The manager

The vital ingredient

Great managers are catalysts: at their best, great managers speed up the reaction between each employee's talents and the company's goals. The chief responsibility of a great manager is not to enforce quality, or to ensure customer service, or to set standards, or to build high-performance teams. Each of these is a valuable outcome, and great managers may well use these outcomes to measure their success. But these outcomes are the end result, not the starting point. The starting point is each employee's talents. The challenge: to figure out the best way to transform these talents into performance. This is the job of the great manager. One objection to this, of course, is that the manager is not the employee's agent; he is the company's agent. Although he may be interested in each employee's success, what happens when the goals of the employee and the goals of the company don't coincide? When push comes to shove, shouldn't the company's goals come first? Shouldn't the company's goals trump the employee's? The inherent conflict of the manager's role isshould he serve the company or the employee?. Although this conflict has preoccupied business theorists and workplace lawmakers for decades, none of the great managers have much time for it. They seem confused at this question. In their eyes, there is no conflict. Sure, they are aware that as managers they exist to serve the ends of the company, as all employees do. But they know instinctively that the only way for a manager to serve the company is to serve the employee first. Here's their logic: The manager's unique contribution is to make other people more productive. He may be charged with other responsibilities, such as selling or designing or leading, but, when it comes to the managing aspect of his job, he will succeed or fail based on his ability to make his employees more productive working with him than they would be working with someone else. And the only way to pull this off, they say, is to make your employees believe, genuinely believe, that their success is your primary goal. Pause for a moment and recall the best manager you have ever worked for. What did she want from you? What did she want for you? What were most of your conversations about? Try to identify her main motives toward you and

your achievements. If this person was indeed a great manager, I bet that, over time, you became convinced that she was deeply preoccupied with the challenge of making you as successful as possible. Of course, on some level you knew that she was being paid to serve the company's agenda, but somehow this agenda receded into the background and was replaced by the feeling that you and your success were her primary focus. Secure in this belief, you were prepared to give her your very best. When you could have quit for the day, you reached down for that extra hour of effort. When you could have joined a group of naysayers, you offered her your loyalty and support. When, during times of uncertainty, you could have jumped ship, you gave her the benefit of the doubt and stuck around. None of this means that she was soft on you. In fact she was probably tougher on you than some of your more mediocre managers. She had confidence in your talents and so she pushed you hard, harder than you would have pushed yourself. She challenged you to set your standards higher and showed you how to reach these standards. She painted a vivid picture of excellence in your role and coached or cajoled you to embody this picture. She may even have disagreed with you when you sought a promotion and told you that, given her understanding of your talents, you would be crazy to take that job. So she was tough, expectant, demanding, but through it all, you never doubted that your success was the North Star, the guiding light around which all decisions were made. Even though, rationally, you were aware that you were a means to an end, emotionally, she never made you feel this way. This, then, is how great managers resolve the dilemma of being caught in the middle between the company and the employee. They know that they are paid by the company to make you want to give your all, but they also know that you will give your all only if you feel supported, challenged, understood, and stretched to be as successful as your talents will allow. As a result, great managers know they have no choice. To do their job, they must start with your feelings. They must convince you that, in their eyes, your success is paramount. In interviews, their commitment to each employee's success appears to be driven less by logic than by intuition and instinct. This is because one of the talents most characteristic of great managers is an ability to derive satisfaction from seeing tiny increments of growth in someone else. Psychologically speaking, they really don't have\a choice.

They can't help but focus on helping you succeed because, given the way their brains are wired, they are immediately intrigued by you, and by the challenge of figuring out how to arrange the world so that you can experience the greatest success possible. This talent is commonly known as the coaching instinct.

In 1984 Harold Geneen, CEO of ITT, provided a two-sentence course on management. He said that although you read a book from the beginning to the end, you run an organization the opposite way. You start with the end and then you do everything you must do to reach it. Whilst all good managers also have leadership abilities, management is more than leading people. It has many more components. Management is also routine administration, supervision, and knowledge of procedures, rules and regulations; for instance it requires knowledge and understand of process and procedures. However, it should focus on the results to be achieved. Managerial success is actually measured by achievement, not by the process used to accomplish the results. Based on this resultsoriented philosophy of management, the new definition focuses on outcomes. On that basis, management can be defined as the act of setting goals and taking responsibility for producing positive results. The implication is that managers are held accountable, not only for their own personal effectiveness, but for the output and results of others in their unit, team and organization. The corollary is that the effective manager begins by defining the end result and then does what is necessary to accomplish it. The question is not one of what the manager can control but of what they can contribute. The effective manager decides what result is required (the goal-setting stage), ensures that action steps are taking (the process) and takes responsibility for producing the outcome. Success will be measured by the degree to which a goal is accomplished. If only life were this simple. It is more realistic to view success in terms of a batting average. Success in the managerial world is a matter of degree. Thus managerial performance cannot be judged entirely in terms of success or failure. An organization that does

so tends to be a blame-culture and the end result is always a CYA (cover your ass) culture. The most positive focus is on lessons learned, where learning is a core value. In this sense, success becomes a journey, rather than a destination. We cannot produce positive results every time. There is always room for mistakes and even failure, but there is never room for complacency or low standards. Whilst managers can and should work towards positive results, they are not the only thing and the ends do not justify all means. While positive results will not, for example, justify unscrupulous means used to attain success, appropriate means do not justify unsatisfactory results. Means and methods are designed to achieve some specific end. When circumstances change and new means are called for, it often turns out that the old ones have become sacrosanct. The means have become ends in themselves - perhaps they are no longer effective but they are enshrined. Means and ends, processes and goals must be in alignment in order to attain positive results.

We are all prone to making judging based on past performance. Barry Staw, then at the University of Illinois and later at the University of California, conducted an experiment in which groups of participants were asked to estimate a company's future sales and earnings per share based on a set of financial data. Afterward, he told some of the groups they had performed well, making accurate estimates of sales and earnings per share, and told other groups they had performed poorly but Staw did so completely at random. In fact, the "high-performing groups" and the "low-performing groups" had done equally well in their financial calculations; the only difference was what Staw told them about their performance. Then he asked the participants to rate how well their groups had done on a range of issues. The results? When told they had performed well, people described their groups as having been highly cohesive, with better communication, more openness to change, and superior motivation. When told they had performed poorly, they recalled a lack of cohesion, poor communication, and low motivation. Staw concluded that people attribute one set of characteristics to groups they believe are effective, and a

very different set of characteristics to groups they believe are ineffective. That's retrospective attribution (the Halo Effect) in action. Of course, these findings do not mean that group cohesiveness and effective communication are unimportant in group performance. It only means that you can't hope to measure cohesiveness or communication or motivation by asking people to rate themselves when they already know something about the outcome. Once people whether outside observers or participantsbelieve the outcome is good, they tend to make positive attributions about the decision process; and when they believe the outcome is poor, they tend to make negative attributions. Why? Because it's hard to know in objective terms exactly what constitutes good communication or optimal cohesion or appropriate role clarity, so people tend to make attributions based on other data that they believe are reliable. Performance is a cue by which people attribute characteristics to groups and to organizations. Some people questioned Staw's findings. They doubted whether an experiment that put strangers together for just thirty minutes could accurately capture the perceptions of work groups. A team led by H. Kirk Downey at the University of Oklahoma therefore replicated Staw's study, using the exact same set of financial problems, but with groups of people who had a prior history of working together, and giving them considerably more time to make their calculations. Again, groups were told at randomthat they had performed well or poorly. The results were virtually the same as in Staw's experiment. Once again, "highperforming teams" reported that their groups had been more cohesive, that teammates were of high ability and had enjoyed working together, that communication had been of a high quality, that they had been open to new ideas, and that overall they had been satisfied with the group process. All because of the randomly assigned description of performance nothing more. Like Staw, Downey and his colleagues found a strong tendency to make attributions on the basis of performance. Surprising? It probably shouldn't be. Picture a group where people express their views vigorously and passionately, even arguing with one another. If the group performs well, participants might reasonably look back and say that open and forthright expressions of opinion were a key reason for success. They'll say: We were honest, we didn't hold back and that's why we did so well! We had a good process! 1Biut what if the group's performance turned out to be poor? Now people might recall things differently. We argued and fought. We were dysfunctional. Next time we should follow a respectful and disciplined process. But now imagine a group where people are calm, polite, and respectful of one another. They speak quietly and in turn. If the group does well, participants might look back and credit their courteous and cooperative nature. We respected one another. We didn't fight. We had a good process! But if the same group's performance was poor, people might say: We were too polite. We censored ourselves. Next time, we should be more direct and open, not so concerned about one another's feelings. The fact is, a

wide variety of behaviors can lead to good decisions. There's no precise way to engineer an "optimal" discussion process. We may try to avoid extremes, sure, but between those extremes is a wide range of behavior that might be conducive to success. And because we really don't know what makes an optimal decision process, we tend to make attributions based on other things that are relevant and seemingly objective namely, what were told about performance outcomes. A serious scholar of leadership, the late James Meindl at SUNY Buffalo concluded after a series of insightful studies that we have no satisfactory theory of effective leadership that is independent of performance. We think we know what good leadership is all aboutclarity of vision, communication skills, good judgment, and more but in fact a wide range of behaviors can be said to fit these criteria. Show me a company that delivers high performance, and I can always find something positive to say about the person in chargeabout the clarity of his or her vision, about good communication skills, sound judgment, and integrity. Show me a company that has fallen on hard times, and I can always find some reason to explain why the leader failed. All of which brings to mind a 1964 Supreme Court case about free speech and pornography, in which Justice Potter Stewart memorably wrote that while he could not provide a good definition of hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it." Since good leadership is usually difficult to identify in the absence of data about performance, it seems that leadership is even more difficult to recognize than is hard-core pornographywhich at least Justice Stewart knew when he saw it. For all the books written about leadership, most people don't recognize good leadership when they see it unless they also have clues about company performance from other things that can be assessed more clearlynamely, financial performance. And once they have evidence that a company is performing well, they confidently make attributions about a company's leadership, as well as its culture, its customer focus, and the quality of its people. Retrospective attribution is how individuals think about decision processes, an organization's people, and leadership and it doesn't go away when we conduct large-scale surveys, either. Quite the contrary. If we're not careful, surveys might be little more than large collections of retrospective attributions. Consider Fortune magazine's annual ranking of the World's Most Admired Companies, the one that named IBM as Most Admired in 1983 and 1984. Every year, Fortune asks thousands of business executives and industry analysts to evaluate hundreds of companies in eight categories: quality of management, quality of products and services, value as a long-term investment, innovativeness, soundness of financial position, ability to attract, develop, and retain talented people, responsibility to the community and environment, and wise use of corporate assets. Mix the answers together and you get the World's Most Admired Companies in each of these categories as well as the overall winner. It's an impressive effort, and it produces an eye-catching cover story every year. Over the years, Fortune has named not just IBM, but luminaries like General Electric, Wal-Mart, and Della very impressive bunch.

But when some researchers took a closer look, they found that Fortunes Most Admired rati ngs were heavily influenced by retrospective attribution. The scores on the eight different factors for a given company turn out to be highly correlated much more than should be the case given variance within each category. Furthermore, many of the scores were very much driven by the company's financial performance, just what we would expect given the salient and tangible nature of financial results. Two different studies showed that a company's financial performance explained between 42 percent and 53 percent of the variance of the overall rating. In other words, when a company posts high profits and its stock price is moving upwards, the people who fill out Fortune's survey tend to infer that its products and services are of a high quality, that it is innovative and well managed, that it is good at retaining people, and so forth. Cisco offers a case in point. In 1997, the same year Cisco leapt onto the cover of leading business magazines, it made its first appearance on Fortune's Most Admired list, entering the charts at number fourteen. Then it rocketed upward, reaching number four in 1999 before topping out at number three in 2000. It's no surprise that Cisco rated high for investment value its stock value was, after all, going stratospheric. But Cisco was rated high for lots of other things, too: quality of management, innovativeness, quality of people, and more. When the tech bubble burst and Cisco's stock fell, in 2001, Cisco's rating as an investment value quite naturally fell. But with retrospective attribution, its ratings fell across the boards. Cisco was now less admired for innovativeness, for people, the whole works. Its overall rating dropped to number fifteen in 2001, then twenty-two in 2002 and twenty-eight in 2003. Fortune's survey isn't the only one to be undermined by retrospective attribution. Remember the Financial Times survey of Most Respected Companies? In 1996, when ABB was at its peak, it was rated high across the boards, for business performance, corporate strategy, and maximizing employee potential, and its leader was applauded for his strategic vision and focus. Again, the pattern is entirely consistent with retrospective attribution. And theres more. In 1984, an organization called the Great Places to Work Institute made a big s plash with a book called The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America. Every year since then, it has compiled the Best Companies to Work For index. Based on these findings, the International Herald Tribune claimed that being a Great Place to Work leads to high performance, noting that the companies on the 1998 list had a total market return (share price plus reinvested dividends) over the next five years of 9.56 percent, compared with a return of 3.81 percent for all the companies on the S&P 500. The inference was clear: Companies that care about creating a great place to work will attract good people and help them be more productive, leading to superior performance. It all makes good sense. But how did the institute determine what's a great

place to work? Simple, they asked employees. Employees were asked to rate their companies on two attributes: trust and culture. The trust index had five elements: credibility, respect, fairness, pride, and camaraderie. Credibility, in turn, was measured by responses to statements like this: Management keeps me informed about important issues and changes. People around here are given a lot of responsibility. High agreement meant high credibility, which meant a Great Place to Work. Respect was measured by asking for responses to questions like this: Management involves people in decisions that affect their jobs or work environment. I am offered training and development to further myself professionally. Again, high agreement meant respect, which was associated with being a Great Placeto Work. The website also gathered comments like this one, said to be from an employee in a sample company: "There is a high level of trust & empowerment here. We are not bound by any rules & we can do whatever we want at work. We receive encouragement & motivation from our team leaders. We have company events & wellness programs which allow us to balance our personal & professional lives." At first glance, this all looks plausible, but it's undermined by retrospective attribution. Companies that are profitable, prosperous, and growing fast will often be perceived as desirable places to work. Again, look at Cisco. It debuted on the charts in 1998 at number twenty-five, then climbed to twenty-third place in 1999. In 2000, when Cisco was briefly the most valuable company in the world, it shot up to third place, where it stayed for two years. Once the layoffs hit and the stock price tanked, how was Cisco rated as a Great Place to Work? It fell to thirteen in 2002, then to twenty-four, and finally twenty-eight in 2004 not exactly tracking performance, but pretty close. Did Cisco become a worse place to work after 2000? Yes, if we think in terms of employee moral and the chance to get rich. But thats a reflection of performance, not a cause of it. If you dont believe the Fortune and Best Place lists are shaded by retrospective attribution, you have to believe that the people who filled out the surveys are not affected by the same tendency found in participants of Barry Staws experiments, which would seem doubtful. Business is shaped by a number of delusions: in particular remember:

If independent variables aren't measured independently, we may find ourselves standing hip-deep in Halos. If the data are full of Halos, it doesn't matter how much we've gathered or how sophisticated our analysis appears to be.

Success rarely lasts as long as we'd likefor the most part, long-term success is a delusion based on selection after - the fact. Company performance is relative, not absolute. A company can get better and fall further behind at the same time. It may be true that many successful companies bet on long shots, but betting on long shots does not often lead to success. Anyone who claims to have found laws of business physics either understands little about business, or little about physics, or both. Searching for the secrets of success reveals little about the world of business but speaks volumes about the searcherstheir aspirations and their desire for certainty.

Once we've swept away these delusions, what then? When it comes to managing a company for high performance, a wise manager knows:

Any good strategy involves risk. If you think your strategy is foolproof, the fool may well be you. Execution, too, is uncertainwhat works in one company with one workforce may have different results elsewhere. Chance often plays a greater role than we think, or than successful managers usually like to admit. The link between inputs and outcomes is tenuous. Bad outcomes don't always mean that managers made mistakes; and good outcomes don't always mean they acted brilliantly. But when the die is cast, the best managers act as if chance is irrelevant persistence and tenacity are everything.

Will all of this guarantee success? Of course not. But I suspect it will improve your chances of success, which is a more sensible goal to pursue.

The world's best message is ineffective if the person on the receiving end does not understand or relate to it. It is a harsh standard. It is a message communicators ignore at their own peril. You can be brilliant, creative, even right, but your message will fall flat unless it touches the hearer's prism of experience, beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. In Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear, Frank Luntz offers insights into finding and using the right words to achieve your goals. The key to communication is to place yourself in the listener's situation and understand his or her deepest thoughts and beliefs. What the listener perceives constitutes the listener's reality. Based on his experience as a political and corporate pollster he recommends 11 rules for effective communication: 1. Use small words. 2. Use short sentences. 3. Credibility is as important as philosophy. 4. Consistency matters. 5. Novelty: offer something new. 6. Sound and texture matter. 7. Speak aspirationally. 8. Visualize. 9. Ask a question. 10. Provide context and explain relevance. 11. Visual imagery matters. Luntz does not stop there. In addition to an insightful discussion complete with illustrations from his professional experience of the 11 rules, he adds critical elaboration: 1. Never assume knowledge or awareness. 2. Get the order right. 3. Gender can obstruct understanding. 4. It's about the children.

5. How you define determines how you are received.

Both managers and leaders must ask "Did we accomplish what we set out to do?" and also "Was it the right thing?" Effective managers and leaders are guided by a coherent set of convictions about intangible values such as fairness and honesty. Integrity stands at the centre of shared values in an organization and in the goal-setting process. The best leaders and managers become known for their ability to bring out the best in people by challenging them with goals. They are also known for their trustworthiness. People can depend upon them to be consistent, fair and honest in setting goals at a level that will challenge them but not at such a high level that the goals are unattainable. Further questions might include: "Are the means we used to accomplish the goals ethical?" "Can I live with the goal and the means to attain it?" "What organizational values are reflected in this goal and specifically in "how" the goal will be attained?" "What are the short-term, medium-term and long-term consequences of setting this goal?"

Integrity should not be mistaken for naivety or softness. Tough-minded, disciplined managers and leaders who enforce ethical standards through challenging goals can also be fair and honest. Styles are not the issue: strongly held values are. They are the fundamental source of trust and loyalty in an organization. Consistency is integrity. It also means that the same values and organizational aims will powerfully influence what goals are set and how they are accomplished. In a , values-driven organization, shared values will be an integral part of the goal-setting process. However, real dilemmas occur in practice where values clash with pressure for tangible and immediate performance. There is always temptation to pressure people to cut corners and to shade the truth to accomplish tangible and measurable objectives. The pressure to perform naturally leads to a conflict between means and ends. Extreme emphasis on performance as a criterion of success may foster an atmosphere of raw striving that results in brutality, and all in the name of a noble goal, be it profit, growth or client service. The "tyranny of the tangible" is the unfair struggle of shortterm measurable results against the more intangible values such as fairness and honesty. Powerful forces push organizations to sacrifice long-term, intangible consideration for short-term tangibles. The intangibles are often compromised. In a study, Baumhart (1986) concluded that the most important factor causing unethical behavior is the the behavior of superiors. People who believe very strongly or who want something very much can get out of hand and their organizations can follow. Both leaders and managers are responsible for setting the right goals.

This is relevant for industrial foremen, directors of research groups and leaders of other groups that have a task. The primary goal of the supervisor is to get the work done, but an important secondary goal is to keep the group satisfied otherwise there will be absenteeism, labor turnover and a general lack of co-operation. Supervisors may fail in a number of ways, of which the most common are:

- relying too much on formal power; - being too authoritative; - not giving enough direction, so that other members of the group assume leadership; - producing high output but low job satisfaction; - producing high job satisfaction but low output. There is a lot of evidence that the relationship between supervisors and their subordinates is a difficult one. Subordinates often feel that it is a relationship that generates a lot of conflict but very little satisfaction, and that it is hostile rather than friendly. On the other hand the best supervisors can be a major source of job satisfaction and mental health. The way to achieve this is by using the optimum supervisory skills. In studies of groups of manual workers it is found that groups certain supervisors may produce 50 per cent more work than under other supervisors; if the work is machinepaced or under wage-incentives these differences are smaller, though with very bad supervision the difference can be greater. The effects on rates of absenteeism and labor turnover are rather greater ratios of 4:1 or even 8: i have been found; again the worst supervisors produce the most marked effects. There has been a great deal of research into the social techniques that are most effective, mainly by comparing the behaviour of supervisors in charge of high-output and low-output teams. What supervisors actually do varies a lot between different settings, but two dimensions have consistently been found to be Important. Both can be measured by a series of ratings by subordinates. Initiating structure It is essential that the supervisor should really supervise, and in the following ways: 1. planning and scheduling the work to be done, and making sure that supplies are available;

2 instructing and training subordinates in how to do their work; 3 checking arid correcting the work that has been done; 4 giving subordinates feedback on how well they are doing; 5 motivating subordinates to work effectively. If the supervisor fails to do these things it is likely that the group or some of its members will take over these functions. On the other hand supervisors should do all this with a light hand, since men and women do not like him/her breathing down their necks and constantly interfering. S/he should see them frequently, showing interest, giving help where needed, but giving as little direction and criticism as possible. In job enrichment schemes some of the supervisors jobs, such as checking, are delegated to members of the group. Supervisors are more effective when they look after the needs, interests and welfare of their subordinates. This is particularly true when they are powerful enough really to be able to do something for them. In matters of discipline they should be persuasive rather than punitive, and try to find out the causes of the offending behaviour. Leaders (such as foremen) who are more concerned with the welfare of the workers than with production usually succeed in getting higher rates of output. On the other hand a number of studies show that supervisors should be somewhat detached and independent: they should do their own jobs rather than their staffs, and not be afraid of exerting influence over them. Initiating structure on the whole leads to more productivity, but it needs consideration as well. Consideration leads to greater job satisfaction, and lower absenteeism and labor turnover. While the combination of these two dimensions is found to be important, this is difficult to attain; informal groups often have two leaders, one for each of these jobs. Part of the difficulty is that directing the task tends to put a leader at a distance from the

group, while getting on well with members means s/he may lose her/his authority as a task leader. The solution may lie in a further aspect of supervisory skill. Democratic-persuasive style is usually more effective than an autocratic one. A democratic leader does not just rely on formal powers, but on: 1 motivating people, by explanation and persuasion, rather than just giving orders; 2 allowing subordinates to participate in decisions that affect them; 3 using techniques of group discussion and group decision. By means of these skills the supervisor succeeds in getting the group to set high targets and to internalize the motivation to reach them, without exerting pressure him/herself. There are of course limits to what the group can decide. It can usually decide about details of administration who shall work where, how training or holiday schemes shall be implemented. The group can also make suggestions on more far-reaching matters that the manager can relay to any superiors. The supervisor exerts direction and influence but in a way that does not arouse resentment and antagonism.

Managers spend a great deal of their time with other people, about 50 per cent of it with subordinates, at scheduled or informal meetings. There have been a number of studies of the effects of the different supervisory styles of secondline leaders on productivity and job satisfaction; these show that they have a greater influence on productivity and satisfaction than first-line leaders. A number of studies have shown that delegation and the use of participatory methods of leadership are effective at both levels.

Styles of leadership are often passed down the hierarchy as each person copies his or herimmediate superior and may be rewarded by the superior for so doing. This "falling dominoes" effect has been found for participatory leadership, closeness of supervision, charismatic leadership and amount of interaction with subordinates. Managers need the skills used by first-line superiors and the additional skills of managing organizations. These include chairmanship, presenting skills, appraisal and personnel interviewing skills. Not all managers are socially skilled. Some may have been promoted through their expertise at engineering or accountancy, and these are the people for whom management courses were originally devised.

Does how an organization manages its people affect profitability and stock price? Yes, according to an awardwinning study by Mark Huselid. But it is not people versus profitability - rather the reverse. The research was based on 968 responses to a survey of the senior human resources professional in a sample of 3,452 firms representing all major industries. Huselid used the survey responses to construct two scales. The first, called employee skills and organizational structures, "includes a broad range of practices intended to enhance employees knowledge, skills and abilities and provide mechanisms through which employees can use those attributes in performing their roles." The second scale, measuring employee motivation, is comprised of practices "designed to recognize and reinforce desired employee behaviors. These practices include using formal performance appraisals, linking those appraisals tightly with employee compensation, and focusing on merit in promotion decisions."

The study assessed the effects of management practices on turnover, sales per employee (a measure of productivity), and the firms ratio of stock market to book value. In his analysis, Huselid not only included a large number of potential alternative explanations for the results, such as size, capital intensity, concentration ratio of the firms industry, research and development expenditures as a proportion of sales, and others, he also employed statistical methodology that permitted him to better assess the direction of causality: Was performance driving management practices or were the practices affecting performance? Finally, the study employed statistical procedures to overcome sample selection bias, that is, the possibility that the 28 percent of the surveyed firms that actually responded were somehow systematically different from the nonresponders in ways that could bias the results. Huselid observed both statistically significant and substantively important results for both of his scales assessing management practices: The magnitude of the returns for investment in Work Practices is substantial. A one standard deviation increase in such practices is associated with a .7.05 percent decrease in turnover and, on a per employee basis, $27,044 more in sales and $18,641 and $3,814 more in market value and profits, respectively. Yes, you read those results correctly, and they were derived from a number of different estimation procedures. One standard deviation above the mean puts the company in the upper 16 percent of all those in the study in terms of its use of high commitment work practicesso it is in reasonably select company. But the economic returns for those implementing these policies have been enormousmore than an $18,000 increase in stock market value per employee. A subsequent study conducted in 1996 of 702 firms, using a somewhat more comprehensive conception of the human resource management system, found even larger economic benefits: "A one standard deviation improvement in the HR system index was associated with an increase in shareholder wealth of $41,000 per employee." Since the average stock market value per worker for all of the firms in the sample was about

$300,000, firms in the upper 16 percent of the distribution in terms of their use of management practices experienced about a 14 percent market value premiumclearly economically substantial. Are these results unique to firms operating in the United States? No. Similar results were obtained in a study of more than one hundred German companies operating in ten industrial sectors. The study found "a strong link between investing in employees and stock market performance. Companies which place workers at the core of their strategies produce higher long-term returns to shareholders than their industry peers." The research also found that companies that focused on their people not only delivered superior returns to their stockholders but also created more jobs, an important result given the high unemployment rate in much of Europe. with thanks to The Human Equation by Jeffrey Pfeffer - The Business Case for Managing People Right

HOW EFFECTIV E EXECUTIVES A PPROACH THEIR JOBS

The very nature of executive jobs requires a complex and subtle approach to planning, organizing, staffing, and so forth. The approach needs to take into account the uncertainty involved, as well as the diversity and volume of potentially relevant information. It must also come to grips with the difficult human environment; it must somehow help executives get things done despite their dependency on a large number of people, many of whom are not their subordinates. An examination of effective general managers suggests that they have found just such an approach, a central part of which might be usefully thought of as "agenda setting" and "network building." To understand why effective GMs behave as they do, it is essential first to recognize the types of challenges and dilemmas

found in most of their jobs, the two most fundamental of which are:

1. Figuring out what to do despite uncertainty, great diversity, and an enormous amount of potentially relevant
information. them.

2. Getting things done through a large and diverse set of people despite having little direct control over most of
The severity of these challenges in complex organizations is much greater than most non-executives would suspect. And the implications for the traditional management functions of planning, staffing, organizing, directing and controlling are powerful. Research of effective general managers indicates that a central part of their approach is agenda setting and network building.
EXECUTION: GETTING NETWORKS TO IMPLEMENT AGENDAS

After they have largely developed their networks and agendas, effective GMs tend to shift their attention toward using the networks to implement their agendas. In doing so they marshal their interpersonal skills, budgetary resources and information and information to help persuade these people. Under other circumstances, they will use resources available to them to negotiate a trade. And occasionally, they even resort to intimidation and coercion. Effective GMs also often use their networks to exert indirect influence on people, including people who are not a part of that network. In some cases, GMs will convince one person who is in their network to get a second, who is not, to take some needed action. More indirectly still, GMs will sometimes approach a number of different people, requesting them to take actions that would then shape events that influence other individuals. Perhaps the most common example of indirect influence involves staging an event of some sort. In a typical case, the GM would set up a meeting or meetings and influence others through the selection of participants, the choice of an agenda, and often by his own participation. Unlike the case of direct influence, GMs achieve much of their more indirect influence through symbolic methods. That is, they use meetings, architecture, language, stories about the organization, time, and space as symbols in order to get some message across indirectly. All effective GMs seem to get things done this way, but the best performers do so more than others and with greater skill. That is, the better performers tend to mobilize more people to get more things done, and do so using a wider range of influence tactics. "Excellent" performers ask, encourage, cajole, praise, reward, demand, manipulate, and generally motivate others with great skill in face-to-face situations. They also rely more heavily on indirect influence than the "good" managers,

who tend to rely on a more narrow range of influence techniques and apply them with less finesse.6
HOW THE JOB DETERMINES BEHAVIOR

Most of the visible patterns in daily behavior seem to be direct consequences of the way GMs approach their job, and thus consequences of the nature of the job itself and the type of people involved. More specifically, some of these patterns seem to derive from the approach taken to agenda setting, others from network building, others from how they tend to use networks to implement agendas, and still others from the approach in general. Spending most of the time with others (pattern 1) seems to be a natural consequence of the GM's overall approach to the job and the central role the network of relationships plays. As we saw earlier, GMs develop a network of relationships with those the job makes them dependent on and then use that network to help create, implement, and update an organizational agenda. As such, the whole approach to the job involves inter-acting with people. Hence it should not be surprising to find that on a daily basis, GMs spend most of their time with others. Likewise, because the network tends to include all those the GM is dependent on, it is hardly surprising to find the GM spending time with many besides a boss and direct subordinates (pattern 2). And because the agenda tends to include items related to all the long-, medium-, and short-run responsibilities associated with the job, it is to be expected that the breadth of topics covered in daily conversations might be very wide (pattern 3).

A few of the other patterns seem to be a direct consequence of the agenda-setting approach employed by GMs. As we saw earlier, agenda setting involves gathering information on a continuous basis from network members, usually by asking questions. Major agenda-setting decisions are often invisible, they occur in the GMs mind, created by the information in hand. Network building involves the use of a wide range of interpersonal tactics. Since humor and nonwork discussions can be used as effective tools for building relationships and maintaining them under stressful conditions, these tools are used frequently. Since maintaining relationships requires that one deal with issues that other people feel are important (regardless of their centrality to the business) it is also not surprising to find the GMs spending time on substantive issues that seem unimportant to us and them.
The best performers are particularly adept at grasping and taking advantage of each item in the random succession of time and issue fragments that crowd [their] day[s]. And central to their ability to do so are their networks and agendas. The

agendas allow the GMs to react in an opportunistic (and highly efficient) way to the flow of events around them, yet knowing that they are doing so within some broader and more rational framework. The networks allow terse (and very efficient) conversations to happen; without them, such short yet meaningful conversations would be impossible. Together, the agenda and networks allow the GMs to achieve the efficiency they need to cope with very demanding jobs in fewer than 60 hours per week (pattern 12), through daily behavior patterns that on the surface can look "unmanagerial."
WHAT SHOULD TOP MANAGERS DO?

Some of the most important implications of all this include the following: 1. At the start, putting someone in a GM job who does not know the business or the people involved, because he is a successful "professional manager," is probably very risky. Unless the business is easy to learn, it would be very difficult for an individual to learn enough, fast enough, to develop a good agenda. And unless it is a small situation with few people involved, it would be difficult to build a strong network fast enough to implement the agenda. Especially for large and complex businesses, this condition suggests that "growing" one's own executives should have a high priority. Many companies today say that developing their own executives is important, but in light of the booming executive search business, one has to conclude that either they are not trying very hard or that their efforts simply are not succeeding. 2. Management training courses, both in universities and in corporations, probably overemphasize formal tools, unambiguous problems, and situations that deal simplistically with human relationships. Some of the time-management programs, currently in vogue, are a good example of the problem here. Based on simplistic conceptions about the nature of managerial work, these programs instruct managers to stop letting people and problems "interrupt" their daily work. They often tell potential executives that short and disjointed conversations are ineffective. They advise that one should discipline oneself not to let "irrelevant" people and topics get on one's schedule. In other words, they advise people to behave differently from the effective executives in this study. Seminars on "How to Run Meetings" are probably just as bad. Another example of inappropriate courses is university-based executive training programs that emphasize formal quantitative tools. These programs are based, at least implicitly, on the assumption that such tools are central to effective performance. All evidence suggests that while they are sometimes relevant, they are hardly central.

3. People who are new in general management jobs can probably be gotten up to speed more effectively than is the norm today. Initially, a new GM usually needs to spend consider-able time collecting information, establishing relationships, selecting a basic direction for his or her area of responsibilities, and developing a supporting organization. During the first three to six months, demands from superiors to accomplish specific tasks, or to work on pet projects, can often be counterproductive. Indeed, anything that significantly diverts attention away from agenda setting and network building can prove to be counterproductive. In a more positive sense, those who oversee GMs can probably be most helpful initially if they are sensitive to where the new executive is likely to have problems and help him or her in those areas. Such areas are often quite predictable. For example, if people have spent their careers going up the ladder in one function and have been promoted into the general manager's job in an autonomous division (a common occurrence, especially in manufacturing organizations), they will probably have problems with agenda setting because of a lack of detailed knowledge about the other functions in the division. On the other hand, if people have spent most of their early careers in professional, staff, or assistant-to jobs and are promoted into a GM's job where they suddenly have responsibility for hundreds or thousands of people (not an unusual occurrence in professional organizations), they will probably have great difficulty at first building a network. They don't have many relationships to begin with and they are not used to spending time developing a large network. In either case, a GM's boss can arrange activities that foster instead of retard the types of actions the new executive should be taking. 4. Finally, the formal planning systems within which many GMs must operate probably hinder effective performance. A good planning system should help a GM create an intelligent agenda and a strong network that can implement it. That is, it should encourage the GM to think strategically, to consider both the long and short term, and, regardless of the time frame, to take into account financial, product / market, and organizational issues. Furthermore, it should be a flexible tool that the executive can use to help build a network. It should give the GM leeway and options, so that, depending on what kind of environment among subordinates is desired, he or she can use the planning system to help achieve the goals. Unfortunately, most of the planning systems used by corporations do nothing of the sort. Instead, they impose a rigid number crunching requirement on GMs that often does not require much strategic or long-range thinking in agenda setting and which can make network building and maintenance needlessly difficult by creating unnecessary stress among people. Indeed, some systems seem to do nothing but generate paper, often a lot of it, and distract executives from doing those things that are really important.

Entrepreneurs beliefs about the qualities that made them successful (based on interviews with self -made millionaires): 1. Hard work (93%) 2. Being honest and trustworthy (85%) 3. Enjoyment of work (82%) 4. Getting along with people (82%) 5. Taking opportunities (81%) 6. Being my own boss (72%) 7. Intelligence (69%) 8. Being well disciplined and dedicated to success (68%) 9. Being physically fit and well/employing good people (67%) 10. Having a supportive partner (66%) Traits that make for success in a large organization: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Vision Tenacity Self-belief Financial awareness Political awareness Hard work Dedication Communication skills Flexibility

The core talent of great managers is an instinct to support others toward success whereas optimism and ego are the talents underpinning all great leadership. These are somewhat contradictory.

Success, whether as a manager or a leader, does not come to those who aspire to well-roundedness, breadth, and balance. The reverse is true. Success comes most readily to those who reject balance, who instead pursue strategies that are intentionally imbalanced. This focus, this willingness to apply disproportionate pressure in a few selected areas of your working life, won't leave you brittle and narrow. Counterintuitively, this kind of lopsided focus actually increases your capacity and fuels your resilience. Leadership and management are both critically important to the ongoing success of an organization, but no, they are not interchangeable. On the contrary, the role of the leader and the role of the manager are utterly different. The responsibilities are different. The starting points are different. The talents required to excel at each are different. And, as we'll see, the One Thing you need to know about one is not only different, but is, in fact, the exact opposite of the One Thing you need to know about the other. This doesn't mean that you cannot excel at both. You can. But it does mean that, if you want to excel at both, or if you want to choose between one or the other as your primary focus, you need to be aware of the difference. Top people are much more likely to accept responsibility and take action when they see something that needs to be done. They are more proactive than reactive. They move quickly, usually without detailed discussion, analysis, or waiting to get permission. In one study, average managers who had been repeatedly passed over for promotion were asked if they felt that they had the quality of initiative. These managers all agreed that they had high levels of initiative and that they demonstrated it in their work. The researchers then asked them to define what the word initiative meant to them. The average managers defined initiative as, "answering the phone when it rang, calling up someone to remind them of a meeting or a commitment or bringing a piece of news or information to someone elses attention." The top performers, however, had a completely different definition of the quality. They considered the activities of the low performers to be merely part of the job. Top performers defined taking initiative as doing something well above and beyond the call of duty. It was taking risks, trying new things, moving out of the comfort zone, working longer hours, and volunteering for tasks that the average person would not do. It is the same with you. The more initiative you show, the more you will be perceived as a valuable player in your organization. When you continually seek out newer, faster, better, easier, more convenient ways to get the job done for your firm and your clients, you very quickly come to the attention of the people who can help you.

How do you know whether you are up to the challenges power brings? How do you know whether you are a leader in the making, or are better placed in a position in which you respond to authority rather than exercising it? All good managers also have leadership abilities but not everyone can lead. Not everyone, indeed, even wants to lead or to have power. Leading brings perks, but it also brings enormous pressures; many people would rather not have to cope with these, have no interest in leading, or know instinctively that such a life is not for them. Others feel drawn to the challenges and responsibilities of leading and see the acquisition of power, with all that it entails, as a major goal in their lives. It isn't always possible to see who will make a good leader and who won't. Despite the fact that there are strong indicators in a potential leader, such as the ability to think clearly, to act with confidence or to display calm resolve under pressure, as well as specific qualities such as presence, poise and style, these are not always enough to make an accurate prediction. Some people come from behind to win a race, just as some who seem to lack leadership potential to start with ultimately come through as fine and upstanding leaders. If you are interested in acquiring a position in which you can exercise power and authority over others, or you have it already, the following questions will be useful. They will help you to clarify why you want to lead and whether leading is the ideal course for you to pursue, although of course they will not give you a conclusive answer. Are you prepared to take the final decision after a group discussion? Are you prepared to answer to a client for a mistake that someone else further down the line has made? Are you stimulated and energised by decision-making? Can you face, calmly and with clarity, a difficult disciplinary task such as firing someone who may have a young family to support? Do you look for the potential in everyone, and encourage it? Do you feel comfortable with the idea of power, and the spotlight that will be turned on you? Do you see the perks and privileges as secondary to the responsibilities of a leadership position? Are you prepared to do anything you would ask another person to do?

Do you want to use a position of power to benefit others, both within and outside your business or community? Can you keep a sense of humility, no matter how great the power you have? To reach your goals as a leader and then surpass them, to provide clear direction for others and to persevere when the going gets tough, you need a vision of where you are going and a mission which must be fulfilled. You may not know for certain the answers to all these questions. But if you take your time and answer with thoughtfulness and honesty you may achieve a clear picture of whether leadership is right for you or not. FACING RESPONSIBILITY: There are two kinds of responsibility which those in power must face. The first is to yourself and the second is towards others. Both are equally important. Responsibility Towards Yourself: If you are in a position of power and authority and don't meet your responsibilities towards yourself, you won't be able to meet those you have towards others. This simple truth means that being responsible towards yourself is not self-indulgence but a prerequisite to being a good leader. These selfresponsibilities include: Being honest with yourself Admitting and dealing with your own mistakes Taking care of your health and your physical and mental wellbeing Keeping your life in balance, so that work is only one, albeit a major, part of it Asking for help when you need it Recognising your own strengths and weaknesses Regularly self-appraising Being kind to yourself when you are overtired, ill or under stress Making sure you have someone you trust, outside the company, whom you can talk to about your own troubles and pressures Making sure that your position means more to you than simply the salary and perks Responsibility Towards Others: Once you are meeting your responsibilities towards yourself you can begin to be effective in meeting those you have towards others. Those you have authority over will look to you for direction and

example. Your responsibilities towards others include: Refusing to see yourself as special, chosen or superior, and remembering that no one is indispensable Being willing to do yourself anything you ask someone else to do - and demonstrating this Sharing the company's success and profits with everyone Noticing if someone is down, troubled, ill or overtired, and responding with compassion Treating everyone with respect Listening to what others have to say Enabling others to feel good about their talents and abilities and to enjoy what they do Recognizing ability in others and passing on responsibility accordingly Creating an atmosphere in which working hard is a pleasure Encouraging others to have a life outside work and to work reasonable hours These responsibilities, towards yourself and towards others, are the foundation stones of good leadership and, when met, will bring great rewards in the form of good working relationships, mutual respect, increased productivity and the success of your organization. Risk Management? Since you know already-in your bones, if not in your head, that risk-taking is a modern-day must, you might be inclined to persuade yourself that risk management must already be in place in your company. You might be inclined to think that it's what you've been doing all along. After all, you are paid to manage in an age of risk, and how else would you do that except by managing the risks? Even if you're not practicing risk management yourself, you may have convinced yourself that it must be going on somewhere beneath you in the company. Again the logic is the same: We're paying these folks to manage projects and new endeavors that are full of risks, so whatever they're doing must be risk management. But it often isn't. It is often stasis-derived management applied to work where there is no stasis in sight. The main component of stasis-derived management is what I call a production mentality. It is evident in the way managers talk. Here I am not referring to people who manage the assembly line, but people who manage development efforts. They will tell you about building a development "factory" (a production word), about "measuring" its "throughput" (both measuring and throughput are production concepts), about "process" (production

concept), about "quality control" (production again), about "efficiency" and "return on investment" and "waste management" and "cost reduction" (all valid concepts for dealing with relative stasis). These are the signs of risk avoidance, of failing to get on with the business of the twenty-first century. Here is a test of whether real risk management is happening in your organization. It's a hard test. Most companies fail it. But it's a fair test. I think you can see that an organization that fails the test or any part of it is really not managing its risks, and is therefore probably not taking nearly enough risks. Risk Management: The Hard Test: Pick a part of your company where the risks are greatest. It might be a scary project, one that the company's future depends upon. It might be a new product development or a launch into untried markets. Now apply to it the following hard questions: Is there a published census of risks? Does the list contain the major causal risks, not just the few out come risks that we all fear? Is the risk list visible to all who are working on the project? Are there enough risks on the list to indicate careful risk analysis? Is there a mechanism in place to elicit discovery of new risks? Is it safe for all involved to signal a risk?

Are any of the risks on the list potentially fatal? Risk management that concentrates only on risks that can be handled makes a mockery of the notion of risk management. It's the fatal ones that need your most careful attention. Is each risk quantified as to probability and cost and schedule impact?

Does each risk have a transition indicator allocated to it to spot materialization? Is each transition indicator being monitored? Is there a single person responsible for risk management? Where the attitude is that everybody is responsible for managing risks, nobody is responsible for it, since all those people have got Real Work on their plates. Are there tasks on the work breakdown structure that might not have to be done at all? The absence of such

conditional tasks is a sure sign of no risk management at work. Does the overall effort have both a schedule and a goal, where the schedule and the goal are markedly different? If the schedule is the goal, there is no risk management at work. The earliest date by which the work could conceivably be done makes an excellent goal but an awful schedule. Is there a significant probability of finishing well before the estimated date? If there is not -if there is no reasonable probability of finishing 20 or 30 percent ahead of schedule -the schedule is a goal, not an estimate. There it is: a nine-point indicator of whether risk management is being practiced in your organization. They all count. You need to be able to say yes to all of them in order to pass. Don't be discouraged if you can't answer yes to one or two of the questions; that just means you have some work to do. On the other hand, you should be very discouraged if you can't say yes to most of them. Companies that can't name their risks, that can't distinguish between goals and estimates, are in risk-avoidance mode, or they are taking risks blind. Neither is a good indicator.

Risk Management? Since you know already-in your bones, if not in your head, that risk-taking is a modern-day must, you might be inclined to persuade yourself that risk management must already be in place in your company. You might be inclined to think that it's what you've been doing all along. After all, you are paid to manage in an age of risk, and how else would you do that except by managing the risks? Even if you're not practicing risk management yourself, you may have convinced yourself that it must be going on somewhere beneath you in the company. Again the logic is the same: We're paying these folks to manage projects and new endeavors that are full of risks, so whatever they're doing must be risk management. But it often isn't. It is often stasis-derived management applied to work where there is no stasis in sight. The main component of stasis-derived management is what I call a production mentality. It is evident in the way managers talk. Here I am not referring to people who manage the assembly line, but people who manage

development efforts. They will tell you about building a development "factory" (a production word), about "measuring" its "throughput" (both measuring and throughput are production concepts), about "process" (production concept), about "quality control" (production again), about "efficiency" and "return on investment" and "waste management" and "cost reduction" (all valid concepts for dealing with relative stasis). These are the signs of risk avoidance, of failing to get on with the business of the twenty-first century. Here is a test of whether real risk management is happening in your organization. It's a hard test. Most companies fail it. But it's a fair test. I think you can see that an organization that fails the test or any part of it is really not managing its risks, and is therefore probably not taking nearly enough risks. Risk Management: The Hard Test: Pick a part of your company where the risks are greatest. It might be a scary project, one that the company's future depends upon. It might be a new product development or a launch into untried markets. Now apply to it the following hard questions: Is there a published census of risks? Does the list contain the major causal risks, not just the few outcome risks that we all fear? Is the risk list visible to all who are working on the project? Are there enough risks on the list to indicate careful risk analysis? Is there a mechanism in place to elicit discovery of new risks? Is it safe for all involved to signal a risk?

Are any of the risks on the list potentially fatal? Risk management that concentrates only on risks that can be handled makes a mockery of the notion of risk management. It's the fatal ones that need your most careful attention. Is each risk quantified as to probability and cost and schedule impact?

Does each risk have a transition indicator allocated to it to spot materialization? Is each transition indicator being monitored? Is there a single person responsible for risk management? Where the attitude is that everybody is responsible for managing risks, nobody is responsible for it, since all those people have got Real Work on their plates. Are there tasks on the work breakdown structure that might not have to be done at all? The absence of such

conditional tasks is a sure sign of no risk management at work. Does the overall effort have both a schedule and a goal, where the schedule and the goal are markedly different? If the schedule is the goal, there is no risk management at work. The earliest date by which the work could conceivably be done makes an excellent goal but an awful schedule. Is there a significant probability of finishing well before the estimated date? If there is not -if there is no reasonable probability of finishing 20 or 30 percent ahead of schedule -the schedule is a goal, not an estimate. There it is: a nine-point indicator of whether risk management is being practiced in your organization. They all count. You need to be able to say yes to all of them in order to pass. Don't be discouraged if you can't answer yes to one or two of the questions; that just means you have some work to do. On the other hand, you should be very discouraged if you can't say yes to most of them. Companies that can't name their risks, that can't distinguish between goals and estimates, are in risk-avoidance mode, or they are taking risks blind. Neither is a good indicator.

Dealing with office politics. Handling stress on the job. Inserting self in meetings. Dealing with boring, frustrating, time-consuming meetings. Managing procrastination. Managing time better. Corporate socializing. Getting and using a mentor. How to fire someone. How to handle being given too much work. Earning the respect of more senior management.

Strategy to go forward: First and foremost, do exemplary work. Have a solid reason to want management to pay attention to you as well as a solid reason why they will want to. If you are really smart in managing relationships upward, you will keep people apprised of what you have done or are about to do. Do not think that good work will speak for itself. It should, but it doesn't. Quantify your contributions and let the right people know. If it's fact, you are not tooting your own horn but rather making it easier for the boss to understand your work. In a succinct, clear manner, state the situation, explain what you did, and report the results. This can be done on e-mail, on the phone, in a note, or in the hallway. Just make sure you do it consistently. Try to share credit wherever you can. Enthusiastically and sincerely ask, "How did you do that?" You might learn some-thing valuable. See possibilities, not limitations, in making sure your accomplishments get noticed in an appropriate way. Raise your positive visibility by real acts that produce results management wants. (Allow your name to be put in for commit-tee chairs, join business or trade groups, volunteer to be a company or industry spokesperson, apply for awards, share the spotlight with others, write an article for a company publication, get involved in community events, and so forth.) Acknowledge others (upwards) the way you would like to be acknowledged by them. Pay attention to how your boss and your boss's boss handle themselves physically. How do they dress? What symbols of power do they have around them? Observe what types of people they surround themselves with? (Your boss may have a dismal presence himself but expect something else from others.) Take on the corporate traits you observe. Consistency is important if you choose this route, for example, staying late or coming in early, or sending thank you notes and letters of praisewith sincerity, of course. Get a reputation that supports the way you want to be perceived. Use theatrics, "fake it before you make it" if necessary. (Just be careful not to fake competence, results, values, integrity, and other critical things.) Get a reputation for being quick to "get up to speed" on things. Give what the boss wants in the way she wants it. Be alert to changes in her situation. The bottom line: Do something unexpected but deeply desired by your boss. Size up the boss. Find out how he or she views results, recognition, praise, power, personal integrity, communication, family, etc. Find out by asking. Ask questions in an inquisitive manner, not an interrogatory manner. Ask. Observe. Ask more. Don't be afraid to say "no" even to superiors. If you take on too much and end up doing poor work, missing deadlines, or burning out, you'll both lose. It's a good idea when you say no to someone to give the person something in exchange

that you can and will do. For example, "No, I can't take on project X, but I will help Joe complete project Y." Do a little today, a little next week, and keep at it. The secret to getting ahead is getting started.