Interpersonal Business

Vol. LXI

Dear Manager,

With this as my foundation, I would like to tackle an area that seems to be the most elementary concept, yet is most often poorly implemented. We have all worked with hundreds of individuals in the many phases of our business and in our management careers. Some were outstanding professionals, others seemed to just get by, and some simply didn’t make the cut. If there were a single principal that determined the “have-its” from the “don’t- have-its,” what would it be?

The mystery talent is: follow up and follow through. I take it back, it takes no talent, only a keen sense of ones own integrity and personal resolve. How many times have we heard the old axiom, “My word is my bond?” I’ve got to tell you, we hear it much less in today’s business climate. Yes, I may be getting ready to rant and rave!

I’m not suggesting business is less honest than in the past. I’m suggesting business has gotten a bit less sincere, a bit less willing to commit, played more on the fringes of “what can be gotten away with.” I believe this transition, if true, is very disconcerting to many of us. We are being forced to look below the surface more than in the past. This makes it much more difficult to accept as many conversations at face value. Let’s review some of these “hazardous” personality types.

THE AGREEABLE TYPE

I’m sure you’ve met and worked with individuals who were willing to agree with almost anything you suggested. On the surface, they are very appealing individuals, and the tendency at first blush is to assume “we must both think very much alike.” You soon realize that their personality causes them to agree with whomever, wherever, whenever, as conversations arise. They are pleasers. The problems begin when these individuals can’t possibly fulfill all of the commitments they have made to you, themselves or anyone else. The word NO is simply not in their vocabulary.

THE OVER EXTENDER

This individual is someone who simply can’t assess their own limits. Time carries no definition, with little sense of urgency for themselves or their commitment to others. Their perception of a “job well done” is only conditional on its completion rather than its time frame. Eventually, the basics get accomplished, based on their standards and their acceptable timetable. Those with any sense of urgency must simply wait their turn. Similar to the agreeable type, (but with no time frame) they will assume “responsibility” for whatever is asked of them.

THE BLAMER

These are the individuals who have a “valid explanation” for their inability to perform a task. “Didn’t you hear there was a flood in Caracas?!” I’m convinced that this type of person spends half their time preparing excuses, rather than meeting the task at hand. It can be so much easier to abdicate any sense of control or responsibility due to “unexpected circumstances.” In many cases, the byline of these individuals relates to their own disappointment in the follow through of others! They are constantly being misinformed, being taken advantage of, or simply being let down. Obviously, they have no control over the actions of others? “What was I to do?”

THE MANIPULATOR

This is the individual who has little or no interest in meeting anyone’s requests. Rather than suggest this fact, they simply never follow up. When asked for an update, they simply delay the outcome further. Eventually, the majority of their tasks will no longer be relevant and, with time, will simply be forgotten. Like others, they will exhibit sincerity at the outset, but it is simply a tool for manipulation. Their intentions are obvious, and consistently directed at what they deem “significant.”

IT WASN’T MY JOB TO BEGIN WITH

This is perhaps the most interesting approach to the malaise of poor follow through. Over the years I’ve heard lots of excuses, but this one always sends me over the edge. These are the individuals who accept no responsibility whatsoever. Anything outside their realm of “expertise” is NOT THEIR JOB. These individuals often loosely delegate responsibility to someone “they deem” responsible. This may include simply leaving a task on someone else’s desk, leaving a voice mail containing only minimal information, or neglecting to convey the appropriate sense of urgency.

By nature, these individuals have a tendency to also be clock-watchers. If they can delay a project till the end of the day, they can claim, “It never should have been given to me in the first place!”

I might accept the above conclusions in a third world nation and economies, but not in American Business in the Twenty-first Century! Do these individuals think that we are stupid? Are there instances where we are a part of the problem? Probably some of both.

Sometimes, it’s everything I can do not to smile when someone in their most sincere response heads down one of these roads. With every word, I’m saying to myself, they can’t be thinking I’m an idiot, they just can’t be. Or has American Business also lowered the standards for good business? Are we showing acceptance of mediocrity and lesser performance relating to adequate follow up? Aren’t follow up, and its responsibilities, part and parcel to common courtesy?

If there are signs of these “personnel disorders” within your organization, or in others who impact your business, it’s time to respond. Similar to a child who is misbehaving, my next glance is always directed to the parents. In this case, these individuals are adults. As managers or as their clients, we now assume the role of parents. Ironically, the response, and its discipline are similar. Accountability starts at home!

We must proceed with the premise that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt at the outset. There is nothing worse than looking for trouble that doesn’t exist. Once these individuals’ “subversive tactics” are defined, the show begins.

Begin by stating very clear expectations. With those whom we trust, there is a tendency to be less specific. In all instances, be infinitely specific.

Ask direct questions relating to their understanding of the timetable. These individuals rarely like to be pinned down. Suggest they “get back to you” should there be any indication of problems. Finally, ask that they restate your “mutual” objective. No one can misinterpret a conversation that was verbalized by each party.

It is essential that you proceed with these steps with no unusual tone of voice, or suggestion that the outcome will be less than acceptable. Your sole objective is to improve upon an unacceptable situation. If accomplished, all parties will clearly benefit.

At this point, the leash has been shortened significantly. It’s time to bring it to a close. If an acceptable conclusion has been accomplished, then congratulations are in order. If not, completely review the original conversation. Ask the individual to restate their initial commitment, including the agreement to follow up with you in the instance of problems. State “your confusion” relating to the outcome that had been so clearly defined. In a very limited period of time, these individuals will improve their “survival skills” or quickly take themselves out due to the pressure. You must form your own final conclusions and respond accordingly.

Inconsistencies, mixed signals, false perceptions, and “misunderstandings” are simply costing all of us a tremendous amount of productivity. If it’s only twenty percent of our organization’s potential, we are all wasting one day each week. It is always the simplest of axioms that endure. “Over commitment and under delivery,” isn’t one of them.

Personal Regards,

Keenan

INTERPERSONAL© is published by INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM, Keenan Longcor, Editor, ©2010. Duplication of this publication is permitted for both personal and business use. Excerpts may only be quoted with acknowledgment of INTERPERSONAL/INTERPERSONALBIZ.ORG as the source. For re-publication rights, please contact the editor at KEENAN@INTERPERSONALBIZ.COM