That's a great moral precept, but a bad theory of management.
It presumes that everyone is the same and will respond to identical treatment - being treated the way you'd like to be.
However, many of your people aren't like you. What's more they're not even like each other. And you have to help them relate to each other by teaching them to appreciate the other person's style, strengths and motivation.
To get the best performance from your executive team, you have to orchestrate them, getting each to give his/her best and helping members blend their strengths for peak performance as a group. To achieve this, you must analyze their different styles of operating.
Everyone is a mixture of four basic behavior patterns, usually with one dominating. The others, less used, come into play when the situation calls for them.
There are, however, no "good" or "bad" styles. There are only the individual ways each of us does things, and all are acceptable and can be effective in their own right.
A person whose dominant style is Supporting-Giving tends to be trusting, responsive, idealistic and loyal. He/she tries to do the very best possible whenever assigned a task and sets high standards for self and staff. Highly receptive to others' ideas, this person cooperates and is helpful, a natural team player.
When Controlling-Taking is the major style, a person is openly assertive and a go-getter. There is a preference for acting quickly, expressing ideas confidently, being persuasive and competitive. A take-charge individual, this person wants little, if any, regular supervision. He/she tells you what needs to be done.
Then there's the Conserving-Holding style of operating, in which a person is methodical and precise. Before acting, various ways of doing a job are analyzed, to find the best approach. This person is thorough and practical, no idle dreamer, making the most of existing resources. Often reserved and unenthusiastic, he/she nonetheless does a predictable, efficient job.
Finally, a person whose dominant style is Adapting-Dealing is flexible, enthusiastic and tactful. He/she never seems to make enemies, charming everyone. He/she is sensitive t what people want and feel and modifies approaches accordingly. Popularity and the spotlight are important but there is openness to new ideas and an interest in exciting fellow-workers and staff to do the job at hand.
Each style has its role to play within any operating unit, providing its own unique way of performing tasks.
You have to assess each employee's dominant and pervading style and gear your supervision of the person with this in mind. Then by explaining the different styles to staff members and showing how each can make its special, valid contribution, you encourage better teamwork.
Under your guidance, your subordinates learn to appreciate one another's differences and to cash in on them by mixing and meshing their styles to achieve maximum performance overall.
So often, though, such differences are not appreciated because people exaggerate their style. They overdo a good thing, pressing a valid style across a threshold at which they key strengths become weaknesses.
Thus, the worker whose usual Controlling-Taking style is characterized by initiative and confidence can become impulsive and arrogant.
A careful, systematic and analytical person whose style is Conserving-Holding becomes plodding and nitpicking, involved in analysis-paralysis.
The person with a Supporting-Giving Style can push trust to gullibility and extend excellence to impracticality. With the Adapting-Dealing style, the person can exaggerate flexibility into inconsistency and then turn tactfulness into over- agreeableness.
Frequently, people find themselves doing too much of their good thing simply because their style gives them satisfaction.
Didn't it make them as successful as they are? So why not use more of it, even though the situation doesn't call for it? To everyone else, this excess seems unnecessary, self-serving and frustrating.
Excess can also result from stress in the working environment. Stress can occur if, for instance, objectives are vague. Let's say the goal is to improve profits but no one ever says how much or by when. This confusion breeds tension and employees strain their dominant style until it becomes counterproductive. Or perhaps the deadlines are unrealistic for the employees; they really can't be met.
Another possibility: Are there fuzzy lines of authority and responsibility? If so, no one's ever sure what they're supposed to be doing and for whom.
Are there conflicting expectations? A division manager may ask his/her staff to be more expansive in their marketing efforts - but the financial manager wants them to watch their costs.
Overload is another factor. It occurs when the amount of work and responsibility are too much for too few. It also happens when an employee or whole group are over their heads because of inexperience.
Check the work environment and its rules and regulations to see how they're affecting employees and make appropriate adjustments where necessary and possible.
Next, analyze the styles of the individual workers and then influence them accordingly. This doesn't mean you have to change your own dominant style of managing, however. You don't have to become a compassionate father figure. What you have to do is find the right motivation and meaning for each person, honor it and relate to it.
Let's say you're trying to influence a person whose dominant style is Supporting-Giving. In your approach, stress worthwhile causes, appeal to his/her sense of excellence in asking for his/her help. Show personal concern for how things are going and emphasize that the person can have a chance to further his/her personal development.
"Bill, I really need your help on this new project. It means a lot to the company and, frankly to our department. We can really show everyone just how sharp this department is by doing an outstanding job. It will also be a great experience for you too, getting into the thick of this new project."
As the person applies him/herself to the new task, work out the goals together, show your personal involvement and interest in the subsequent performance. Be accessible for any answers or advice needed, and provide trust and recognition.
If a person's key style is Controlling-Taking, appeals should be made to his/her competitive drive. Give lots of responsibility and authority, as well as the resources to achieve the goals. Let him/her show what can be done. Don't keep looking over this person's shoulder - keep out of the way.
"Carol, this new project is really tough and every department's sure we'll foul up. I want you to take charge and show them it can be done. This is completely your project and I'm assigning you the people you want - but I expect you to give it the 'push'. If it can be done at all, I know you'll do it."
Of course, those results should be carefully spelled out so firm boundaries are set and the person knows precisely what you want. But let the manager know you're open to her ideas and appreciate any initiative on her part - and spare with her a little but to keep her on her toes.
In the case of the person in the following example whose major style is Conserving-Holding, aim at his methodical nature. He's not a gambler, so present ideas as low risk, the sort of thing that will be ideal for his analytical skills, where he can exercise his logic and fact-oriented approach. In launching him into the new area, accent its links to existing programs so that he feels a sense of familiarity with the job.
"Ted, here's another project for us, like that job we handled last year. I'd like you to dig into it, to get together all the data we need to make it as effective as possible and to be sure its done right. We've been through this sort of exercise before and you know the kind of thing we need."
In dealing with him, you must show you are objective, fair and consistent in reviewing his [performance and in guiding him. He doesn't like upsets or twists and turns, so set out the details clearly in an organized fashion. Systematically review progress him.
For the person in our final example, whose dominant style is Adapting-Dealing, it would be best to capitalize on the project's social elements. This will provide a great chance for her to do things with others and to gain high visibility. She is likely to prize her social skills and to emphasize the need for flexibility and diplomacy.
"Jean, there's a project I need you to handle. The top brass are interested in this one and anyone involved is going to look like a winner when they bring it off. However, the other departments are touchy about it. Their ideas have to be incorporated into the final plan. They can't feel we're imposing out plans on them. We've got to be flexible."
Be informative and give her helpful feedback on how things are going. Make sure to keep the relationship friendly, relaxed and informal - keep her role central and give her credit for what she is able to accomplish.
Obviously, you don't need a special new project to motivate your employees to attack their work with renewed vigor. The same guidelines and options can be applied to ongoing work. People want more understanding from their boss and you can fill this need by relating to their individual styles.
Having checked out the work environment for stresses, and having established your own, personalized guidelines for motivating each employee, you should next seek a way of bolstering the employees' interrelationship.
Individually and then at group meetings, discuss the four style patterns and how they interact. Help each person to analyze his own style. Most people will readily recognize themselves in one of the patterns. Then, especially at the group meetings, show how the styles interrelate and supplement each other to create teamwork.
Stress the fact that there are no good or bad styles. Once this is understood, the emotional aspect of misunderstandings among your staff is defused. Charley comes to realize, for instance, that Ted isn't a nit-picking nitwit. His dominant style is Conserving-Holding. Such abilities associated with this style make their own particular contribution to the overall success of the department.
If people understand their own dominant style and those of the people around them, they are halfway toward accommodating their behavior with the others' and blending styles with each other.
Perhaps the mixing and meshing of styles can be aided by shifting department assignments. The person who hates planning and detail work but loves action could be given a troubleshooter's assignment. Maybe the person who thrives on procedural work should keep the departmental records.
Indeed, perhaps you as the boss, don't enjoy the whole coaching side of your responsibilities. Find a staffer whose major style is Supporting-Giving, make him/her your assistant and he/she can supplement you in dealing with the development of others.
Similarly, use operating styles as a criterion when assigning employees to project teams. Thus, the person who is aggressive but sometimes rubs people the wrong way might be matched with a person whose dominant style is Adapting-Dealing.
Or the personable individual who is great at getting along with customers but isn't so hot at organizing his/her efforts could be teamed with someone whose major style is Conserving-Holding.
Above all, you have to keep in mind that this isn't a one-shot exercise. You should set up periodic meetings at which the basic agenda is to review how all your styles are meshing to achieve departmental objectives and to see what adjustments are needed.
That doesn't mean aimless mutual analysis and name calling but goal-oriented reviews. Start with any problems that have been experienced.
Have deadlines been met? Are defects down the way you'd all planned? What causes stress? Can we overcome it or do we have to learn to live with it.
Begin with the work content this way, and as problems are discussed, gradually shade over into the stylistic aspects of the issues.
Some people object to the idea of discussing their associate's styles because they feel this entails playing amateur psychologist, as though this were some form of group therapy. But the fact is that we all do play amateur psychologist, analyzing why fellow workers and bosses do things.
What's really needed is to get this out in the open, with a mutually agreed-upon set of terms - those four style patterns - so everyone can benefit from shared insights. As long as its understood that there are no good or bad styles - that each person can make a special contribution, everyone should be able to view the subject objectively and positively. Therapy isn't needed because no one is being blamed and all approaches are valued.
It's essentially a matter of you and the others coming to appreciate more deeply the fact that everyone behaves differently and that there are predictable guidelines for dealing with those differences. They all contribute to achieving the goal of making the beautiful music of peak performance.