K-State Research and Extension

“Teaching”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

“There’s no leadership without teaching,” said a speaker at a conference I recently attended. And at the time it felt like one of those sayings that at once seems obvious and profound at the same time. But the more I unpacked that statement, I decided it wasn’t obvious at all, and yet needs to be internalized by all managers.

How rarely do the management books and pamphlets and websites discuss the teaching element of management. But at its very core, that’s exactly what management needs to be about.

We talk about managing budgets and line items and forecasting and development, but how intentional are we as managers taking our teaching role? If you’ve accepted the role of manager, then you are also both a mentor and a teacher, and there is a hefty responsibility that goes with both of those.

So hefty in fact, many simply shirk the responsibility and ignore this necessary function of their title and their office, because it’s “easy” to manage numbers and line items and budgets, but managing people is difficult. Teaching can be frustrating. “That’s not what I signed on for!” you exclaim. Wrong answer.

If you don’t actively and intentionally embrace the role of teacher, then you get what you deserve. You’ll have direct reports who either (a) don’t grow in their abilities and opportunities and will be incapable of growing the organization and changing with the fluid marketplace; or (b) they DO grow (through no contribution of yours) and then leave for a better opportunity, leaving you with only stunted, complacent, mediocre clock watchers.

And if that’s what you want, then you are just a manager, not a leader. Leaders lead, and to actively lead, you need to engage with your team members. And once you engage, at an intimate, face-to-face, heart-to-heart level, it will become abundantly clear to you what the people on your team need in order to develop and grow, and you will eagerly and desperately desire to fulfill those needs, because you know that intellectual development is exactly what stands between your organization and greatness.

It’s a fatal fallacy to say that leaders only want followers; real leaders want to build and develop new leaders who will carry the organization forward. That is the legacy of the real leader: the new leaders they have trained who follow in their path after they choose to step aside. If you refuse to teach and develop your people, your legacy will retire with you and your shadow will fade with the next sunrise.

“Poised for Success”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Letting people go is probably every manager’s least favorite part of their job, including an OSHA inspection or an IRS audit. But it is a part of management of people and of teams; not every person will work out.

There are two (very) broad reasons for the person “not working out”: (1) the person did not live up to the expectations they had committed to in the categories of work ethic, intellect, or integrity; or (2) the person did not have the skill set required to do the job that was asked of them.

Any time a person does not fulfill the expectations of management, a good portion of the blame for that failure should be borne by the manager. However, if the person is let go for above reason (1), a portion of the blame should fall on the manager for not identifying the deficiencies during the interview process but a portion also falls on the person being let go due to not living up to the expectations of the job as communicated upon initiation of the hiring process. If the person is let go for reason (2), then there is a different cause.

We often quote or paraphrase the message of the book “Good to Great” by Jim Collins when we say, “Let’s get the right people on the bus and let them drive us to greatness.” And this often means finding good, intelligent, ambitious, talented, hard-working people and finding them a home in our organization. However, this can on occasion backfire. If the new hire doesn’t perfectly fit the skill set needed for the open position, we must rapidly and adequately train them for the position, and we must install a plan to get that person into the best possible position for success, both of the individual and of the organization. Unfortunately, organizations which are inflexible fail in this latter element.

Organizations often lose good people because they haven’t found a way to modify the needs of the organization to fit the unique skills and passions of the person, and the person either fails to deliver the necessities of the job or simply loses interest in the job and the organization and looks elsewhere for opportunities which more closely align with their abilities and interests. This is a failure of management at one or both of two stages in the process.

Either the manager needs to identify that the person, regardless of how talented, does not now and will not in the future fit the organization, or the manager needs to create space for the person to express their abilities to help the organization in other ways not expressly delineated in the open position job description. There is no option C.

In short, either pass on the quality person available in favor of someone with more suitable skills, or make the position match the skills available. Or you will have more unwanted turnover and need to start all over again.

“Continual Training – Get on Board!”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Unlike things like technology implementation, the geographical location of your business, or any economies of scale your business may have, superior management of your most precious assets—your PEOPLE—are difficult if not even impossible for your competitors to duplicate. This is because relationships are not created through some cookbook formula that can be taught in a management theory class or a self-help book. Healthy relationships and a positive, rewarding, energetic work place requires long-term intentionality and sacrifice.

One way we can enhance the belief by the team is a commitment by the organization to helping everyone be better at each aspect of their job duties.

We normally think of training as either (1) for new employees so they learn the rudiments of their new job, or (2) some safety or compliance training to appease the liability police. But that completely ignores the third possibility (3) that training could make your business run better, your employees more skilled and more content in their work, and your business more efficient and more profitable.

Research indicates that a culture which is committed to continual training results in greater return on equity vs. a company which is not so committed. This may be because (a) the actual training itself results in significantly improved worker productivity over time resulting in greater returns, or (b) the company which is committed to continual personal improvement may also be committed to other factors which result in greater worker satisfaction and reduced turnover. Reduced turnover—provided the workers are valuable, dedicated, and talented—will in itself result in improved efficiency by reducing the productivity lag caused by open positions and the continual re-starting of the process of workers learning to do their respective jobs.

Find ways to keep workers engaged and growing in their role. Their output (personal productivity) will increase, as will their input (contributions to overall team productivity and morale). Every investment you make which results in enhanced job satisfaction and employee retention will yield huge benefits long-term in the form of company efficiency and productivity.

“Servant Leadership”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

What is a leader? There are many appropriate responses that are all good and right and true. George Patton was a leader. As was his boss, Dwight Eisenhower (a good Kansas boy). Patton is legendary for his swagger and aggression; Eisenhower is iconic for his serious, pensive, decision-making and consensus-building. Outspoken autocrat vs. quiet, thoughtful team-builder.

Both Patton and Ike were successful and highly-effective leaders. However, which of these great generals practiced a leadership style that is likely to be applicable to your workplace in the modern business environment where good employees have options of other places to work?

In battle, democracy doesn’t work above the squad level. When bullets are flying and bombs are exploding, and lives are in jeopardy, decisions must be made and orders must be followed—immediately. Patton won battles, but Ike won the war. Winning a battle requires a short-term strategy of exploiting your own strengths and your enemy’s weaknesses. But winning the war required not just military strategy but political strategy as well—something Patton was likely not good at or even cared greatly about.

Most employees will follow an autocratic leader if they trust the leader’s vision for the organization, and provided the work environment is not oppressive. However, if the contributions of ideas and strategy by individual employees which could help attain the corporate vision are continually ignored or suppressed by the leadership, creative, proactive employees will eventually lose their motivation. They will quit trying to make the workplace better and quit trying to improve the company. Enthusiasm wanes, and they will leave when the opportunity arises.

Your greatest strength, maximized, may be your greatest weakness. The visionary autocrat, without humility and compassion, will eventually be followed by uninspired automatons who must be dragged through their daily duties by the leadership. However, the visionary leader who routinely requests and welcomes input from the team will create a powerful synergy, harnessing the work ethic and creativity of the team to their own directional vision—the engine effectively synchronized with the steering wheel.

“Partnership and Marriage”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

For those who are married, you may have heard someone say, “Marriage is hard. A good marriage takes work.” Although that sentiment is true at some level, understanding the foundation for a strong and happy marriage requires looking at marriage at a deeper level.

A successful marriage takes commitment and sacrifice. To people who have not built a long, successful marriage (or who have not raised children), those are just two words. In the context of marriage, “commitment” and “sacrifice” by necessity go together. People who want a successful marriage are both committed TO sacrifice.

Partnership, like a successful marriage, requires compromise. We can look at compromise as two people meeting each other half-way across a bridge over a river or chasm. People whose partnerships are doomed to fail are those who, at the opening of the partnership, say that the other partner must “meet me half-way”. The question then becomes, “Who determines where the half-way line is?” and the answer, is secretly, “I do.” The reason this mentality dooms the partnership to failure is that what I may have defined as the half-way point, the other party may define as barely having started across the bridge or is nearly all the way to the other side. If both parties think that the other party has barely started across the bridge from their respective sides, and feels that they alone are being asked to sacrifice and come the furthest across the bridge, there is no room for compromise. This partnership will fail.

Imagine a marriage in which both spouses only consider their own best interest or convenience or pleasure during decision conversations: every decision becomes an argument and a stalemate, and the relationship becomes strained and rife with distrust. Now imagine a marriage in which both spouses enter into each situation with only the best interest and happiness of their spouse at the root of their choices and decisions. Compromise becomes easy and uncomplicated, and the relationship thrives and leaps forward; the spouses grow in respect and trust for the other; opportunities abound.

For strong, lasting partnerships, each partner must make decisions that will not only benefit themselves if they do not benefit their partner. Each partner must be committed to sacrifice freedom in the short run in exchange for success, growth, and opportunity in the long run. Willingly (not strategically or grudgingly) giving up something for the benefit of the partner will build trust and strengthen the alliance.

Like a marriage, if partners go into the partnership with the illusion that the partnership will not involve sacrifice, then the partnership will crumble.

“The Right Thing and The Easy Thing”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

When we look back over the decades of the 20^th century, it is abundantly apparent that animal agriculture has made tremendous strides forward in the areas of food product wholesomeness and safety, animal nutrition, animal health, and animal well-being. And this process of continuous improvement carries on today.

There is a term used to describe one of the pillars of manufacturing excellence, called “kaizen”. Kaizen is a Japanese word that simply means “improvement”, but when used to describe business practices, has come to mean “the process of continuous improvement”.

When we look back at the food production industries, we can clearly track the arc of this continuous improvement. However, there are numerous causes which initiate change in any business or industry.

The immediate profit motive is the most pervasive, prevalent, and persistent. There always has been and always will be a desire by businesses to improve production efficiency either by decreasing the cost of inputs or by increasing the output per unit of input. This is self-evident.

However, there are other, often sporadic and unpredictable (or less predictable) motivations for change and improvement.

In the 1990’s the U.S. beef industry, amidst the continuously flowing stream of profit- and efficiency-motivated change, conducted a series of quality audits which shone light on glaring failures in end product quality and consistency, which were the direct result of a management practice (injection of needles and health care products into the animal’s round) which (a) adversely affected product quality and (b) was accepted by virtually the entire industry as “normal” and “acceptable”.

Consider these last two points: a universally accepted standard operating procedure was consistently and predictably harming product quality. An industry-wide and concerted effort was placed on identifying an acceptable compromise alternative to this practice (injections were moved to the neck just in front of the shoulder, where lower-value meat is derived compared to the rear of the carcass), and in a very short span of time, the incidence rate of product quality failure due to this practice plummeted to nearly zero.

This true industry story provides at least two valuable lessons. 1. An industry which has over 700,000 producers can change, for the better, when all parties agree to move in the same direction. 2. That unified direction required a prior in-depth, intentional assessment of product quality and production practices. However, the hidden reason for the rapid industry-wide adoption of change was that the compromise solution (moving injection site to the neck) resulted in no loss in production or increased cost of production or reduction in production efficiency. The solution didn’t inconvenience the producers.

But what if there was a problem with product quality or production practices which was universally acknowledged by an industry as being unacceptable, but the most obvious solution resulted in increased production costs or labor inputs? It is doubtful this solution would be eagerly or rapidly or universally adopted without some external motivation to initiate the change. That external motivator may be consumers changing buying habits or even a governmental agency tasked with ensuring safe product or acceptable production practices.

In the 1990’s the U.S. beef industry successfully worked from within to make substantive change which improved the product and the industry at once. But the solution was relatively “painless”. We currently have other production practices in food animal production which some industry pundits have indicated are potentially harmful to product wholesomeness or not providing optimal animal care, but which also have not been universally agreed upon by producers to be worth the “cost” of change.

Kaizen, or continual improvement requires more than a simple profit motive. Kaizen requires deep introspection into both product quality and into standard production practices and a long-range lens through which to view the future of product perception and acceptance. If we only adapt when change is thrust upon us, the lost opportunity costs can be tremendous.

“Investments”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Every well-managed and proactively-thinking business carefully considers the fundamental difference between a “cost” and an “investment”. A “cost” simply ensures the luxury of getting the job done today. Costs would include purchasing raw materials, paying the production team wages, paying the rent, paying the utility bill, etc. “Investments” are places in which we put our capital which we hope or expect that capital to be returned, and then some. Investments may be anything from buying a new fork truck for the warehouse to constructing a new, expanded, or updated production facility.

Many smart managers will say, “People are our greatest asset.” However, how many managers are truly viewing their people as an asset or simply a cost? We invest in assets, we simply pay our costs. To that point, how and how much are you investing in your human assets?

At the end of the day, we have only two resources: time and money. How are you expending those two precious resources on your human assets—what some claim to be their “greatest assets”?

You may be investing an hour or so every month for one-on-one mentoring and evaluations. You cannot expect to know the professional and personal needs and goals of your direct reports if you’re not spending regular quality time with them; anything less and you risk losing valuable “assets” simply because you were out of touch.

You may be providing technical training or paying for someone to attend professional development. Enhancing the skills of your team will yield great rewards, directly by improving their productivity and effectiveness, and indirectly by improving their connection to you as an employer who cares enough to invest in people.

You may be encouraging and even paying for classes or training in some aspect of personal development. This is where employers move to the next level. There are “table stakes” in employee retention: competitive salary and benefits, livable work hours and time off, etc. However, when you make a point to enhance the quality of life for your people, you’ve transcended traditional, bare-minimum, human resources management; you’ve truly raised the bar and raised the stakes. If your team connects this personal development with you, the employer, and knows that this development can and will be encouraged in the future, it will be very difficult—and costly—for a competitive employer to attract this employee.

If you want to attract and retain the truly exceptional employees, those who will provide value-added leadership for your organization for years and decades to come, you need to cover all the bases and fulfill all their needs. Seek out ways in which your organization may NOT be providing the most favorable workplace, and fix them. Then, seek out ways in which your organization can meet deeper professional and personal needs. Are there ways an employee could be a better financial planner with his personal finances? Would an employee’s spouse benefit from some training that would improve the quality of life at home? Do all your employees fully grasp all the benefits you provide? Would there be value in bringing in expert training (perhaps bilingual training) for the employees and their spouses on all the financial planning, health insurance, dental insurance, and other benefits your company provides?

In short, there are many ways to become the preferred employer in your field and in your geographical area; however, you may need to INVEST in your people to find them.

“Ethics”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

I recently read a quote about managing employees: “We hope an employee is     (1) ethical, (2) intelligent, and (3) has a good work ethic. But if a person is short on number (1), we’d rather they were equally short on (2) and (3) as well!” In other words, if an employee is unethical, we’d prefer they were also stupid and lazy or they’ll steal us blind!

That, to me, is a long way of saying that of all the traits by which we evaluate current and prospective employees, ethical behavior may be of the utmost importance and long-term value to the organization.

On the surface, this is obvious because of the short-term implications to company profitability if an immoral employee is pilfering product, equipment, or resources. However, even if the ethically-ambiguous employee never overtly violates any tangible law or company guideline, the unethical team mate can still be detrimental to the organization.

Imagine if colleagues of the unethical team member, over time, discover the person is untruthful, and lies routinely to avoid blame or responsibility. Team morale will suffer, trust in the person erodes and fewer responsibilities and expectations are placed on the person, resulting in greater share of duties falling on other team members, and the steam will ultimately boil over and will be directed straight at the supervisor. Having not broken any company doctrine or civil or criminal law, dismissal will require accumulation of documentation of failing to meet team expectations, depending on company policy. But more importantly, team unity will be damaged for a time and will require time for it to heal and return.

If the concept of “Team” matters, then all effort must be expended to avoid hiring only individuals who can be trusted to sacrifice their own comfort, prestige, or glory, for the good of their team mates.

“What People Want”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Managers of every type of business run into the same question regarding workplace satisfaction: “What do employees want?”

The answer, according to Dr. Robert A. Milligan, Professor Emeritus at Cornell University, is three simple, yet infinitely complex, things: Autonomy, Relatedness, and Competence  (People Power, Eastern Dairy Business, April 2012, http://dairybusiness.com/magazines/edbapr12/files/30.html).

Autonomy refers to people’s ability and freedom to make choices and decisions within the workplace. This is another way of saying that people want to feel in some small way that their experience, knowledge, and opinions matter to the long-term success of the team. It refers not only to the level of authority a person has within their job duties, but also the level of trust and confidence management has in the person to make best use of resources and production outcomes.

Relatedness refers to the degree that interpersonal relationships are fostered in the workplace. People have a need to care for and be cared for by other people. This reality doesn’t “switch off” when the person clocks in to work. The level of social respect that a person perceives in the workplace will greatly dictate their job satisfaction, regardless of position or pay.

Competence refers to the level of expertise people perceive about themselves within the specific, technical duties that they regularly perform within the scope of their job. People want to feel they are good at what they do, and that their talent and ability is appreciated by the team. Periodic recognition of ability is one means to foster this perception, but even more tangible is company-endorsed and sponsored continuing education. By providing or supporting uptake of ancillary skills, the leadership is saying, in essence, “We believe you are expert at what you do for this organization, and that we’d like you to have even greater expertise in these areas.”

It is hard to imagine that a person who feels authority to make decisions in the workplace, believes their colleagues value and respect them as a peer and as a person, and believes their supervisors feel they are true experts at their job duties would have a great deal of angst and dissatisfaction in their position in the organization. If the above perceptions are true, then it really IS about the money…

“Creating Team”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Few experiences in the workplace are more rewarding than the feeling of accomplishing something extraordinary as a part of a highly effective team, knowing that the project outcome is unique in your field and that your part of the project was critical for completion of the whole.

In the workplace we often pine for more team work or a more robust team ethos, but what have we done as managers to ensure that the team comes first, ahead of the individual? There are three elements to keep in mind with respect to building an effective team-oriented organization.

1. Team begins at the hire. Some people are amazing individual performers but simply are not wired to subjugate their personal accomplishments for the better of the team. In truth, some sales organizations thrive with a group of self-centric individuals. If the goals of the organization really don’t benefit from a collective effort, then selfishness is sufficient. However, if the only way to accomplish the team goals is through team work and collaboration, then avoid hiring people who clearly are not team players.
2. Team can be taught. Some individuals who may in the past have demonstrated outstanding individual work ethic but self-centric motivations can be often be re-directed toward the collective goal and can, in fact, become key elements to both team accomplishments and can become valuable team leaders. Highly effective people are most often capable of grasping and internalizing the team vision if given clear direction and team goals and individual duties are clearly outlined.
3. Team can be motivated. As stated previously, selfishness works for some organizations. If a collection of independent individual goals is what is needed to move the organization forward, then individual performers must be hired and incentivized to accomplish their goals independent of what others accomplish. Some people simply work better this way and can be highly effective. However, if organizational growth is predicated on collaboration, collective effort, and interdependency, then: (a) team-focused individuals should be recruited, hired, and retained; (b) these individuals should be given the right type of mentoring that teaches a team-first philosophy and a willingness and eagerness to subjugate any individual efforts which may be detrimental to esprit de corps and which may subtract from the team effort; and (c) financial incentives (and non-financial as well) must be put in place which are parallel and aligned with the team goals (i.e., the individual is rewarded when the team wins).

Team doesn’t happen on accident. Team takes effort, intentionality, focus, and constant communication and reinforcement. If Team matters to you, you have it in your power to create an effective team.