How many of us on a daily basis tolerate less than perfect, or even less than acceptable standards that, if we chose to, we would be well within our rights to challenge? Whether we are talking about the service we get in stores, restaurants or banks or from the people we work with – our teams, managers, suppliers – all seem to have an infinite range of reasons and excuses as to why it is impossible to deliver what we expect, whether we are talking about hard product or attitude and behaviour.
I recently heard a story from friend of mine who is the MD of a small company employing around 50 staff. He told me how he had to intervene when two of his team deemed it acceptable to have a stand up row in front of other colleagues and within earshot of customers. Each had ‘reasons’ as to why they had reacted to the other in the way they had and why things had got out of control- none of them, in my view, acceptable reasons for ‘grown ups’ to behave in this way in the workplace.
In many organisations, people are aware of the technical and professional standards that apply to their roles- teachers know the standards for teaching, lawyers know the law inside out and backwards; even estate agents and financial advisers (sorry) have a code of conduct and standards of operation that they need to adhere to – but these same ‘professionals’ don’t always demonstrate the same rigorous standards when it comes to attitude and behaviour – simply because we tolerate poor behaviour. And tolerating it in one person gives permission to everyone else to do the same.
The statement ‘you get what you tolerate’ is incredibly powerful. In her book entitled ’Fierce Conversations’, Susan Scott (Piatkus, 2002)* says, ‘As a leader, you get what you tolerate. People do not repeat behaviour unless it is rewarded… Have you communicated clearly not only the results but also the behaviour you want? What about the attitude?’ And, to what extent are you prepared to hold people accountable and take action if they do not exhibit the behaviours and attitude you expect? Herb Kelleher, Chairman of the Board of Southwest Airlines said ‘ we are prepared, including legally, to fire you for a bad attitude’. This view is captured by Jim Collins in ‘Good to Great’ (Random House 2001) where he talks about the need for rigorous cultures in organisations. This, for him, is one of the things that differentiates great organisations from good ones. Being rigorous ‘means consistently applying exacting standards at all times and at all levels, especially in upper management.’ He quotes a Wells Fargo executive as saying, ‘the only way to deliver to the people who are achieving is to not burden them with the people who are not achieving.’
Yet organisations are frequently less than rigorous when it comes to standards of attitude and behaviour in their people and are terrified of ‘encouraging’ people to look hard at their job and career choice for fear of being accused of constructive dismissal and bullying – so they get what they tolerate and get the results they get. However, if having and applying rigorous and exacting standards is one of the defining characteristics of great vs good (let alone average) organisations, what reason could there be for continuing to get what you tolerate instead of applying a rigorous approach to all standards and seeing the impact on your business results when you do?