K-State Research and Extension

“Team Work in Action”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

I recently had the opportunity to work with a highly functional team of about a dozen young researchers working under extreme fatigue and duress. Their behavior shocked and informed me.

Most of the research workers are under 30 years of age, and many are in their early twenties. The project required all parties to operate on less than 4 hours of sleep for several consecutive nights and yet operate at a high level of competency during the day. The party were working with a large food production plant, requiring a great deal of quality communication, both within the team and between the team and plant personnel. Because the plant operates at a very high level of productivity with little room for “slippage” in the system, the data collection needs of the team needed to fit seamlessly into the production schedule, and personnel had to be nearly “invisible” with respect to any interference with the production system.

The team worked well throughout the project, constantly communicating with one another confirming correct data entries, sample identification, etc. Members of the team would ask others if they needed anything—either assistance or a drink or something to eat. Workers strove to maintain an upbeat attitude and some humor throughout the long days. At the end of the final evening of the data collection project—the third 18-hour day in a row—all workers energetically chipped in to clean up every trace of their presence in the food plant, loading out equipment and trash until all remnants were erased.

The researchers’ behavior shocked me in that on not one occasion were attitudes short nor did any single member of the team flag and attempt to rest while the others worked to finish the project; I was pleasantly surprised. I’ve seen much worse on projects less strenuous.

The behavior also informed me on two points:

1. The researchers drew their example from their young project leader. The leader got less sleep than any other team member, staying up late to organize the subsequent days’ materials and yet this person had an upbeat and energetic demeanor throughout the project. Leadership sometimes means setting an example not just handing out duties.
2. The researchers were innately team-oriented people. The individuals were each supremely capable of accomplishing their own projects with aplomb, yet subjugated their individual projects for a week to anonymously contribute to their team mate’s success, with no additional stimulation other than the satisfaction of knowing they were part of an effective team and that they had contributed to another’s success. Team work can be taught and exemplified, but it is nice when the lessons have been learned and fully internalized long before the stressful times begin.

“Win-Win or No Deal

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

I recently had the opportunity to listen to a cattleman speak at a conference on the subject of, among other things, loyalty and building informal alliances in your business. The general take-homes were very useful, and included concepts such as: make “the pie” bigger so that both parties’ share of the pie is bigger than before the relationship; business is not a zero sum game where one party must lose for the other party to win; and building seller-buyer relationships based on loyalty can move both parties to a higher plane of business success than simply basing the transaction on lowest price vs. greatest margin.

But one message that also stood out was based on one of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen R. Covey, the concept of “think win-win”.

Loosely, the “think win-win” suggests that for any relationship to be sustainable over a long time period, especially a business relationship, the relationship must benefit both parties. One party may sacrifice profit over the short-term while the other party benefits, in an attempt to build trust and loyalty, but if the partnership does not result in improved profitability long-term for both parties, one party will move away from the relationship because the partnership has become “win-lose”. However, if the partnership results in benefits—financial, logistical, or otherwise—for both parties, long-term, this is considered “win-win”.

A critical element of this concept is that if one party decides that there is no long-term benefit for them from the relationship, they must move away and say, “No deal.” Obviously, the party on the short end of the bargain will likely make this call, but the astute manager on the winning end of this partnership should also be wise enough to know that this partnership will not last; we can only drain our partners’ resources for so long. And the sooner both parties agree to end the relationship amicably, the greater will be the opportunity to (a) move on to forge new partnerships elsewhere and (b) prevent hurt feelings in order to possibly forge a partnership together in the future.

This concept actually extends to employer-employee relationships as well.

The astute manager is constantly on the lookout for excellent individuals to add to the team, and throughout the interview and hiring process, is evaluating for the individual’s skills and qualifications, but is also considering how the person will fit in with the rest of the team. The more thoroughly the interview and screening process is designed and implemented, the more likely that the person will be not only qualified but also a good fit for the organization. However, no system can guarantee 100% hiring success, and eventually the organization will hire a person who just doesn’t fit.

This is a business relationship too, just like any other. The employee agrees to provide a service, and the employer agrees to pay a fee for that service. And just like a win-lose business partnership, it’s important for the astute manager to recognize, as early as possible, a win-lose hiring relationship.

Obviously, if the employee proves to be either unqualified or a poor fit with the organization’s vision and structure—a “lose” for the organization—the relationship must be terminated. But the astute manager will also recognize when an employee’s qualifications, abilities, and ambitions greatly exceed the opportunities provided by the existing position—a “win” for the organization but not necessarily a “win” for the employee. It’s important for the manager to either (a) identify an advancement path for this individual within the organization or (b) recognize that this employee will not stay in the organization long-term, and start looking to identify a replacement.

“Energize!”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Do you have certain people in your organization or team who are natural problem solvers and who seem to be energized when there is a logistical or physical challenge within the operations system? These people are out there and they are golden.

However, a problem (actually a good problem to have) is that within a really well-run, team-run, bottom-up-run business, the logistical bottle necks are few and far between. So these solutions-oriented people are left without an outlet for their creative energies. They continue to do well, but this creative energy goes untapped.

Often, these people spend their off hours at home inventing solutions to problems that aren’t really problems, but they’ve invented fun solutions just the same, and because they have ideas in their head that need to be expressed outwardly.

What if their employer found a way to tap into this creativity on a regular basis? What if you intentionally devoted a portion of the day/week/month/year to creative solutions, either to the physical plant, or simply to the way things get done? This can be a slippery slope with certain people, as they will tend to be distracted to this effort during time they need to simply get their job done. Also, there are some people who think they are much more creative and brilliant than they really are—this is dangerous ground for this person as well.

However, while most ag businesses have certain seasons that are fast-and-furious, they have other seasons that are slow. What if, instead of having our highly trained, dedicated, creative, solutions-oriented people paint pipe and grease zerks, we gave them the creative outlet they’re craving all year long? There’s only so many times you can grease the same zerks or paint the pipe, after all. What if, say, on Fridays during the slow season, whenever that might occur in your business, you asked the team to come up with problems they see in the business during the extremely hectic times, and brainstorm on solutions to those challenges? Give them a bit of low-cost resources and some time, and creative people can invent very witty and useful tools.

You have built a truly great team; don’t lose your best people for want of a challenge.

“Choices”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

All employees have choices available to them. Poor employees have the choice of either showing up for work or not showing up and being fired. But good employees—especially the exceptional ones—have other, good choices available to them. What are you doing to make your workplace the workplace of choice for the best available workers in your field and in your area?

We’re not just talking about competitive compensation at this point—although that certainly is a consideration. I guess competitive compensation is “table stakes”. You’re not very likely to attract the best and the brightest without being in the ball park with respect to salary, insurance, paid leave, retirement, etc.

Once you know you’re “in the mix” with regard to compensation, it’s time to start evaluating the work environment and some “non-monetary” forms of compensation, things we refer to as “job satisfaction”.

In a tight job market, in which there are fewer qualified applicants than there are jobs for them, the astute applicant knows they’ve got choices, and they want to go to where their future opportunity looks brightest.

On one end of the spectrum, you may have the 40-something or 50-something, experienced team leader who is looking for long-term security and stability moving towards retirement. And on the other end, you may have a millennial fresh out of school, looking for upward mobility. One is looking for stability, while the other is looking for intentional, positive, instability.

The small work-place may not be able to accommodate both, but there are other factors to consider. For example, there may be no opening for a young candidate looking to quickly become a line manager or supervisor. But wouldn’t you like to have quality people on your team? It’s been said, “I’d rather have the right person for a short while than the wrong person forever.” And I would add, I’d rather have the right person for a short while than not at all. If the person truly is the “right” person, they will make our organization better for their presence. We often cite workplace turnover as costly, but how much more costly to have either an empty chair or, worse, an empty suit filling the chair. Poor, lazy, uncreative, clock-punchers and clock-watchers will steal your team blind in invisible ways that you’ll never see, but that are real none the less.

If we can get the “right” person, for a little while, how much better will we be when that person outgrows the position and moves on? We’ll be a better organization that individual position will be more organized and productive, and we’ll be better suited to know how to find the next individual to fill it.

But you will not attract that “right” individual, if you don’t constantly seek to get better in your compensation, workplace practices, workplace environment, and opportunities for employees to succeed. To attract the truly exceptional people, you have to work as hard at being the workplace of choice for prospective and current employees as you work to be the business provider of choice for your current and prospective customers.

“Making Room”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

The sentiment is nearly universally felt: Good employees are hard to find. Hence, there is a need for progressive employers to be constantly recruiting rather than only recruiting during a crisis. Also, they need to be recruiting otherwise satisfied employees rather than only those who are either out of work or simply miserable in their current situation.

There is a potential downside to this shift in recruitment strategy, however. What happens when you recruit someone who is (a) hard-working, (b) intelligent, (c) creative, (d) team-oriented, and (e) not suited to the job opening you currently have?

Obviously, this is a good problem to have. But the question is, can you afford to take on a person who fits your organization in every way except one—the actual job description of the open position? How do you manage this challenge? That’s why you, the manager, earn the Big Bucks!

If the opening posited truism—Good employees are hard to find—is actually true, then you can hardly to turn away an unexpected gift. If the person is of high quality, the person will not be available very long. The key to making this situation work, in the short-term and the long-term, is having an organizational philosophy that allows and encourages flexibility within the team to make space for talented people.

If the job opening is for Job A but the person brings assets better suited for Job B (which isn’t currently open), is there any way to harness at least some of the person’s Job B talents and interests while stretching the person to complete some or most of the duties of Job A? Can one or more current members of the team be asked to shift some of their existing duties to partner with the new team member in order to completely cover the entirety of Job A? Can the person, although not ideally suited to nor thoroughly interested in Job A, be asked to fulfill the duties of Job A on a short-term basis, until a more permanent compromise solution can be fitted?

Without abundant flexibility on the parts of the organization, the manager, the team, and the prospective new team mate, there is no solution; you shouldn’t hire this person.

But if all parties feel there can be a fit, and are willing to work differently and adapt to create a novel solution to the challenge, this could be a successful marriage. Organizations who work this way are attractive to talented people, and tend to lead, rather than follow, in the industry.

“Diamonds vs Coal”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

How do you recruit new employees?

If you’re simply placing an announcement in the want ads, you’re most likely only advertising to those who are already out of work. How can you instead make your opening known to people who are not only already gainfully employed somewhere else, but who are highly-valued and respected within their current organization?

If you wait for good people to come looking, you’re probably never going to find them.

When you ask yourself, “What kind of employee am I seeking?” and “What kind of employee is the rest of the team seeking?” and “What kind of person would fit in with the existing team?” The answer should be obvious, yet isn’t: “A person who my current team already knows, respects, and enjoys being around.” Your good people know who the other good people are, and they would like to have them on the team.

That said, why not incentivize your current employees to find you the next rising star—a diamond in the rough? The incentive should be significant; a $20 gift certificate won’t push your employees to push their connections to change. Also, there is substantial real economic value in hiring a truly exceptional employee, who will likely be immediately accepted and respected by the rest of the team, will be productive and content in the new work environment, and will therefore likely stay a long time. Why not offer some of that very real value back to your own good employees to find and attract more good employees.

To avoid abuse of the system, there should be a probationary period attached to the new hire, before which none of the incentive is paid, but after which the entire incentive is paid to the existing employee.

The old axiom holds true: good, productive, hard-working people want to work with other good, hard-working people, and they don’t want to work around slackers. This incentive system will give them the impetus to start bragging about your work place in order to attract people they know and respect who will come in and elevate the team.

“People Quit People Too”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

People quit for any number of reasons. It’s important for the astute manager to find out why.

One axiom that has been often quoted is that if an employee asks for more money, even though you know the employee’s pay is competitive, it’s not really about the money; the employee is dissatisfied with some condition or multiple conditions about the workplace—or you. The employee is essentially screaming, “I hate my job, but for more money I’ll gut it out a little while longer!” However, most times even if they do stay, if the root cause of the dissatisfaction is not addressed, the employee will leave sooner than later.

The reason managers need to keep a very tight handle on the root causes of personnel turnover is that turnover costs money in the form of lost productivity, overtime for other employees, the hiring and training process, and the lost productivity of those workplace leaders who must take out time to train the new hire.

Ask around to find out if other employers are having similar turnover challenges. If not, it’s time to look in the mirror. If your compensation is competitive but you’re still losing good employees, there is something wrong. There is a likelihood that your workplace is not conducive to employee satisfaction.

The workplace culture is initiated, nurtured, and cultivated by the team leader. It’s time to ask a trusted advisor for help; this is often referred to as “The Hot Seat”. Many (maybe even most) managers are simply not ready to hear and accept constructive criticism. Humility in the workplace is priceless and often in short supply. The good news is that if the problem in the workplace turns out to be YOU, then at least you know you can do something about the problem.

Be ready to really hear, internalize, and take decisive action in response to whatever difficult advice you may receive. Either be prepared to make substantial changes, or simply keep losing good team members to your neighbors and competitors. It’s hard, but it’s also that simple.

“Gracias y Por Favor”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

While I was in a training conference for ag managers who employ primarily Spanish speakers, the professional cultural trainer said, “The 2 most important words you need to learn in Spanish are: ‘Por favor’ and ‘Gracias’—‘Please’ and ‘Thank you’.” The implication, within that specific context was that within the Hispanic culture of Mexico personal relationships and gratitude on a personal level are highly valued.

And it occurred to me recently that these 2 words are probably the 2 most important words for us to learn in English as well. People want to be valued: primarily as human beings with intrinsic worth, and secondarily as meaningful contributors to the workplace team. This is not the exclusive territory of our neighboring culture to the South; this is part of the human condition.

But the cultural difference is that placing “task” ahead of the “people” who help deliver on the task is often considered acceptable in our American business culture. When international cultures are ranked by the importance of “context” within which a conversation is happening—the non-verbal messages within and surrounding a conversation (body language, social situation, the other people in proximity, status, sex, and age of the participants, etc.)—Asian cultures rank near the top and northern European cultures rank near the bottom. That is, in the European culture, really only the WORDS matter; in the Asian cultures, the words take a low priority relative to the many other circumstances—the context—around the conversation. And the American business community has evolved over the past 200-plus years of following the European model.

The challenge for managers today is that, unlike during the 19^th century, people are not disposable and interchangeable parts. Quality people are in short supply and demand is high. The astute manager has long since determined that in order to keep quality people on the team, there needs to be a relationship based on trust, loyalty, and openness.

However, these traits cannot be faked. “Anybody can clean up for a 2-hour interview.” But nobody can fake compassion and caring for very long. So to truly nurture these traits within the workplace culture and within yourself, there needs to be a fundamental change in both. If a manager is incapable of developing respect there will be finite limits on the potential of the business and of the manager.

“Relationships”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

How do you ever get to know someone?

Ask yourself who you know really well. Now think of what it took to get to that emotional place with those people. For some people, the list of people that are well-known may be extensive; for others, there may be only a few—maybe only one.

But the process of really getting to know another person is the same for all of us: we only know the people with whom we spend extensive time, drilling down and getting to know them.

When I asked a guy how well he knew a third guy, he replied, “Well, I’ve never hunted with him.” You can tell a lot from spending a week or two cooking with, eating with, cleaning up after, and looking out for, another person. People who work together in an intimate work environment have some of, if not all of, this dynamic. Spend all day, every day with a small handful of people and you will, over time, learn who they are. “Anyone can clean up for a 2-hour interview.” But nobody can “pretend” forever, under often stressful conditions.

Considerate, compassionate, and self-sacrificing people are an absolute joy to work with and contribute more too every relationship than they take away. Conversely, selfish, rude, condescending people drain the workplace of joy and drain relationships of mutual respect and good-will.

The challenge managers have is that they rarely spend the same amount of time, day-in, day-out, with their team-mates. So how can the astute manager compensate for a lack of “quantity time”? They need to schedule intentional “quality time” instead. Set up times on a monthly or quarterly basis to discuss workplace concerns, personal and professional goals, and any other issues that may need to be addressed. This is not a time to spend on job performance; that will result in yet another one-way, top-down, conversation—not really a conversation at all. Instead, this needs to be a time for you to get to know your team mates.

You simply cannot really know someone if you have not spent any time getting to know them. We invest in that which we place value. Without spending time, you cannot even scratch the surface.

“Holiday Blues”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

The winter holidays in the U.S. are broadly considered a festive time of friends, family, and a whole lot of holiday cheer. Unfortunately, that perception is far from reality for many around us. In fact, depression tends to increase during the holidays.

There are countless reasons some people become depressed during the holiday season: memories of the passing of a loved one; divorce; estrangement from children or parents. Although the holidays elicit festive emotions in many of us, painful events from a person’s past can just as easily and very likely trigger feelings of sadness or anger. Some people simply lament that they have no one close to them with whom to share the holidays, so all the joyous celebration and family atmosphere surrounding them only serves as a very potent reminder of their aloneness.

Regardless of the individual potential causes of depression, our obligation as team leaders, managers, team mates, and friends, is to recognize when our team mates are behaving abnormally. Depending on our personal relationship with the person, we may or may not have license to gently probe for any melancholy. “Hey Pete, how are you feeling? You seem a little quiet these past few days.”

If we haven’t cultivated sufficient trust in this particular relationship to safely enter this very soft and shaky ground, this, unfortunately, is the wrong time to initiate that process. On the contrary, if your workplace has successfully nurtured a culture of trust, loyalty, and interpersonal safety, the cocoon of cordial and long-lasting workplace relationships may actually provide a respite from these feelings of loneliness. This can be priceless for some.

An additional complicating factor during the holiday season is the combination of superfluous holiday events—holiday parties, church events, shopping, and children’s school events—and the generally heightened tenor within both the workplace and the home. The added strain on each person will likely make us less attuned to any potential change in mood of those close to us, rather than more attuned to it; it’s our human nature—either selfishness or self-preservation. Simply realizing that others may be hurting, and being alert to the probability that others may not enter the holiday season with the same joy that we do creates an opportunity to provide support and encouragement to those around us.