the team, this can be a time for sharing long-range vision of the organization, and for gathering critical, essential, input (concerns, questions, needs, high points, etc.) from all members of the team.

The point is this: don’t simply check the HR box; as always, use this one-on-one time to reinforce the two-way lines of communication essential to effective leadership.

“The Christmas Bonus”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

It’s that time of year again—bonus time. And you’ve probably tried or considered every conceivable idea to make your bonus program something meaningful and impactful.

Some have suggested that if the bonus comes every year and isn’t tied to something extraordinary, the employee simply considers it part of their salary, and takes little note or makes little effort to earn it, because it’s just part of what has already been earned. But then to change the existing bonus system midstream, so to speak, after precedence has already been set, invites the risk that it becomes a ‘dis-incentive’, creating discord and discontent—the opposite of the desired effect.

But is there room for a compromise? Some sort of safe—but effective—middle ground?

Is there a way to reward the entire team but also give special recognition to someone or some portion of the team who have made an especially valuable contribution to the effort over the previous year? On any healthy, productive team, team members all want to believe that their contribution is needed and important, but they would also readily recognize when another teammate has made a special sacrifice or been an especially valuable asset.

You need to first identify the deserving candidate. Depending on the size of your operation you could survey the entire team, survey only the line managers, or simply select someone you feel would be held up by the team as someone deserving of recognition. How you choose to recognize that person should reflect who you are as a manager, who you are as a company, and best respects the individual identified.

Finally and most importantly, take every advantage of the “bonus”, regardless of what it looks like in your program, as an opportunity to intentionally express true gratitude and appreciation to individuals, to project groups, and to your entire team for their sacrifices and successes over the past 12 months.

“Team Leadership – What Comes First?”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

I recently had a family emergency which required me to travel out of state, and miss an important planning meeting. When I contacted the organizer of the meeting to explain my necessary absence, the response was immediate and sincere: “Go take care of your business.”

Not, “fill out the proper forms”, or “let’s check the employee handbook for compliance issues”, but “Go take care of your business.”

My sister also needed to cut short a business trip on the East coast. In fact, her colleagues did not give her a choice—they insisted she leave and took over the needed duties.

It raises the question of “How does your team deal with personal adversity?” It is not something that can be managed or mandated, but instead can only be instilled and encouraged, trickling down daily from the team leader. Concern for colleagues cannot be directed or taught, or learned from a manual. It is experienced, daily, starting at the beginning of the hiring process, through sick leave and holidays, and culminates when personal challenges arise that will interfere with the individual’s physical or psychological ability to perform.

Like the Culture of Safety, the Culture of Caring cannot be simply “turned on” whenever a teammate is challenged but instead must be practiced daily by all team members. Do we demand all people use eye protection when using grinders because it’s company policy or because we genuinely care about preserving people’s eyesight? Do we insist on helmet use with ATVs because it lowers our workman’s comp premiums or because we care about people’s safety?

While we can insist on compliance BOTH because it makes business sense AND because we care for people, “box-checking” doesn’t change long-term beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes, but a rising tide of Culture change does.

“Let’s change something”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Ranchers are as independent thinkers and actors as any group of people in America—it’s perhaps their defining trait. But ranchers have also proven to America’s beef consumers that The Beef Industry can make positive changes when those changes are mutually determined to be in the best interest of the cattle and the product we produce.

Moving injections from the top butt to the neck was a “no-brainer”—except that we ruined 22% of our top butts annually since the invention of the needle and syringe. That means we were not using our brains, and that SOMEBODY, finally, had to engage their brain to get the rest of us to change something that had always been done. We all agree it’s better now.

It’s been said that we should run our operation like there’s a busload of 3^rd graders coming from town for a tour. What are you doing today that you’d rather your consumers not know about? If there’s anything, it needs to change and go away. The easiest way to take ammo out of your enemy’s weapon is by not giving it to them in the first place.

It’s time to admit and identify those things that we do poorly as an industry, seek out ways to improve those practices, make the hard changes on our own operations, and condemn those who refuse to change. This should be as easy and as important to us as moving the injections to the neck and sub-Q.

Sorting sticks, rattle-paddles, and electric prods are tools, not weapons. If we’re using contact on the cattle more than 5% of the time, something is wrong with our handling, our facilities, or both. Cattle will flow through a functional, well-designed facility based on the handler’s body position. If the cattle don’t know where you want them to go, yelling or prodding only increases their confusion and may lead to dangerous situations. It’s also been said, “The cattle are never wrong.” They’re designed, as prey animals, to go where the handler asks them to go, if the message is clear and the escape path is obvious. If they don’t go, it’s because something is wrong with the handler’s message, the facilities, or both.

We should constantly be in the process of assessing our operations with respect to cattle flow and handling. If we’ve got more than 5% of cattle jumping, running, slipping or falling when coming out of the chute, there is something wrong with the facilities, the handling, or both. If the result of a processing event is fear, discomfort, and confusion on the part of the cattle, we can be fairly certain, the next time we process these animals will be harder, not easier. Let’s strive to always get better.

Venturing to tell cattle people how to more effectively handle cattle is a risky proposition, but fortune favors the bold. 30 years ago we just knew that injecting in the top butt was ok; now our jaw drops if we see someone inject into that area. Dogma can change. When the majority of the beef industry sees and admits the errors of our ways, we can make tremendous change.

“Team Player”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

After working as part of a dysfunctional team on a project this past month I realized that sometimes we take good team work and team atmosphere for granted. The team was dysfunctional for a number of reasons: (1) lack of effective leadership; (2) lack of common goals. There are probably many more, but that’s enough.

The team leader had a selfish agenda, not what was best for the team or team members. It can be said that the coach must be the ultimate team player, or there is no team. In sports, the coach cannot run out onto the field and take the snap from under center, or make the big shot. The coach needs to communicate a vision and plan to the team, then cheer the team on toward execution. The coach who will not delegate the authority and responsibility of execution to the team will not build a winner. Read “control-freak”.

Team members must be incentivized to share the common goals of the team. Unlike the production workplace, in academia there is wide liberty given to establish collaborative teams to get things done. A faculty member once said of building these collaborative teams, “You’ll work with who you’ve worked with in the past.” There are at least 2 obvious reasons for this: (1) You have common goals, or; (2) You like working together. If you have common goals essential for your individual success, you will find a way to work through potential differences to achieve mutual success. Your individual existence relies on team work and synergy. It’s hard to deny the power of this association.

If working together is a painful, uncoordinated experience, the ends eventually will not be worth the means to get there. Even if the project is successful, it won’t be rewarding because all that was gained will have a very temporary feeling and will not satisfy. However, if everyone on the team genuinely enjoys working with the team, successes will be made even larger, because the team was made stronger and individual members were made better through the work and through the success. I guarantee you will want to work with this team again in the future.

You already know if you’ve got a good vs. dysfunctional team. If your team has good chemistry and is cranking along, keep working hard and making the needed sacrifices to keep this team together and productive. And if your team is dysfunctional, it’s time for the “manager” to “manage”.

“Tough Times”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

After this summer, with its extra challenges brought on by excessive heat, early weaning of calves, crop failures, and deep culling of cow herds, many employees will be wondering about their future with the organization. And in the vacuum created by lack of good information, people will fill that vacuum with bad information.

During tough economic times is a critical time to communicate the financial outlook of the organization, not the time to try to muddle through “until things get better.”

If the organization is suffering, get those challenges out on the table. It may be in the firm’s short-term “best interest” to not tell employees that there may be layoffs. We want to keep them around until the last possible moment, right? Then kick them loose when it’s expedient to then fend for themselves in a down economy and a stressed marketplace. That is probably not in the employees’ best interest. Letting those who might be on the bubble know as soon as possible allows them to start making contingency plans and looking for other opportunities.

If that person on the bubble does find other work and leaves, and business turns around, what is the downside? You are making more money and need more help to keep making more money. If the person doesn’t find other work and stays, you’ve earned an extra chip called “trust”.

Honesty during difficulty isn’t just the right thing to do (although that’s a pretty good reason), it’s also critical to building long-term trust and loyalty among your team. I once heard someone say about a manager, who “tells me the tough things to my face, so I never have to wonder what is being said behind my back.”

If communicated in a timely way, candidly, and with compassion, difficult conversations during mutual adversity can contribute to long-term growth in relationships throughout the workplace.