The Power of The “Do”

This concept is taken from one of the leadership sessions that I presented in 2014 to a large group of Oregon employers; but is also a concept that I have found effective in leadership coaching, culture change and performance management for many years.

Moving up from a “baby” to toddler today!

Have you ever take a toddler to a large store, especially a supermarket or Target-type store? That type of store where you put the child in a shopping cart for control and safety…often, yours as well as theirs. And, before you went into the store, were you sure to have the pre-entry talk with that toddler? You know, the one with all the traditional warnings…”don’t touch anything,” “don’t ask for anything,” “don’t get out of the cart,” and, my personal favorite, “don’t cry or we’ll leave and I’ll spank you.” Okay, that last one is old school, I get it.

Anyway, what happened when you went into the store? Did the toddler comply with all the “don’t” warnings? Was the toddler well-behaved and quiet throughout the store, with behavior meeting the guidelines that you put in place? Or, was your experience like mine, and the same as many others have told me, where the toddler started reaching for things as soon as we hit the first aisle. Grabbing at whatever might be in reach then asking for things, trying to climb out of the cart, or even crying. Or, worse yet, did you end up facing a tantrum? (A quick sorry to my daughters who will read this and cringe—I am not implying that they did any or all of these things; okay, maybe just one…or two.)

Why did the toddler behave that way? It’s too easy to simply say because he or she is a toddler. And, more importantly, what does talking to a toddler have to do with leadership in the workplace?

My experience is that most of us that are now employees are really just grown up kids; so, often the same principles that work with kids can be just slightly modified to now work with us as adults. And, those principles can actually have direct workplace application and benefit. The practical value of those principles has been continually reaffirmed to me for several years as I’ve had opportunity to talk to about leadership development to various groups up and down the West Coast and throughout the Pacific Northwest.

So, what’s the principle here? Very simply, it’s more effective to use a “do” than a “don’t” when setting expectations or communicating a message requiring responsive action. And, as an extension to personal application, it’s more effective leadership to demonstrate expected or desired behaviors by what you do, as opposed to what you don’t do.

Do’s focus on achievement, don’ts target obstacles.

The initial issue with a “don’t” is that it doesn’t help the other person, or employee, understand what to do, just what NOT to do. I remember that point being demonstrated in a dynamic way by a professional golfer a few years ago. He was getting ready to make a crucial putt when his caddy whispered to him, “Don’t leave it short.” Instead of thinking about making the putt, the golfer was now wrestling with a negative thought about what to avoid, not what to accomplish. Fortunately for the golfer, being a good pro, he still sunk the putt then immediately fired the caddy! The point is that knowing what to accomplish or how to behave gives a person a target to shoot for, something to pursue, or a goal to be achieved. Because of this, the person is not frozen by indecisiveness, but can focus on taking action towards the “do.”

This translates directly to developing good leadership skills in the workplace. When setting goals, performance objectives, and even behavior expectations, it’s much more effective to put the terms into a “do” format. In contrast with the golfer above, the “do” can clearly specify what you want to see accomplished. (Getting the “clearly” part accomplished is for another story.) For example, the caddy could have easily said “put the ball into the back of the hole,” or “sink it.” Think the golfer would’ve understood? Similarly, telling an employee what you want to see done allows that person to focus on the finish or result.

In addition, using a “do” builds in accountability. Because there is now an expected action or result, the employee understands how they will be measured. And, the employee understands that be successful they must demonstrate the “do” in a way that can be observed. This actually makes it easier for you, because it’s not about you policing or watching to see if the employee doesn’t comply, it’s about the employee actually showing you they have done the “do.” The employee has the obligation to affirmatively demonstrate doing the do!

Several years ago, I was asked to come in and work with a client’s leadership team because the team members had become dysfunctional. There was arguing, back-biting, disrespectful comments and, sometimes, worse. And, no, if you’re reading this as a former client, I am not referring to your organization’s leadership team, despite what similarities you might think exist. To start addressing the team's dysfunction, we developed a list of expected behaviors that team members were required to specifically demonstrate when interacting or whenever acting in their capacity as a team member. As a side note, I also reminded them that their leadership role meant they were effectively always acting in their capacity as a leadership team member.

Each behavior was outlined in terms of a “do” for the team members. For example, they had to speak respectfully with, and about, each other. We then defined the term “respectfully.” So, as opposed to “no gossip” or “no demeaning comments” expectations, the focus was on exhibiting positive behavior. Another example was them "maintaining eye contact" when interacting with each other. This meant a team member couldn't stare out the window while supposedly listening to someone else. In one team member's case, it meant she couldn't roll her eyes at others. Yes, when you roll your eyes, you lose eye contact. Our list was several behaviors long, with each behavior specified in terms of what the team member was required to demonstrate.

Our accountability process then went one step further and each team member was required to email me at the end of every week, providing detailed instances in which they had demonstrated the “do” behaviors that week. This accountability step forced the individual team member to look for opportunities to reflect the required behaviors. So, the team members stayed aware of and sensitive to their behaviors all week long. And, as another benefit of using a “do”, other members of the team and in the organization could directly observe the behaviors being demonstrated. This meant that, while the leadership team members were working on changing their behaviors, they were demonstrating new behaviors to the rest of the organization. This influenced the behavior of other employees even if not part of the leadership team. And, seeing the leaders “walk the talk” through their own behavior actually built credibility for the leadership team.

Let me add one final comment to any of you who are HR professionals. Have you ever noticed how many employee policies are written in terms of “don’ts”? When policies are written that way, what’s the enforcement process? “Observe, catch then take action” is typical for many management folks, right? The burden is actually on management to police policy compliance, so time and effort is unnecessarily spent on enforcement. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to have management focus on moving the operation or business forward? If your answer is yes, you might try this. The next time you are revising your employee policies think about how you might put those policies into terms of “do” that employees are expected to accomplish. That way, the obligation is on them to demonstrate how they are complying with the policy or process, rather than upon management to police compliance. Similar to certain performance or behavior expectations, it’s a challenge to put certain policies and processes in terms of “do” for employees; however, the positive results of revising your policies wiht that approach is something that I've seen for several years.

So, if you’re still with me, let’s wrap up this concept with some application then a way to test the concept’s validity. Okay, maybe a fun way.

The first application question is whether you can identify your own personal “do’s”? That is, what expectations for performance or behavior do you have in front of you? Whether you set them for yourself, or they are set by someone else, do you know what expectations are on that list? Especially if they are expectations that you personally set, think about identifying them in terms of "do." As an example, "I will exercise regularly" is much more affirmative than "I will not gain weight." By the way, when talking about the workplace, it is those performance and behavior “do’s” which often create the leadership image perceived by those around you.

The other question to consider is what expectations are you communicating to your team, staff or organization? And, are they conveyed in terms of demonstrating a specific performance or behavior? That is, do you communicate with others using “do” terminology, or “don’t” terminology? Think about what you want to see accomplished or the end result then set your expectations with a focus on doing what it will take to achieve the goal.

Now, if you want to test this concept, try it the next time you have opportunity (or obligation) to take a toddler to the store. Focus your pre-entry speech on what you expect the toddler to do. Yes, put in place expectations for how the toddler should behave. Observe the differences in the toddler’s behavior then consider whether you hit your targeted results. If so, congratulations! If not, why not? The answer to that “why not” is for another discussion.