There’s nothing quite like a career in management to shake one’s faith in long-held beliefs. But who could find fault with the Golden Rule?
Dr. Tony Alessandra, most notably. He’s made a career out of challenging the notion of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Alessandra suggests substituting what he calls the Platinum Rule: “Do unto others as they would like to be done unto” — or, more conversationally: “Treat others the way they want to be treated.”
It’s a notion newsroom leaders sometimes find disconcerting. That’s especially true of those author Daniel Goleman calls “pacesetters,” who justify the demands they place on subordinates by demanding even more of themselves. They work longer hours, get by on less sleep, and attack assignments with a vengeance, achieving a level of performance they feel they can then expect of others.
It’s also troubling to managers who motivate — or try to, anyway — according to what motivates them. They respond to rewards of a certain type, so why can’t everybody else do the same?
Because, of course, we’re not all the same.
That’s a good thing, in many respects. We complement one another’s strengths and weaknesses. Diversity enriches our workplaces and products. And life is just more interesting. Besides, ever get into an argument and realize someone is doing unto you what you tend to do unto others? It can be really irritating.
Still, it can be inconvenient accepting personality types, learning styles and accommodating priorities that we don’t share, or even fully understand.
Marcus Buckingham says it’s worth it. He’s the coauthor of “First, Break All the Rules” (which would include the Golden Rule) and has a new book, “The One Thing You Need to Know,” adapted for a piece in the March 2005 Harvard Business Review.
According to Buckingham, “Average managers play checkers, while great managers play chess. The difference? In checkers, all the pieces are uniform and move in the same way; they are interchangeable … In chess, each type of piece moves in a different way, and you can’t play if you don’t know how each piece moves.”
Buckingham says people in the workplace operate more like chess pieces than checkers: “Great managers know and value the unique abilities and even the eccentricities of their employees, and they learn how best to integrate them into a coordinated plan of attack.”
“This is the exact opposite of what great leaders do. Great leaders discover what is universal and capitalize on it. Their job is to rally people toward a better future,” Buckingham says. “This doesn’t mean a leader can’t be a manager or vice versa. But to excel at one or both, you must be aware of the very different skills each role requires.”
Recognizing each individual’s uniqueness, Buckingham says, raises three questions, the answers to which are critical to success in managing the individual:
- What are his or her strengths? The best way to learn this, he suggests, is to ask, “What was the best day at work you’ve had in the past three months?” It’s important to remember, Buckingham says, that “a strength is not merely something you are good at. In fact, it might be something you aren’t good at yet.”
- What are the triggers that activate those strengths? Recognition, not money, according to Buckingham, is by far the most powerful “trigger,” or motivator: “If you’re not convinced of this, start ignoring one of your highly paid stars, and watch what happens.”
- What is his or her learning style? Buckingham says three styles predominate: analyzing, which has to do with “taking (a task) apart, examining its elements, and reconstructing it piece by piece”; doing, which relies on trial and error; and watching, which involves observing successful performance by others.
“Mediocre managers assume (or hope) that their employees will all be motivated by the same things and driven by the same goals, that they will desire the same kinds of relationships and learn in roughly the same way,” Buckingham says. And that way, such managers often assume, is — surprise! — the way the managers themselves would work.
Which brings us back to Alessandra’s Platinum Rule, about treating people according to what works best for them — not for you.
You might love public recognition, so it seems like a great idea to have that photojournalist stand up and tell the entire staff how she got that great image. But if she hates speaking in front of groups, to her the limelight feels more like punishment than praise.
You might thrive on travel and think life on the road is lots of fun. But if the reporter you “reward” with an out-of-town assignment would rather be home with his family, don’t expect him to be grateful for the trip.
You might think private, quiet workspace is the ultimate newsroom status symbol, and assign individual offices only to those who “earn” them. But if you sequester somebody who gets her energy from contact with colleagues and actually enjoys newsroom noise, your grand gesture just might fall flat.
Some questions to ask yourself as you try to apply the Platinum Rule to your leadership role:
- Do you believe the limits of your imagination are the limits of possibility? I can say from extensive personal experience: The fact that an explanation is beyond me doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
- Can you respect what you don’t understand? It’s easy to relate to someone who thinks the way you do. The best managers demonstrate greater range than that, getting top performance even out of those whose styles and motivations may be mystifying.
- Are you okay with uncertainty? Certitude is the enemy of an open mind. Get comfortable with not having all the answers, and you’ll allow room for new ideas and solutions you never imagined.
So, is it time to reconsider any of the rules you live by?
