The problem of a shirt

Greg has a solid business employs about 15 people and is managing to take some great holidays with his teenage boys. He has put a lot of energy into building a ‘team’ approach in the workshop with a significant level of trust. He thought it was time to smarten up the team and bought a load of new shirts in the company colours with a bright logo.

When he gave them out the reaction from his factory manager was less appreciative than he expected, in fact the manager seemed quite put out. Over the next few weeks the atmosphere became increasingly soared. Greg was angry at first and then realised he had to do somethiing about it. When he contacted me I spoke with his manager about the incident and his words were “same old same old, thinks he has to do it all” and “I’m not putting in any more effort, nothing changes”. When we got to the bottom of the situation we discovered a couple of things. 1. Greg acted in his usual way of getting things done in the most efficient cost effective way possible.

2. The factory manager thought it was part of his job and he should have been consulted, he also thought his job as manager deserved a ‘better’ shirt than he was given, one a little more like the bosses. After all don’t they go out to customers together sometimes?

The shirt wasn’t really the problem – it became a symbol of the level of trust. In this simple act of apparent generosity the trust between business owner and factory manager was broken – not irrepairably but definitely broken. Its not that the boss shouldn’t have a better quality shirt, sure he can but what message is being sent by this to the person he expects to ensure all work leaving the factory meets the quality standards of the business. And what message about his role? If the situation had been left unquestioned much of the work building the team over the last couple of years would have been eroded.

In a short session with Greg and his manager both were able to accept ,identify the behaviours and their reactions. When looked at through the lense of building a team they could see what had happened and what they each can do so it doesn’t happen again.

What we did to re-build the trust was: First roles, expectations and accountabilities were re-clarified. Next we did some work on behaviours, actions and words that build trust which includes committing to regular monthly management meetings where teh real issues get talked through not swept under the table. And finally it was helpful to re-align the management team on goals and prioirites for the year and diarise the dates for all the management meetings.

Going forward Greg will remember that he has a factory manager who wants to be fulfil his role and share some of Greg’s load. And the manager will speak up truthfully when something like this happens again and not return to his old pattern of thinking ‘there’s no point’. He has re-committed all his enthusiasm and energy to the business because he feels valued and trusted again.

It’s easy to talk about team and trust, the reality is that it is in the small everyday actions that we earn it so that it is there when it is really needed. If you’d like to know what the 13 behaviours identified and tested over many years by Stephen M R Covey that build trust at every level in an organisation are send me a quick email asking for the 13 behaviour list bridget@creatingwhatmatters.co.nz .

Or call me if you’d like to talk about something going on in your team that you know can be improved. 09 412 9485

Becoming more sustainable is taking hold as a key strategic initiative. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development research indicates that around 35% of businesses changed suppliers because they did not meet or were not interested in meeting their environmental or ethical standards.

Below is the article published in the New Zealand Herald on February 18th which makes very interesting reading. Is your company ready to answer the question what are your social, environmental or ethical standards when it is put to you?

Here is the article – if you’ve been thinking about this question, read on.

From NZ Herald February 18 2010-03-11
Almost a third of businesses have sacked a supplier in the past year because they did not meet their environmental or ethical standards, research suggests.
A survey to be released tomorrow by the Business Council for Sustainable Development has found more than 27 per cent of business owners, managers and self-employed people had ditched a supplier for social, ethical or environmental reasons. For business owners the figure was higher at 35 per cent.
The national poll sought the views of 1955 business owners, managers and self-employed people, 336 of them business owners.
Business council head Peter Neilson said the results showed companies would be “silly” to ignore the wishes of nearly a third of the market, who wanted suppliers to help meet their customers’ “deeply held” concerns.
He said sustainable buying policies were starting to drive more of the $25 billion the Government spent each year buying goods and services – and interest in sustainability had risen, not fallen, with the recession.
Two managers of companies with sustainable buying policies – Robb Donze, the New Zealand managing director for carpet company Interface, and Malcolm Rands of green cleaning product company Eco-store – said it was getting easier to find sustainable suppliers as more companies adopted green policies.

Mr Donze said Interface changed its freight company – a major decision for the carpet distributor – in favour of Mainfreight-owned Owens Transport “mainly because they were willing to talk to us about keeping track of our carbon footprint and nobody else was, so we dropped our other supplier”.
The company’s seven cars are Toyota Prius hybrids and Mr Donze said it also did the “easy stuff” such as buying recycled paper and using mainly natural light in its offices.
He said suppliers were asked three main questions: what goes into a product, how long does it last and what do you do with it when you have finished?
“You start asking … ‘are you going to take it back [when I've finished with it]?’ If they don’t have an answer we will probably look at buying it from somebody who will have an answer, because we are being asked the same thing by our customers.”

Mr Rands said insisting on sustainable supplies was an area of life where ordinary people had true power.
But he warned it was important to do your research. “If you don’t know what you’re looking for it is quite easy for people to bullshit you.”
For example, he said: “Nuclear waste is actually ‘biodegradable’ if you can wait half a million years.
“You have to say how long does it take to biodegrade and what sea animals does it kill on the way?”
Mr Rands said when he started his company 17 years ago he was the only one asking for items such as recycled paper and plant-based inks.
It was a lot easier now because more companies were seeing sustainability as a competitive advantage, he said.
A positive spin-off was growing demand from companies for his cleaning products, he said.

Mr Donze agreed sourcing was getting easier. “For the first 10 years I would even have staff members coming up to me and saying, ‘Why are we doing this? Nobody cares.’
“But in the last five years it has changed quite a bit.
“I think it is because there are companies who are doing it and showing they have grown in spite of [sustainable buying].”
He said choosing sustainable options had financially worked out extremely well for the company.

EYE ON STANDARDS
Has the organisation you work for or with ditched suppliers in the past year because of their social, environmental or ethical behaviour?
BUSINESS DECISION-MAKERS
Yes 27 per cent
No 38 per cent
Don’t know 34 per cent
BUSINESS OWNERS
Yes 35 per cent
No 55 per cent