Early participants questioned the benefits of formal communication approaches, such as information sharing and decision-making meetings. They were also hesitant to hold employees (especially family members) accountable for following policies or for achieving agreed-upon goals, matters which are integral to business success.

When people don’t communicate in family businesses, problems can fester, resentments can build, and communication can disintegrate into personal affronts, much as we see on social media today. Undoubtedly, the business will suffer as a result. The good news is that this is changing.

Increasingly, CTEAM participants talk about the successes that come with holding regular, formalized family meetings where opportunities are assessed, conflicts are resolved and decisions are made and even recorded and followed up on.

Recently, the Advanced CTEAM program took participants through an exercise to help further develop communication skills. Using the Conflict Mode Instrument developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, participants reflected on their tendency to be assertive and/or co-operative when trying to resolve differences of opinion. According to Thomas and Kilmann, combining the two dimensions of assertiveness and co-operativeness leads to five primary communication approaches:

1. Avoiding — postponing, sidestepping, withdrawing (unassertive and unco-operative).
2. Accommodating — agreeing to another’s point of view, regardless of what you really think (unassertive and co-operative).
3. Competing — strongly advocating your own point of view, regardless of what the other person says (assertive and unco-operative).
4. Compromising — finding a “split the difference” solution (moderate assertiveness and co-operativeness).
5. Collaborating — actively seeking to understand the other person’s point of view and working hard to find a “win-win” agreement (co-operative and assertive).

In essence, this model suggests that we each have a preferred way of communicating when dealing with conflict, regardless of the situation. Yet the most effective communication strategy is context dependent.

Avoiding a conflict, for instance, might be appropriate when we need time to reflect or to get more information, or if we are too emotional to engage productively. But with chronic avoidance, smaller problems can soon build into bigger ones, and big problems can remained unaddressed.

Many “avoiders” would rather walk away than deal with an unproductive daughter- or son-in-law. Some of this reflects family culture, in which it is considered rude, for example, to call out Uncle Jack for being repeatedly late. Yet when the business is suffering, avoidance is not the best approach.

To move beyond avoidance, consider why it occurs. Some people are so conflict-averse that even dealing with small problems seems overwhelming. They might be concerned about hurting a family member’s feelings, but you can help to overcome chronic avoidance by creating a respectful environment, acknowledging the discomfort in the room, and clarifying what can be gained by addressing the issue frankly but kindly (having a courageous conversation).

Beginning with facts that everyone can agree on can be a starting point. If this sounds like your family, try starting your next family meeting with something like: “We’ve been avoiding this issue as a family for far too long. We all want the business to succeed and coming to an agreement on… is going to be incredibly helpful. Let’s begin by looking at the facts.”

If this seems too daunting, consider hiring a facilitator who can meet with individuals to understand the situation as well as help chair meetings.

Accommodating or “giving in” is another strategy that CTEAM participants acknowledged engaging in. Accommodating can be effective when an issue is more important to the other person than it is to you. It can also help generate good will so the next decision might come your way. However, if accommodating prevents the right decision from being made, this too can be costly.

Chronic accommodators need to recognize that by not providing their point of view, the business may be missing out. Asking those who tend to be quiet, “What do you think?” then showing interest and support for their point of view before others jump in can build confidence and bring other important information to the surface. Ask yourself whose opinion you are not benefiting from, and figure out a way to engage them.

Competing is effective in cases of emergency, or urgency, when there are strongly held disparate views, but a decision must be made. At these times, once competing views are heard and a decision is made (typically by the person with the most formal authority), the team needs to support the decision maker and support the implementation. When one person’s competing approach predominates, however, family members and other employees may become frustrated by their lack of influence and withdraw, undermining decisions or seeking employment elsewhere.

For farm succession to be effective, it is important that the retiring parents have used a variety of communication and decision-making strategies in order to build confidence and capability in their successors.

Compromising is a great “middle ground” strategy when the stakes aren’t high and a quick decision is needed. Splitting the difference gives each party some of what they want. Chronic compromise, however, can result in sub-optimal performance.

Pushing for more — perhaps exploring a radical new business idea, making a significant capital investment and taking a calculated risk — is what the business needs for long-term success. Bold goals can be undermined by compromise.

Collaborating, when done well, is the most time-consuming approach but ultimately it can maximize the potential of a win-win agreement. It should be used for complex decisions with significant long-term implications. Information gathering and active listening — to multiple points of view — are important elements of effective collaboration.

Collaboration typically involves learning, including about the other person’s knowledge, goals, concerns and general point of view. In CTEAM, participants experienced a fun negotiating exercise that powerfully demonstrates how hard it is to truly listen to another person, particularly when you disagree with what they have to say. To guard against distraction when you are trying to collaborate, paraphrase back what you heard once the person has finished speaking. (This will also help you avoid interrupting or formulating your counter-argument when you are supposed to be listening!)

When people don’t feel listened to, resentments build over time and the business is robbed of important information.

It may be hard to recall what daily communication was like before smartphones, text messaging, Instagram, Facebook, blogs, email and tweeting. No doubt, these are highly convenient and can be powerful enablers of information sharing and record-keeping. None of the technology available today, however, can replace deep, meaningful, face-to-face communication, particularly when conflict is involved.

Developing the communication skills needed to help the business thrive should be a priority of every farm family.

Julia Christensen Hughes is the dean at College of Business and Economics, University of Guelph in Guelph, Ont. Agri-Food Management Excellence runs the Canadian Total Excellence in Agricultural Management (CTEAM) program.

The post Assertive, or co-operative? appeared first on Country Guide.

Employees with specialized skills can provide missing competencies and networks, allowing the business to grow in new directions. Front-line supervisors and hourly employees provide the benefit of additional oversight and production capacity. They also provide significant operational efficiencies by allowing more highly paid talent to focus on running the business, analyzing results and making strategic decisions, rather than being perpetually caught up in the business of everyday “doing.”

Finally, as a business owner or senior manager with capable employees, the possibility exists for you to have a more balanced life: to take vacations, take care of your health, take care of your family and ultimately, ensure that your business continues to thrive.

Despite all these potential benefits, it may be surprising that one of the most disliked aspects of business is managing employees, according to research by Berrett-Koehler in 2011. This may be especially true for first-time and front-line managers.

One study by the consulting group Development Dimensions International (DDI), found that the top reason why newly promoted front-line managers took the job was for more money (50 per cent), not because they aspired to lead others. The majority (57 per cent) learned their leadership skills by trial and error.

Of these, over one-third regretted being promoted, largely due to the stress of being ill prepared to manage others (read “Finding the First Rung” on the Development Dimensions International website).

Farm owners and senior managers participating in Agri-Food Management Excellence (AME) programs have similarly shared their reluctance for dealing with poor performers or for taking on additional tasks essential for managing others, such as: regularly and enthusiastically communicating the organization’s vision, values, goals and results; facilitating participative problem-solving and decision-making meetings; developing effective and engaged teams; and providing ongoing performance feedback.

In the HR section of the AME programs, I focus on helping the participating managers and business owners reflect on their current strategies for managing others and identify specific opportunities to better align their approach with the strategic intents of the business. The framework used was first developed at the Harvard Business School by Michael Beer and Bert Spector in the early 1980s, in response to declining international competitiveness within the U.S. manufacturing sector.

The first area of the framework is known as “employee influence,” which is the extent to which employees are well informed about the business and have the opportunity to influence their own areas of responsibility. Seeking employee opinion when purchasing a new piece of equipment, for example, can contribute to a better decision and garner support for implementation.

As well, fostering a culture of employee engagement in which people feel respected and motivated to regularly go above and beyond generates proven positive bottom-line results.

The second area is “reward systems,” which include the wages, bonuses, and benefits employees receive in exchange for their labour, as well as the sense of pride and accomplishment that comes from a job well done. Taken together these rewards form the employee value proposition (i.e. what the organization provides in exchange for the heads, hands and hearts of its employees).

Organizations with a clear and competitive value proposition are better able to attract and retain employees with the skills and attitudes required.

The third area of the framework is “human resource flow” i.e. the practices that influence the flow of employees into, through, and out of the organization, such as recruitment and selection, training and development, and performance feedback.

Many employees today are looking for jobs where there is a commitment to ongoing training and development. They also want their work to be socially beneficial. Emphasizing these opportunities on the company’s website and in any job advertisements can help build a positive employer brand and attract greater numbers of applicants.

When assessing applicants, managers are well advised to augment their interviews (which are inherently unreliable predictors of performance) with tests that replicate typical job demands. Asking potential employees to use or fix a piece of equipment, to make a presentation, or to serve a customer, for example, can help to avoid costly selection errors.

Once hired, instead of the dreaded annual performance review, research has found that it is far more motivating to provide ongoing performance feedback, ideally by putting in place a system that enables employees to monitor their own progress against agreed-upon goals, thus providing them with the opportunity to adjust their own performance as needed.

When employees consistently fail to meet expectations, managers must remedy the situation by providing additional training or support, adjusting the individual’s work responsibilities, or terminating the relationship.

Finally, we talk about “work systems” and the management of effective teams. People are inherently competitive and self-interested. In order for a team to thrive, it is essential that its leader ensure certain attributes are in place, such as common goals, clear roles and accountabilities, effective communication systems, and a culture of trust.

Taken together, these four elements comprise an organization’s strategic approach to managing people. While much of this may seem like common sense, in practice, many of these suggestions are not common at all.

That is why, when done right, and once cemented in an organization’s culture, a competitive advantage can be achieved.

Julia Christensen Hughes, PhD, is dean of the College of Business and Economics, University of Guelph and an instructor with AME. For more information on the University of Guelph’s MBA program in food and agribusiness management. For information on AME visit agrifoodtraining.com.

The post The strategic approach to managing employees appeared first on Country Guide.