Analyze This!

It is sometimes amazing, and often baffling, what people will say or do in the interest of getting a little press. A genuine, and apparently credentialed, shrink was recently quoted in a New York Times piece (further cited in CSCMP's daily SmartBrief) with an admonition that too many managers are spending too much time "psychoanalyzing" employees.

Staking out turf? Jealous that common folk might be practicing without a license? Trolling for clients? Ingesting magic mushrooms? Who knows? But whatever the case, she was and is dead wrong

Her essential premise is that people are doing the best they can, with the implication that we should accept whatever the outcome might be as a reality and the only reasonable expectation. In the patois of my youth, "Bush-wah". Of course, she went on to illustrate how she hires based on an assessment of what people are good at - that is, how their brains are wired for predisposed strengths. Sounds like rudimentary psychological evaluation to me, but, as one of the common folk, I am not qualified to say.

What I do know is that is it is a mission-critical skill for executives and managers to understand what makes people tick - how their brains work, what their preferences and strengths are - if one is to communicate, reward, motivate, develop, and engage them for the win-win working relationships that benefit emoloyees, leaders, and enterprises. If that constitutes psychoanalysis, so be it.

News flash! It is not nuclear engineering. It is a fundamental component of the successful manager's tool kit. More late-breaking and radical discoveries! And, unsettling rumblings for the would-be guru.

We are not saddled with the limitations of random employees doing the best they can, and they are not condemned to frustration, dissatisfaction, and mediocrity on account of how their cerebral cortexes are pre-wired. We can't rewire their brains - that would be brain surgery.

But, we can use our understanding of who, what, and why they are to make them more efeective and more comfortable with their roles and approaches. We can begin by better matching them with jobs and assignments. We can - and should - coach them to leverage their strengths and smooth the rough edges of some of their behaviors. We owe them clear explanations of where the organization needs to go, and how they can help - in their terms and in their contexts.

We can lead them to become better than they were, and still be true to themselves. We can allow them to contribute and be recognized and benefit ourselves, as leaders and as employeers. We and they do not need to settle for accepting the status quo as being as good as it gets.

Bottom line? As things stand, we already have armies of people who are not living up to needs in supply chain management, and we are losing the struggle to find talent and resources in numbers that will get us over the hump. Why would we encourage more of the same? Why would we not invest in making everyone - including ourselves - better? It's not psychoanalysis; it's common-sense leadership. Maybe it's just not sophisticated enough for the New York Times.