Time Management

The multiplier effect of good time management

Many managers have to find ways to improve their own time management skills / techniques and have refined their working habits so they function more effectively. They've sharpened their skills, techniques and disciplines and can now focus on what counts most. They've learned to cope with interruptions, changing conditions, and the demands placed on them by others. But even more important, some of these managers have shared the techniques with others, particularly the people reporting to them. Active guidance of their people in group meetings and one-on-one counseling sessions has produced mutual understanding of the best methods for effective time use and has led to improved productivity, minimal frustration, and increased job satisfaction for all. This makes so much obvious sense that it's hard to believe that there are managers who neglect this participatory approach. But some managers are their own worst enemies. They make the incorrect assumption that their time-effective work habits will be clear to all and over time will be adopted by the supervisors reporting to them, the group as a whole, and other people and groups in the organization. But the reality is that such an occurrence is not automatic. Further, these managers' behavior may be misconstrued and these managers may be seen as curt or abrasive. The attendant resentment may adversely affect work routine and productivity.

The impact of managerial actions

It's often difficult for a manager to recognize the impact that his or her actions have on others. Managers usually function with positive and constructive intent. But methodology and timing are crucial; if one or the other is inappropriate, a manager's actions can be perceived as and become real obstacles to achievement. Where a manager functions in a counterproductive manner with subordinate management, the subordinate managers not only may be diverted from what's important but also may transmit changed direction to their own subordinates. As a result, a negative multiplication may take place. The way to avoid the trap is also the way to achieve a positive multiplication.

What's needed?

First is a realization that some actions may not be productive; then an inventory of time wasting habits should be taken and ways to overcome them should be identified;

finally, these new time-effective behaviors should be shared with the entire organization.

What one study revealed

Some years ago and over a period of a year, 250 first and second-line supervisors participating in management development seminars were surveyed. These managers were asked to identify three things higher management did that wasted their time. From the categorized complaints, it was illuminating to see how the actions of higher management, despite positive intentions, were perceived as or became real obstacles to accomplishment. Here is how the complaints stacked up, in order of frequency of response:

The boss stops by to socialize, interrupting priority work. Everything that comes up must be done 'right now.' Meetings are called that are unnecessary, are called for which my presence isn't needed although I am requested to attend, or go off track and take longer than necessary. Priorities are changed in midstream. The boss isn't available when really needed. The boss gives assignments to my people without my knowledge. My boss gives me assignments that are someone else?s responsibility. Assignments are unclear; I'm given incomplete instructions, requirements, or information. Projects are given unrealistic timetables. I'm not given the authority to make decisions-my boss must O.K. everything. My boss insists that I personally handle work assignments that my subordinates could do without much direction from me. My boss keeps looking over my shoulder to see what I'm doing. My boss wants minute detail on minor matters, ignoring or withholding action on more important ones. My boss procrastinates in making decisions; there are continuing discussions, reviews, and requests for advice. My boss reverses decisions.

These were the major complaints of first- and second-line supervisors from almost 200 organizations. Imagine the time lost and the accompanying increase in costs involved. Imagine, too, the impact of these actions if practiced by other managers in the same organizations and untold numbers of managers in thousands of other organizations. The negative multiplication effect is enormous.

Wasted time
Needless to say, time management problems and poor work habits can be found at all levels, although the survey focused on the higher levels of management. There's no doubt

that with awareness and self-discipline most managers at any level could improve their time use effectiveness by 20 percent. For a manager at the $60,000 level, that's $12,000 worth of increased accomplishment. But that's only the tip of the iceberg because that manager affects the time use and productivity of those reporting to him or her, as well as possibly suffering from misdirection himself or herself from above. This misdirection could represent another 20 percent of misused time or $10,000 in the case of our $50,000 manager. Let's assume that our $50,000 manager has four lower-level managers under his or her supervision. If that manager's actions have a negative impact on 20 percent of the time use of these managers who average $30,000 a year, that's another $24,000 worth of time wasted that can never be recovered. In addition, these managers misuse 20 percent of their own time, or another $24,000. Further, it's likely the habits of these four managers will influence the productivity of their line employees. Assume they each direct five subordinates averaging $15,000 annually. A 20 percent misdirection means another $60,000. Given an additional 20 percent waste due to their own misuse of time, we are now at $120,000.1f we add two secretaries to this hypothetical operation, at $14,000 each year, 20 percent of their time lost represents another $5,600. With their own time waste, the figure grows to $11,200. That makes a total of $207,200. No small change! That's the equivalent of almost 14 people, at an average annual salary of $15,000, doing absolutely nothing for a full year! Sound farfetched? Hardly. Actually, it's probably a conservative picture. Apply that multiplication to your own operation and calculate the cost. The figure will be more than sobering. And that doesnt even calculate the effect on other parts of the organization through things not done or delayed. Multiply the direct cost of our example (or your own) and the expensive, irretrievable loss of time and productivity is staggering, even frightening.

A positive multiplication
How much more productive it would be to take those same time-cost figures, make them positive, and go through the same multiplication. It can be done, but the process isn?t just arithmetic. It means setting in motion the machinery to:

Make each person aware of his or her own time use and provide the skills and techniques for effective time management. Have each person share time management techniques with peers and subordinates and, it appropriate, supervisors.

Institute direct and combined efforts among operations to identify interactive time-wasters and work toward their elimination. In short, team up for effective time use. That?s the positive multiplication, and the most important and neglected part of time management. Use groupware information technology on your computer network and make sure everyone uses it.

If these objectives are to be met, the effort must extend beyond an individual reading about good time management, even attendance at some seminar on the subject. The effort must be within the entire organization and among groups of people from all levels within the same operation, interdependent operations, or completely separate operations. Management groups on the same or different levels should work together on time problems, as well as superior-subordinate management teams and manager-employee teams. Identifying objectives, priorities, and the best means to reach them often results in surprises, and the differences in perceptions must be recognized, faced, and resolved. Mutual exploration of time-wasting activities, their impact on others, and agreement on their reduction are essential steps. Such a concerted attack will make a 20 percent improvement in accomplishment, cost savings, satisfaction, and reduced stress seem conservative. The positive multiplier effect needs people working together to team up on time. The result is a synergistic effect - two times two can equal five.

Leadership - The Link Between Planning & Doing If you have read the preceding articles in this section on strategic planning, YOU will have a sense that strategic planning involves more than getting together for one day a yearto develop a strategic planning document. Strategic planning is both a logical, rational process, and a process that involves people. It takes more than developing a plan for that plan to be implemented. In this article, we consider that the critical link between planning and doing is leadership. Traditional Planning Methods The traditional way for government organizations to plan is for a group of people, usually executives/management, but sometimes including employees, to get together for some period of time each year. Generally, inadequate time is allocated to the exercise, but if it is completed, it results in a document that contains a mission statement, broad organizational goals, and other elements as is deemed appropriate. Then, the plan is usually hidden away somewhere, never to be seen again. Traditional methods yield traditional results. As a wise man once said "If you keep doing what you have been doing, you will get what you have always got".

It needn't be this way. Reconceptualizing Strategic Planning Planning should be considered as a blueprint for change. The plan should be the basis for introducing controlled change into an organization so it can adapt to changing times. By anticipating shifting demands, the plan serves the purpose of allowing the organization to control its own direction, rather than waiting until political forces demand change (and demand change NOW). In addition, the plan allows for consistent monitorin~ofsuccess,~nd re-examination of the degree to which organizational resources should be structured and allocated to achieve future goals. But, if we look at strategic planning in this light, as a blueprint for change, we also need to consider that any organization has built-in inertia.. the tendency to keep on doing what one has been doing. On its own, the strategic planning process, as traditionally undertaken, is insufficient to overcome this inertia. Other forces need to come into play if the plan, and proposed changes get implemented. Leadership - The Key Force In the context of strategic planning, leadership means a number of things. We can outline the role of leadership in the following ways, keeping in mind that leadership may come from appointed leaders (management and executive) and from the ranks . 1.Those in leadership roles ensure that as many members of the organization as possible buy into the values, mission, and broad organizational goals. There are two components to this function. First, leaders manage the perceptions of staff with respect to the planning process. Remember that most people have experienced the "plan-in-the-drawer" syndrome, where effort expended in planning is seen as wasted when the plan is ignored. Prior to the planning process, leaders must emphasize that THIS TIME, things will be different. Second, leaders manage the planning process so that staff feel that they have adequate input into the process, that they are heard, and their values and visions are incorporated into the final plan and its implementation. Specifically, leaders arrange things so that the process is open, and conforms to accepted rules of communication. That may mean hiring an external consultant to orchestrate the planning sessions. It will certainly mean that rules get established to guide participation. Everyone who wants to participate should have the opportunity, and even reticent staff should be gently encouraged to involve themselves. 2. While managing perceptions of the planning process is important, the critical role of leadership occurs after the plan has been completed. Leaders must treat the planning results as the "organizational signposts that guide behaviour and decision making". After all, nobody is going to take a plan seriously if the formal leaders ignore it, or never refer to it again. If you are serious about using strategic planning as a tool for organizational success, consider some of the following actions. A. When working with staff to set individual objectives, be sure to mention how the individual objectives will contribute to the achievement of the mission and organizational goals as outlined in the strategic plan.

Make sure that the employee is familiar with the plan when individual objectives are set. In addition, at each meeting with each employee, work with the employee to help him/her determine how the values outlined in the strategic plan apply to them. In other words, given the particular values, strategic goals and mission statement how is the employee to behave or make decisions. B. Once the strategic plan has been completed, the formal leader of the organization (and perhaps others) should present and discuss the plan with the up-line manager or executive. It is NOT sufficient to send a copy. Because you will need up-line support to implement the plan, you will need their commitment, and commitment will only come from discussion and explanation of the plan. C. At staff meetings, when decisions are required, explain how the strategic plan is used, or is to be used to make decisions. If you are the manager communicating a decision you have made, explain your rationale in light of the mission, values and goals expressed in the plan. If you are using a participative decision making process, help staff refocus on these components of the plan, so that they can be used to guide decision making D. When doing performance reviews with staff, ask the individual to explain how his or her actions are consistent with the elements of the plan. How has their action contributed to organizational goals? Has their behaviour been consistent with organizational values? What needs to change so that the individual can further contribute to implementing the plan? Consider recognizing contributions to achievement of the plan, even if the individual did not have specific responsibility as outlined in their individual objectives. And, when setting future objectives, consider writing an objective that refers to the values expressed in the plan. For example: "Will act in accordance with the organizational values expressed in the strategic plan". If you go this route, make sure -that~the implications of these values are clear to the employee in terms of his or her behaviour. 3. A final role of leadership is to create more leaders. One goal that formal leaders (executives, managers) can set for themselves is to encourage down-line employees to take on some of the leadership roles outlined above. This can be particularly effective in decision making. The ideal situation is for staff to internalize the plan to the extent that some take on the role of reminding people of the plan, and its relevance to any given decision-making process. Cultivate leaders in your organization by giving increased responsibility, and encouraging this kind of leadership behaviour. Conclusion Leadership, regardless of when it comes from formally appointed leaders, or Informal leaders, provides the link between planning and doing. Leadership, regardless of when it comes from formally appointed leaders, or informal leaders, provides the link between planning and doing. Effective leadership helps alter perceptions about strategic planning, and the organization itself, helping to overcome inertia, the tendency to keep things the same.

Without leadership, most strategic plans will end up as dead pieces of paper. Most importantly, when planning occurs without leadership, cynicism increases when staff sees that the plan is being ignored, or even violated. The outcome of this is that formal leaders suffer a loss of credibility.

Leadership

The Responsive Manager/Leader

The Responsiveness Paradigm outlined elsewhere in this newsletter is applicable at a number of levels. For example, it applies to organizations in general, and the ability of the organization to respond to the needs of customers, staff and other stakeholders (eg. politicians, etc). It applies to non-supervisory staff, and their ability to respond to the needs of their managers, customers and co-workers. This month we are going to look at responsiveness as it applied to managers, leaders and/or supervisors. Influence Of The Responsive Manager The responsive manager tends to succeed by building bonds of respect and trust with those around him/her. Staff respond positively to responsive managers; they work more diligently, work to help the manager and the organization succeed, and will go the extra mile when necessary. That is because responsive managers act consistent with the principle that their jobs are to help their staff do their jobs. So, a basic inter-dependence emerges based on behaviours that show concern, respect and trust. Responsive managers also influence those above them in the hierarchy. Because responsive managers have the ability to read and act upon the needs of their "bosses", they are perceived as helpful and reliable, or in a simple way, very useful. This allows them to get the "ear" of people above them in the system, and further helps get things done when needed. Contrast this with the limited influence of the UNresponsive manager. The unresponsive manager is restricted in influence because those around him/her do not respect or trust them to look out for their welfare. Influence is more limited to the use of power coming from the formal position, and fear, a motivational component that is hard to sustain over time. Unresponsive managers tend to be perceived as self-interested, or at best uninterested in the needs of those around them. They also tend to be perceived by those above them as less reliable and less useful due to their focus on empire building, organization protection, and self-interest, rather than getting done what needs to be done. You Can Preview our help card on Responsive Managers by clicking here How Do They Do It? Responsive managers apply a number of specific skills and abilities to the task (as outlined generally in The Responsiveness Paradigm article). Above all, they appear to be "withit". Withitness

has a number of components. First withit managers are able to put aside their concerns to listen to (and appear to listen to) those around them. As a result, they know what is going on, and know what is both said, and said between the lines. They have the knack of appearing to know what people need even if those needs are not expressed directly. However, knowing what is going on, and identifying the needs of those around them is not sufficient. The responsive manager also acts upon that knowledge, attempting to help fulfil the needs of employees, superiors, etc. Responsive managers wield influence to solve problems for those around them, often before even being asked. Here's an example: I was responsible for automating an office system in a government department. As happens sometimes, the Management Information Systems people were not keen on our going our own way on the project, despite the fact that they had indicated they could not do it for us in the near future. As a result their cooperation (needed for the project) was patchy. As team leader, I faced a number of roadblocks, despite the fact that our Assistant Deputy Minister wanted to see this project come to fruition. I regularly reported back to our Director, outlining progress and roadblocks. Every time I communicated roadblocks to the Director, they were removed within a short time, despite the fact that I did not request direct action. In addition, the Director advised and counselled me on how to deal with the "systems people" so I could have maximum impact. Despite the roadblocks, the project was completed on time and was very successful, much to the chagrin of some of the systems people, who I think were hoping we would fail. This is a simple story, but one full of meaning. In this situation the Director was able to identify the project leader's needs with respect to the project, listening carefully, and identifying actions she could take to "smooth the path". Not only was the Director able to remove obstacles and fulfil the need of the project leader, but the Director responded on a deeper level, helping to teach the Project Leader methods of becoming more effective, fulfilling yet another need. All of this was assumed to be the proper role of the Director, and was done without expressing all of the needs specifically or explicitly. We can contrast this with the unresponsiveness of the MIS people. They lectured, they fussed, they predicted dire consequences, rather than offering consistent, responsive help. They focused not on responding to the needs of their clients, but on some other factors having to do with control, and their own needs. Eventually, their lack of responsiveness resulted in the very thing they did not want; loss of control of the project. As a result of this project their overall status in the organization suffered, simply because at both an organization and individual level they were seen as barriers, rather than useful. Let's look at one more example. An employee had been working for a government branch for about a year, having moved to the city as a new resident. In a casual conversation, the supervisor noted that the employee wasn't looking at his best, and asked how he was feeling. The employee explained that he hadn't been feeling well lately, and sounded very tired and overwhelmed. The supervisor determined that the staff member didn't have a

local family doctor, asked if he would like the supervisor to arrange an appointment, and proceeded to do so immediately. The problem turned out to be a minor one. In this example we see again the ideas of "withitness" and responsiveness. The supervisor was able to identify that the staff member was in need of some help, despite the fact that the staff member did not state this explicitly. Note that the supervisor didn't pressure the staff member to go to the doctor, but identified needs, checked them out, and then acted upon them. In this case, help consisted of direct, helpful action. Conclusion These two examples are the stuff of loyalty and commitment. They are remembered years and years after the fact, and continue to extend the influence of managers. In this sense responsiveness is a critical component of management success, because it allows managers and supervisors to get things done, for the benefit of all players. In the limited space we have, we have attempted to give you a feel of what responsiveness means. You might want to extend your own understanding by considering some of the following questions. 1. If you are a manager or supervisor, how can you modify your own behaviours so that you become and are perceived as more responsive by a) your staff, b) your boss and c) your customers? 2. Again, if you are a manager or supervisor what is your definition of the "responsive employee"? Can you identify your "favourite employees", and consider how they are responsive to you? Our bet is you will find that your most valued employees are responsive. 3. If you are non-management, what would you need to do to be perceived as more responsive by the people around you?

Success File - Know Your Role. How 'Bout Their Roles? Robert Bacal is a noted author, keynote speaker, and management consultant. His most recent books include Performance Management - A Briefcase Book, and The Complete Idiot's Guide To Dealing With Difficult Employees.
It seems pretty obvious that employees need to know what their own jobs require -their roles, responsibilities and authority levels. We don't expect people to do their jobs effectively if they don't know what they are supposed to be doing. However, one area that people tend to ignore is how well employees understand what OTHER PEOPLE DO in their organizations. Why might that be important? Recently, I was doing some training in customer service and defusing hostile customers for a fairly large organization. A constant theme kept emerging (and it's quite common). A customer would call in with some sort of difficulty or problem, and

the person answering the phone would transfer the caller to someone else. Unfortunately, the next person taking the call was not the right person, or was unavailable, leaving the customer to leave voice mail, or once again, get shuffled to someone else. Often the frustrated customer would end up calling the first person back to holler at them. How does this happen? Are employees stupid? Or perhaps can't be bothered? Probably not. They simply lack the information they need to provide good quality customer service to callers. And what's the outcome? First, angry customers. Second, stress and frustration on the part of staff caught in this shuffle. Third, some terrible inefficiencies for the organization itself, which impacts the bottom line. The problem is that we don't educate staff in the "bigger picture". In this case, that bigger picture relates to what other people do, their various expertise, and the relationship of other employee's jobs to each other. Before we talk about specific "fixes", consider this. It's very rare that employees work is independent of the work of other people in their workplaces. These days, getting jobs done has become more complicated, where the ability to get something accomplished often involves cooperation with others, or some degree of teamwork. Customer service aside, workplaces where people understand their own jobs and the jobs of others (like how the whole puzzle fits together) are going to be more effective and more productive. Helping People Understand The Larger Puzzle New employees should be oriented and educated not just about their own jobs, but about what other people do, and who to talk to when faces with different kinds of situations. They need to know who has decision-making power, and who has expertise they may need. That's far more important than knowing where the washrooms are (well, that's debatable!). Workplaces are constantly changing. Responsibilities change, and so do job roles. Management should take an active role in keeping employees up to date about changes that affect not only their own jobs, but the jobs and roles of others. This is even more important in team based and project based environments. Regular staff meetings can be used to do this in an ongoing way, and need not be time intensive. Often, staff updates can take only a very few minutes. Here's the most important part. And this applies to every employee. Employees tend to hesitate about asking too many questions, for fear of looking stupid or being perceived as a nuisance. They rely on the human resources department or their supervisor to tell them what they need to know. Unfortunately, supervisors don't always know what employees need to know, or haven't thought about it, and they can't read minds. So, it's important that employees take on responsibility for their own understanding of what other people do. Employees! Listen up! ASK! You can't do your job well if you don't know your own role and what other people do. You can't do your job if you don't know where to refer a customer with a particular problem. Let's end this by listing some things that people should know:

Who has authority to make decisions about specific issues (which people, which issues)? Where does the expertise lie to deal with particular issues? What procedures should be used to involve people who need to be involved in a particular issue? When a particular person who needs to be involved is unavailable, is there a backup procedure (someone else to contact)?

The nice part about all this is that it isn't rocket science, but it is neglected. Human resources, managers and employees can all take responsibility and make sure that employees know and understand their own job responsibilities and roles, and those of others who fit into the completed "puzzle" of getting things done effectively and efficiently.

About Team-Building-The Manager's Role

There has been much made of the importance of teams in the workplace. Whether you are implementing TQM, or just want to increase effectiveness or employee morale, developing effective cohesive teams is a good tactic. But teams ain't simple. We are going to devote the PSM supplement to examining some principles related to team-building with particular emphasis on the role of the manager or supervisor. What Is A Team? Mark Sanborn, an expert on teams, outlines a few characteristics of a team. First, Sanborn defines a team as being composed of a highly communicative group of people. Poor communication means no team. Second, Sanborn suggests that a team must have members with different backgrounds, skills and abilities, so that the team can pool these things to be effective. In other words a team with no diversity in it will be unlikely to work in an innovative fashion. Third, and perhaps most importantly, a team must have a shared sense of mission. Whether we are talking about a temporary work improvement team, or a branch, all members must share the sense of mission. Fourth, a team must have clearly identified goals. A team must be able to gauge its success, and know what it is trying to accomplish. How Does A Team Differ From A Work Group? Sanborn suggests the following differences: On Competition:

Work groups tend to compete inwardly, with members competing against each other for favour, recognition, etc. High performing teams compete, but with those outside the organization. On Focus: Work groups tend to be task-oriented and characterized by members who follow their own personal agendas. High-performing teams are goal-oriented. Members work towards the achievement of the team goals and agenda, rather than in different directions. On Style: Work groups tend to be autocratic and hierarchical in nature. Teams, on the other hand, tend to be participative and self-steering within the goals of the team. On Tolerance: Work groups tend to tolerate each other, while teams tend to enjoy each other. Differences in teams are welcome and encouraged, while in work groups, differences and disagreements are suppressed. On Risk: Work groups tend to avoid risk and maintain the status quo. High performing teams tend to accept risk. The Manager's Role It is unfortunate that many managers want to stimulate the development of highperformance teams, but do not see themselves as active players in the process. Sometimes, this comes from a mistaken idea that a team should be self-contained and owned by the team members. In fact, teams should be owned by its members, but the manager or supervisor plays THE KEY ROLE in setting the climate for the development of teams. We can't overstate this point. If you want to encourage team functioning, it is very likely that you, yourself will have to change. If you don't, any team approach is doomed to failure. If you look at teams in other contexts, you will quickly realize that leadership determines success. A sports team has a coach, a symphony orchestra has a conductor. These teams don't spontaneously develop without effective leadership, but develop and grow with the help and guidance of a leader whose job is not to control, but to teach, encourage, and organize when necessary. A good way to describe the role of the manager is a catalyst, a force that causes things to happen for other people, and the team. Not only is the manager's role critical, but it changes over the lifespan of the teambuilding process. In the beginning of the process of team-building, the team members may need a good deal of help developing their mission and purpose, identifying what they want to accomplish, and, more importantly, with the development of interpersonal and group skills such as conflict resolution, meeting

management, etc. They may also need constant reminder that the manager is serious about the team, meaning that its activities and decisions or recommendations will be implemented wherever humanly possible. The manager may even be called upon to act as a mediator, when conflict cannot be resolved by the team members. As a team grows and matures, the manager might become an equal team member, or may find that the team doesn't require ongoing involvement. Or not. Some Critical Leadership Factors We can describe some important leadership factors that will affect the team building process, and its success. While these are particularly applicable to the formal work unit leader (i.e. the manager), they apply also to team members who are performing in a leadership capacity. Highly developed inter-personal skills and understanding of some basic psychology regarding what makes people commit to, and perform. Must recognize the importance of balancing between tasks (getting the job done) and people (ensuring that team members are satisfied with the process of getting the work done). Willingness to listen and ability to communicate: Leaders must have a preference to listening and understanding rather than controlling and talking. Show Constancy of Purpose. Leaders must commit themselves to the team, and not give up when the going gets rough, or success is slow to come. Show Consistency In Behaviour: Leaders must behave in a consistent manner regarding team work. Leaders who sometimes encourage team process and sometimes bypass the team confuse the hell out of everyone. When this happens, nobody takes teams seriously. Model Desirable Team Behaviour: The team will take its cues from its leader, or the manager. You cannot break inter-personal rules, not listen, and use autocratic prerogatives, and expect members of your team to believe that you REALLY value working together. Be Able To Deal With Problem Team Members. Sometimes a team does not have the internal resources to deal with a member that is uncooperative or so unskilled in group behaviour that he or she becomes a barrier. A manager must be able to coach when necessary, problem-solve, establish consensus and mediate.

http://www.work911.com/articles.htm