K-State Research and Extension

“Trust”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

One unwritten rule of management writing: if you can squeeze in a Warren Buffett quote, do so. So here’s a good one: “Trust is like the air we breathe. When it’s present, nobody really notices. But when it’s absent, everybody notices.”

Soak that up for a second or two, then try to apply it to your own organizational situation.

Imagine an organization in which team members have freedom to create opportunity and to fulfill the expectations of their job description in creative but impactful ways. But also, team mates and supervisors trust that their team mates are working hard to deliver on their individual goals, not cannibalizing efforts of other team members, and synergizing with other team members whenever possible to make the organization greater than if they only worked toward their own individual goals.

Wow. That would be an organization where we would all like to work. Some of you may already work there. It’s highly unlikely that organization has many position vacancies.

Now go back to the Warren Buffett quote. When everyone is feeling productive and trusts that others are as or more productive than themselves, and feels like their team supports their own agendas and the greater good of the team, the air feels different and there’s a very positive energy throughout the workplace. However, when team members feel isolated in their own endeavor and don’t feel supported by their team mates and by the organization leadership, there will be a metaphorical question mark hanging over the workplace day-in and day-out.

Some people actually thrive in this climate, because they do not seek synergism and prefer personal achievement and the personal accolades that come with it. Others feel stifled and may not know why.

Team accomplishment feels different than personal achievement. Imagine the emotions of the sixth man or the dedicated practice player when the team wins the championship vs. those of the league’s scoring champion whose team fails to make the playoffs. Some scoring champions would eagerly give back their individual title for a chance at team glory, while others gladly go home to polish their trophy.

If we build our organization with a plethora of trophy-polishers, then we shouldn’t be surprised when we get little measurable progress toward team goals. If team goals are paramount, we may need to adjust the workplace such that everyone on the team eagerly subjugates any personal press for individual glory in favor of uplifting the team effort toward the ultimate goal. This adjustment in the work environment may be accomplished through altered individual and team incentives, focused mentoring and teaching by team leaders, or, unfortunately, through attrition and team turnover.

A last thought on the Warren Buffett quote about trust: the manager who is unaware of lack-or-trust issues in the workplace and the general tenor of the team atmosphere needs to simply get out of the office and spend more time talking with and listening to the team. This is not rocket science; it does, however, require a constant and intentional investment of time and energy by the team leader to measure and adjust to the needs of the team.

“10,000 Hours”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

In his best-selling book Outliers, author and brilliant chronicler of cultural and economic trends Malcolm Gladwell observes that excellence in any field of endeavor, requires three critical elements: ability, opportunity, and 10,000 hours.

Examples from the book include The Beatles and Bill Gates who each had obvious natural ability, but they also had special opportunity. The Beatles were honing and perfecting their craft of writing and performing music at a critical time in history when the world was craving that exact form of music. Gates’ mother bought him a personal computer for his 13^th birthday so that he could practice writing code in 1968 at the very dawn of the modern digital age. Had either come 5 years earlier or later, they would have most certainly been successful to some extent, but we likely would not have heard of them.

In addition to their native abilities and special opportunity, both achieved excellence through the principal of “10,000 hours”. The Beatles played something over 1,200 shows in Hamburg, Germany before they returned to England and then took America by storm. Between countless hours of practice in private and performing for audiences, sometimes three times daily, The Beatles honed their songs and their abilities to a fine polish before the greater world ever saw them perform. Because of his mother’s gift, Gates harnessed his intellect and passion for computing to develop his ability and understanding of the potential of personal computing.

Think of someone you know personally within the agricultural industry who is truly excellent at what they do. The person most certainly was born with exceptional native ability, intellect, and passion; circumstance likely placed that person in a position to perform; and through perseverance, the person put in the 10,000 hours of focused practice to achieve excellence.

The reason the 10,000 hour rule is important is that as we initially learn a skill, we build the foundation using “big stones” and make great strides daily; after a while the major concepts become second nature and we enhance these philosophies with more subtle nuances of the trade; finally, after 10,000 hours, we are essentially sanding away the rough edges of our craft with very fine grit emory paper, to the point where the person and the job form a seamless union.

People who work within our teams and organizations, if they have the appropriate native skills, can become brilliant and lead our organization to excellence, if we (a) place them in the best possible situation to succeed, and (b) give them the opportunity to specialize so that they can rapidly accumulate the 10,000 hours of practice and experience required to achieve excellence.

“Permission to Fail”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Failure is not an option. Or is it?…

In business, and in life, most of us treat failure as something to be feared and avoided at all costs, to the point where failure is rarely even discussed. We plan the next plan for what we will do after our first plan succeeds. So why would we ever even consider the possibility that we might actually fail?

There are multiple reasons we may fail: lack of accurate planning, poor execution of the plan, unexpected changes in the operating climate, or overly-aggressive planning.

If your plans have never come up short, good for you. That means you’re (a) an accurate planner; (b) execute your plans; and (c) anticipate any potential changes in your operating climate. However, if you have never failed, then you haven’t, at least from time to time, pushed your plans sufficiently close to the bleeding edge of your resources (time, personnel, capital) to where failure is a distinct possibility. If you’ve never failed, your plans have always been conservative. Although always planning conservatively is certainly not wrong, it should also give one pause.

If we have assembled a team of creative, ambitious, intelligent people, we may also want to give them all the freedom necessary to utilize 100% of their abilities. If, out of a fear of failure, we are heavy-handed and have created an environment where failure is not tolerated, an oppressive cloud descends over the organization, squelching any outside-the-box thinking. In this environment, two things will happen: (1) those talented people we’ve brought on board will withhold much of their creativity and ambition in order to operate comfortably within the known boundaries of your organizational dogma—the boundaries drawn and defined by what always has worked and what always will work; and then (2) those talented people—effectively the future hopes of the organization—will leave.

Good people will have opportunities outside your four walls. They commonly reject those outside opportunities when they know that they are (a) competitively compensated and (b) professionally fulfilled. It won’t matter, for very long anyway, that your salary and benefits package are equal to the industry standard if good, energetic, creative, ambitious people are routinely stifled. “Don’t bother thinking, we’ve already done that for you.” That might be the epitome of professional UN-fulfillment.

All businesses need some stability and predictability in costs and revenues. It is, however, possible to create an environment where creative problem solving and novel ideas are welcome, while at the same time ensuring the core business is maintained.

People are imbued with differing gifts, talents, and personalities, which are completely independent of intelligence or knowledge of subject matter. Some are more comfortable when they’re pushing the envelope; others are just fine with leaving the envelope right where it is. Part of management is managing these opposing traits: to direct change when change is appropriate, needed, and beneficial, and to postpone or redirect the desire for change when change is untimely, inappropriate, or excessive.

Failures within the team present a tremendous teaching and learning opportunity. Provided the failure is not catastrophic, the team can assess the cause of the failure to better plan in the future. And the tension and intensity of the response of the team leader will speak loudly as to whether risk and creativity should be avoided at all costs or whether the potential benefits of harnessing the full potential of the team’s collective talents to create new paradigms outweighs the potential risks.

Failure probably shouldn’t ever be accepted as “normal”, but if your team is never permitted—let alone encouraged—to push the envelope and risk failure, even on some small level, they simply will learn to never push, and you will never know what your organization might be truly capable of.

“Admonishing”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

I once had a boss who said, “I welcome controversy in order to resolve it.” And that guy was fearless with respect to taking on challenging business and interpersonal issues in the workplace; he didn’t just talk it, he walked it.

Many employees offer tremendous value, commitment, loyalty, and work ethic to the organization. But many also may have one or two niggling issues which on rare occasion outshine their positive traits and, eventually, scream out to be addressed by the team leader.

If you’ve been keeping up with your obligation as a leader and mentor to “catch them doing something right” frequently, daily, and on an ongoing basis, then you have the right and the obligation to step in and address this valued employee’s issue.

No decent leader relishes the responsibility to deal with some tough, disruptive issues in the workplace, especially in a valuable, respected team mate. But the good leader “welcomes controversy in order to resolve it.”

It’s been said thousands of times to lead with a positive, follow with correction, and finish with another positive. However, if the only time the person ever hears a positive from you is right before the correction, it will be predictable, and dubious at best. In other words, it will be perceived as a feeble, deceptive, management tool and you will be regarded as disingenuous—in short, a poor leader.

Instead, if you’ve been diligent—and genuine—in your regular and frequent acknowledgement of each team mate’s valued efforts and contribution, then the opening positive will instead be accepted for what it is: a genuine compliment. This point is potent and dense: if they hear and accept the opening compliment, they are open and willingly vulnerable to the admonishment in the interest in making themselves and the team better. On the other hand, if they hear empty platitudes used only to get quickly from the “carrot” through to the “stick”, they won’t respect the intention of the corrective intervention, they won’t welcome it, and they won’t respond out of willing cooperation but instead out of begrudging toleration of an inept boss.

Perhaps the broader point is this: the management books all got it right. But if the methods promoted in the best-selling management book du jour are used simply as superficial methods to puppet employees into thoughtless compliance, you will get a result commensurate to your inconsequential investment. Conversely, if you invest in people as valuable, and flawed, and respect-worthy contributors, all through the day, week, and year, those very same suggested methods can steer you away from managerial missteps and toward hard-won leadership prowess.

“Who’s Your Mentor?”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

We were all students once, and some of us still are students. Whether we’re 18 or 88, it doesn’t matter, we can still immerse ourselves in a topic and become smarter, better, and wiser. Psychologists all seem to agree that keeping our brain active is one key to staying mentally alert as we grow older. Many “seasoned citizens” take up word games, Sudoku, and brain teaser games as a daily exercise to keep their mind fit, just as they take up walking, swimming, or stretching classes to keep their body moving and limber.

Few managers would argue that they know all there is to know about their chosen profession, about leadership, about managing personnel, about managing money. And there is certainly no shortage of books, newsletters, seminars, and online short-courses in any of these topic areas to expand our knowledge base. And if you’re actively pursuing knowledge in these areas, kudos to you.

But there’s much less information on mentoring and mentorship. We understand the value of mentoring for young professionals and for new employees. We want the young industry people to get off on the right foot in their career, and we want our own new hires to get started in the organization knowing the internal systems.

One key to mentoring is that we don’t typically assign as mentor to our new hires the older worker who is a marginal worker or a known malcontent; instead, we try to marry up the new hire with the shining star of the organization, hoping to clone that success story.

Another aspect of mentoring is this: Who assigns the mentor to the Boss? If you’re the boss, have you assigned yourself a mentor? Even if you’re 40, 50, or 60, could you not still benefit from the hard-earned wisdom—not knowledge, but true wisdom—of an even more seasoned manager in a similar position within the industry as yourself. “Peer-to-peer learning,” which can come in many settings delivery methods, can provide some elements of this “senior mentoring,” but not all.

True mentoring goes perhaps one step deeper than simply providing best management practices. Mentoring requires an investment on the part of both the mentor and the mentee. The word “investment” infers that there is some type of up-front cost. A mentor needs to invest in the relationship so that both parties can trust that the mentor is going to be vulnerable and reveal where some of that hard-earned wisdom came from: mistakes. The other half of the equation is that for the mentee to gain full value from the mentor’s investment, the mentee needs to also be vulnerable enough to share those areas of weakness, where the mentor can step in and provide truth.

None of us is too old to learn valuable lessons, and what better way for a savvy, successful business manager to learn some of the more subtle and less measurable lessons of business then by spending extended time, over a period of years, from someone we trust, and who’s actually been through this same rodeo.

“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.

“Employee Buy-In”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Every manager hopes that the entire team “buys in” to the leadership’s vision for the ultimate goals for the company and for how leadership hopes to approach those goals. But how often does the manager ask, “Have I ‘bought in’ to my people?”

I recently listened to a highly successful agricultural entrepreneur discuss compensation philosophy, indicating that providing an ownership stake in the company had dramatically reduced turnover and improved the team atmosphere of the entire company.

When the company is growing and is profitable this is obviously an effective way to compensate employees and yet defer the compensation all at once. But providing some kind of stake in the company is about so much more than the immediate dollars and cents value, either present value or future value.

By providing a tangible ownership stake in the company, employees almost cannot help but “take ownership” in the grander vision and direction of the organization. It is in their own financial best interest to give 100% to help accomplish company goals. To do this, they must either simply passively accept the direction, actively participate in development of the vision, or at least commit time and energy to understanding why this direction is best for the company.

It is much more difficult, both financially and emotionally, to leave something which you own than something which simply pays you every other week. Because you bought into the vision, you may have invested deeply in developing the systems in place to help accomplish company goals—this is partly your baby. And when you ultimately deliver on the company goals, you will reap the rewards, both financial and emotional. To leave the company before this is accomplished will take a serious upheaval event.

So as you’re developing your compensation program for employees, don’t restrict your thinking to short-term salaries and conventional insurance packages. Consider ways to encourage long-term thinking and long-term buy-in by new and existing employees, to make it difficult for them to consider leaving something they’ve helped to build.

“Employee Turnover”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

The supervisor who is continually pessimistic and brow-beating, and is only heard from when an employee is caught making a mistake, will have a team who simply do the bare minimum required and hope to survive day to day. And worse, quality employees will look for any good opportunity to take their talents elsewhere.

Employee turnover occasionally results from a growth in the employee’s abilities beyond the present organization’s needs and opportunities. In this case, all parties usually recognize the need for the employee to move onward and upward; this is a happy ending. However, turnover of the chronic nature is the result of the intersection of a poor work environment in the employees’ present position and quality work opportunities in the broader marketplace. If the employee’s present environment—the combination of compensation, benefits, team camaraderie, and satisfaction—is generally positive, the greater the outside opportunity will need to be to attract good employees away.

Conversely, the poorer the present work experience is, for whatever reason, the more eager employees will be to leave for a better job—and it won’t take much of an opportunity to steal away good employees.

That universal axiom provides both a warning and an opportunity. The warning is obvious and clear: take care of your good employees or someone else will. The opportunity is more subtle. Your employees’ general work satisfaction is always about more than money. In fact, if someone complains about money, there are usually deeper issues involved, such as stress at home or at work, perceived lack of respect, etc. Additional compensation may mask these issues for a very short time, but they will undoubtedly return.

Stay in touch with all your direct reports and monitor the following:

1. Workplace conflict
2. Stress at home
3. Employee’s perceived respect by team mates and supervisors
4. Employee ongoing growth and future aspirations
5. Fatigue
6. Boredom

Early intervention by shifting duties, conflict resolution, or encouraging time off may short-circuit a larger emotional and psychological issue which may, in turn, head off a much more challenging workplace situation which most certainly would otherwise result in an unnecessary loss of good people.

“Spring Cleaning”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

A friend of mine was once the assistant manager of a large ranching corporation. He enjoyed the outside work and was very good at it. But his job as a manager required mountains of paper work to be completed on a daily basis. When the heavy work seasons of calving and weaning came around, his extra pair of skilled hands was always needed outside: by the chute, on a horse, in a feed truck, in the shop, etc.

The problem is that the paper work didn’t complete itself, and there was no “day-worker” for hire who could complete federal permits or tax ID statements. So when my friend came back into the office at 5 p.m. after an already long day, not only was his work not done, but it was piling up and getting away from him. This led to a great deal of stress and tension between himself and the general manager, not to mention a fair bit of confusion, frustration, and burnout.

As we head into the busy spring season, there may be a need to be exceptionally intentional about delineating job duties and priorities. In small businesses, everyone wears several hats, and that is especially true in agriculture. There will be opportunities for inside folks to get their hands dirty. The thinking is that the paper work will get done when the outside work slows down, and that may be true enough.

The question is, “What toll is that accumulating pile of inside work taking on those whose responsibility it will be to complete it?” Every properly designed job description will have duties clearly stated, and the duties will be clearly prioritized. If it is someone’s priority to complete payroll before Friday, then there shouldn’t be a ‘temporary’ priority change until after the field work is completed. That’s not to say emergencies don’t happen and flexibility isn’t required, but there may be unintended consequences. After the emergency is alleviated, what steps can be taken to assist the person who wasn’t permitted to complete their priority duties? Simply asking them to “go get your work done” is a good recipe for burnout and failed morale.

As we all get busy this spring, take time to discuss any potential deviations from “business as usual” ahead of time with all the affected parties, and then discuss ways to keep these deviations from settling around the shoulders of a few, key, individuals. They may be committed to the organization and may be able to deal with the stress for a short while, but concessions should be made to ensure their long-term satisfaction by rewarding their short-term sacrifices.

“Giving Forward”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Recently, it was announced that Hillshire Brands and Tyson have recently devoted resources to helping the hungry. Hillshire Brands has made a multi-year commitment to two Illinois food banks, and Tyson Foods is helping a military veterans group provide food and logistic support in conjunction with disaster relief efforts. The 350 Cargill Cares Councils provide nutrition and health programs, as well as other services, to local and international communities, all through local Cargill employee volunteers.

Corporations don’t have ethics, people do. Technically, a corporation is simply a piece of paper (a piece of digital paper, probably) in a law office, officially documenting the financial accounting and liability structure of a business or other entity. But also, that corporation is made up of human beings, each with some degree of integrity, morality, and compassion.

There are certainly financial benefits to the corporation—the legal entity—in the form of reduced tax obligations, particularly following an especially profitable fiscal year, to giving to a worthy (and officially recognized by the federal government) cause. But there are also emotional benefits to the human beings involved in the corporation as well. In fact, the intangible energizing and unifying effects of a corporate charity effort are profound.

Whether your organization operates in rural America or near a large urban area, there are people near you who are in need. There are likely people within your team who have (a) the passion and (b) the natural gifting to organize and promote a charity effort throughout your organization. There are possibly also people on your team who personally know others who are in need and will eagerly (a) connect your organization to a worthy charity and (b) make a personal statement to others on the team as to the very real human benefits of your team’s outreach effort.

Outreach and giving make your organization a good local citizen. Your employees live and interact in the local community. By providing them with a meaningful and locally beneficial focal point for their own charitable aspirations, you will touch something deep within your team members which resides outside the boundaries of salary and your profit sharing plan.

If recent volatility in agricultural markets has caused your organization financial pain, then please disregard this message. But if the recently rising tide has floated your corporate boat, then please consider how your outfit can make a difference in the local community, as well as within your own corporate family.