The Metiss Group's Blog

No competent leader consciously micromanages or controls their direct reports’ activities.  Most leaders truly believe they give their direct reports ample autonomy to do their jobs.  Why is it then most direct reports feel their managers don’t give them the independence they need to do their jobs effectively?  It’s because sub-consciously leaders are reluctant to empower their direct reports and tend to micromanage without recognizing it.

Dr. James Dobson in Dare to Discipline relates the study where social psychologists observed elementary school children in a playground protected by a high fence. The children ran with abandon, playing joyfully within the confines of the fence, unaware and unworried about the busy street just a few feet from the play area. Some theorists decided that the fence was too restrictive, that it inhibited the children, and that they should have more freedom. So, the fence came down.

When the children entered the playground the next day, instead of running with their previous abandon, they tended to huddle together at the center of the play area. Unsure of their limits, they appeared insecure and fearful.

Empowerment works the same way.  Leaders need to consciously define and communicate the boundaries of their direct reports’ tasks, get out of the way, and the direct reports will use their whole playground.  There are four boundaries the leader should establish:

1. expectations – what does success look like;
2. resources – people, processes, budgeting available;
3. timeframes – hours, deadlines, check-in points;
4. restrictions – budgets, authority level, non-negotiables.

Leaders who consciously empower their direct reports by giving them the tools and boundaries to do their jobs, then step aside, experience more success.

Most leaders understand the importance of each direct report having personal development goals. Leading by example here provides two benefits: leaders become better and their direct reports see the value of personal development.

Recent Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) studies have shown a strong correlation between the effectiveness of leaders and the extent to which they exercise; even if exercise requires more time away from work.

Along with the traditional ways of working out at a gym, at home, or at a club, more simple steps spread throughout the day can yield great results.  Try parking farther from the building, taking the stairs instead of an elevator, or using a Swiss ball for a chair to work your core.

Leaders who empower direct reports to hold down the fort while they break for exercise and demonstrate the benefits of personal development are more successful and effective.

In 1983 Howard Gardner wrote the revolutionary book “Frames of Mind – The Theory of Multiple Intelligences” in which he describes seven different forms of intelligence everyone possesses in varying degrees: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal.  Interpersonal intelligence is what makes or breaks most leaders today.

According to Gardner, “Interpersonal knowledge permits a skilled adult to read the intentions and desires – even when these have been hidden – of other individuals and, potentially, to act upon this knowledge.”  For example, leaders are often faced with trying to get their direct reports with individual aspirations and agendas to work together for the good of a team.  Fortunately today there are many tools available to help determine interpersonal intelligence and improve it.

Improving interpersonal intelligence will make leaders better co-workers, leaders, and influencers. As Gardner says, “interpersonal intelligence is seen in how we notice distinction among others; in particular, contrasts in their moods, temperaments, motivations and intentions.”

Make interpersonal intelligence improvement a personal development objective and be empowered for greater success.

President: “We need to invest more in developing our employees.”

Controller: “We can’t invest in them, what if they leave?”

President: “What if we don’t invest in them and they stay?”

The largest expense line item on most company’s income statement is their payroll.  Studies and corporate bottom lines show that companies reap many benefits from investing in training for employees.  Why is it then that leaders are reluctant to invest in developing their talent?

Based on the training investments of 575 companies during a three-year period, researchers found that firms investing the most in training and development (measured by total investment per employee and percentage of total gross payroll) yielded a 36.9 percent total shareholder return as compared with a 25.5 percent weighted return for the S&P 500 index for the same period. That’s a return 45 percent higher than the market average. These same firms also enjoyed higher profit margins, higher income per employee, and higher price-to-book ratios.

Firms that invest $1,500 per employee in training compared with those that spend $125 experience an average of 24 percent higher gross profit margins and 218 percent higher revenue per employee (source: Laurie J. Bassi et al., “Profiting From Learning: Do Firms’ Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?” American Society for Training and Development, 2000).

For example, The Cheesecake Factory, one of the most successful restaurant chains in the nation, spends about $2,000 per employee for training each year and reaps sales of $1,000 per square foot—more than twice the industry average.

Empower your team to invest in talent development and you’ll experience more success than your competition.