4. Provide Ample and Appropriate Resources

I still remember when my dad first handed over the keys to the family car. I suspect you remember a similar event in your life as well. Whichever relative or friend was part of that “passage” ceremony, I bet you saw it as much more than just the chance to get behind the wheel solo for the first time. The keys were a vote of trust, and if your dad was like my dad, the keys were handed over with an eye-to-eye look that said more than words could convey: Here’s the car, now justify my trust in you by acting responsibly and doing the right thing. It could well be that I am alive and kicking today because his trust in me was well-founded.

That said, if his handoff of the keys had been accompanied by a strict and stern lecture, or the threat of punishment for the slightest infraction, or a diatribe about exactly how an automobile is to be driven, believe me, I may well have rewarded his lack of faith with defiance, a measure of recklessness, and maybe even spite. Instead, that calm, adult conveyance of the car keys was also a conveyance of calm, adult-to-adult expectations, as much as it was a vote of confidence that I’d do the right thing.

Now, in the context of the workplace, think of the car as a training resource, a state-of-the-art tool, financial assets, or even the reputation of product, service, or the company itself. Next, think of this story in the sense of a manager or leader handing over “the keys” to an employee or subordinate. And let’s assume that those keys can open up budgetary resources or tool sets, or access to a team of talented people. When conveyed in the right spirit, that act of handing over the keys is nothing short of a vote of trust and confidence in the employee or subordinate. It’s an act that says: Here’s the power and the resources, now, justify my trust in you to act responsibly and do the right thing. If the handover is accompanied by a strict lecture, threats, suspicion, and a lack of trust, there’s a fair chance that you would return the favor and out of spite (yes, even reasonable adults are capable of spite) “reward” that lack of faith with resentment, imprudence, and maybe even a subliminal urge to bring the entire effort down around you—the classic lose-lose outcome. And you can imagine some of the thoughts that would be raised during this exchange, the kindest being, “If you treat me like a child, I’ll act like a child.” The human, emotional dynamic of these two interactions isn’t all that different in either situation; only the context has changed.

In organizations, resources are a three-tined fork, a trident of sorts. You want your staff to be successful, but it’s up to them to choose the path to that success. That’s one tine. Second, the conveying of resources and control to employees can indicate how you feel about them (either positive or negative). Done properly with the right good people, it can indicate that the employee is important and that the organization values her judgment and potential for contribution. The third tine is that handing over the control of resources to someone inextricably links that person to the success (or failure) of the project, and it can motivate them to take ownership of the project and to invest pride and extra effort in doing it well. When you convey power, resources, and control to someone, that employee will say, “They believe in me. They want me to be successful, and I have to show them that I am worthy of that respect; I will justify that trust, and I will make something of these resources.”

As to what resources you should provide, that’s the task of managers and leaders to decide. But let me tell you something: As you start to appraise what resources are required don’t put your people on starvation diets or burnout budgets. To keep employees engaged, first you have to give them the proper tools and resources. To put it crassly, you can’t give someone a knife and send them to a gun fight. Don’t hand someone a hammer and ask him to make a fine sculpture. Accordingly, don’t put your people on a strict diet just because they are demonstrating esprit de corps, and you know the team will put up with it because they have pride and drive. That only stresses and fatigues your people.

Second, you have to realize that resources aren’t always about money and materials. Sometimes it’s about team members who are shrewdly chosen. Sometimes it’s a matter of aligning resources with desired outcomes and expressing how you—as managers and leaders of the organization—expect the resources to be prudently used. But it couldn’t be plainer: Adequate tools and resources are not only essential to tactical success, they signal to employees that you think they have the discretion required to allocate the organization’s resources and authorize their deployment.

When you have this kind of employee-manager dynamic taking place, and the employees (and manager and leaders) are all acting as owners, the allocation of proper resources serves an even higher purpose. It also announces the high expectations the organization has for the success of an initiative. Remember if you will, the biblical Parable of the Talents. A wealthy merchant gave each of his three servants “talents” (portions of his assets) each according to his ability to care for while he was away on a journey. One servant received five and using his skills and efforts doubled it to ten. A second servant was given two talents and through his initiative turned those two into four. The third servant had received one talent, but buried the talent to hide it and protect it from harm. So when the merchant returned the servant presented the one talent to him unscathed. The first and second servants were praised and rewarded because they had used their skills and enthusiasm to build on the assets of their leader. The third servant was censured—with weeping and gnashing of teeth, no less—because he hadn’t lived up to the trust and confidence the merchant had in him to do good for himself and the business. (Maybe the merchant didn’t properly convey his expectations.) As I am sure you have guessed by now, you want your employees and subordinates to behave as the first and second servants had done. You want them to take the resources and invest the work, sweat, and pride to make something out of them. But as this parable also makes clear from what it does not say, you need for your employees and subordinates to have a clear idea of your expectations of improving the situation; you don’t want them protectively burying resources and returning just your initial investment. You want them to bring back something twofold or greater.

Let’s take this out of the clouds, away from the metaphors and down to earth. Imagine how a software developer or salesperson must feel about his job, company, and opportunity when he is left to struggle to succeed with out-of-date information, tools, or technology. Do you think he feels honored and valued? Is he excited about the task ahead? Of course not. And do you think those feelings are expressed in the effort delivered and the results? They are. By depriving or limiting resources for your people, you signal disregard, indifference, even disrespect for them and a lack of importance for the work you ask them to do. At some level, those “messages” result in poor or marginal performance and less than the desired results. The failure to provide appropriate resources is an indication to workers of how the organization treats everything it is supposed to value—products, customers, and people.

Now, this is not to say that companies that do not have the finances to spend on supportive resources should put themselves out of business to live up to this rule. But each company that wants to hire, develop, and keep a committed and productive work force, must do everything with its means to provide appropriate resources.

The next logical question is how and when do you convey the expectations that accompany the resources? If the merchant in the parable failed at anything, it was certainly his laissez-faire handling of giving instructions. He was fortunate that he got what he wanted and more from two of his three employees. In most situations I have come across, companies and the executives who run them are not so lucky. When a leader hands over or authorizes resources, along with that transfer he must communicate three things: the value and importance of the task at hand; confidence in the subordinate’s ability to succeed; and the expectation of a positive outcome. The manager must also convey the hope that the employee or subordinate will take ownership of the project. These can be subtle messages, especially if the employee or subordinate isn’t used to working in a collaborative adult work environment, or if she has worked in toxic work environments in the past. So, you should not convey resources with a lecture that says, “Okay, pretty boy, you had better produce...” Instead, the manager should express that he sees something in an employee or subordinate; the manager should verbalize that he recognizes the employee’s or subordinate’s talents and skills; that the employee’s or subordinate’s potential is clear, that he wants to see it actualized, and here are the tools to make it happen. Sound like a workplace scenario that would inspire you? It would—and has—inspired me, and I’ve seen this approach inspire many others as well.

In the previous chapter, on leadership, the difference I highlighted between leadership and management was that the leader has to be a resource. But the leader must walk a fine line. I have seen many situations where the leader has offered herself as a resource, only to find the employees and subordinates misperceive that generosity. They think the leader is an equal member of the team, with equal onus to do the work. But that’s not the leader’s job, and it would cramp her ability to lead if she focused so closely on just one project; it would bring about a myopia. Instead the leader should say, “I’m here. But don’t lean on me. If, however, there is a question about direction or alignment, about meeting objectives, I won’t do your work, but I will be a sounding board and a beacon, so your course is never in doubt.”

Here’s a real-world example that blends a number of the points I have made in this chapter into a good illustration of what I am driving at. One of the companies that I consult with is Minitab. I mentioned the company earlier in this book, and I cite it again here because I think it is an exemplary company. Minitab produces statistical analysis software, and it is focused on quality assurance and Six Sigma protocols. Minitab has solid, active competitors, but Minitab dominates the market. So, although Minitab pays close attention to the competition, the immediate risk of a competitive threat isn’t foremost in their minds.

Recently, Minitab’s chief executive officer, Barbara Ryan, decided that the company had an opportunity to provide its clients with better opportunities to be successful using Minitab software. She and her technical team got together and started to map out a path to reconfigure how Minitab takes new software features from concept to general availability. But further analysis showed that it would take an investment and an effort to totally restructure how the various Minitab teams moved through the software development processes. They all realized the process had to move from a classical model to an agile platform. However, to do this, Minitab had to change not only the critical path for software development, but also the perspective of the people who would do the work. Barbara Ryan made the decision to move ahead and invest in the training, hardware, and software for the agile platform. But change has to be communicated to the developers, and she couldn’t just go in there, bark out a few like-it-or-lump-it orders to indicate that the classical approach was out and the agile platform was in, and... “If you are not on board with the change, we’ll go out and find someone who is.”

Instead, Ryan addressed the software teams and said, “We want to do things differently. You are the people who will make this happen, and we will give you every possible tool and resource you require to get to the new platform.” She also communicated her genuine excitement about the project. Why? Because the new platform would enable Minitab to deliver new software releases and updates months earlier than was possible using the old design methodology, the classical platform. It was a move that was great for the customers, great for the company, but, moreover, it was also great for the developers, because the developers were learning as they contributed—they were growing, becoming better, wiser, more skilled...for themselves and for Minitab—win-win-win! They might experience some pain along the way during the transition, but they ultimately would share an investment they would own for their entire careers.

Candidly, Ryan and every Minitab leader knew that the organization was taking a risk by introducing the teams to highly portable and highly marketable skills. After all, workers are volunteers, not indentured servants. But Minitab would also be remembered by these programmers as a company that granted them autonomy, resources, power, and control; a company that allowed them to take ownership of the project, that promoted career and personal growth. The result was renewed dedication to the outcome desired by the company, and a genuine alignment between personal goals and organizational goals. As a result, the respect of the organization for the staff and of the staff was clearly visible, and each took ownership for the achievement of Minitab’s goals. Voluntary turnover, which was never a threat, has reached an all-time low, and intracompany cooperation and camaraderie is at a new high and pleasing (to all). Plus, every one of these Tabbers, as the Minitab employees call themselves, knows and feels the glow of being a respected link in a chain of current and future success. The employees at Minitab are at home, and few competitors could lure them from a company that makes it clear to them every day that they matter and that they make a difference.

But giving autonomy and providing resources cannot independently carve out a formula for success. Leaders must guide and participate, nurture and guide, act as a guiding beacon.

Let me close by telling you the story of a dot-com that I worked for a few years back. It was a company named BuildNet (I say “was” because it’s not around any more). With its solid vision of optimizing the building materials supply chain, BuildNet raised $147,000,000 in venture capital. (Yes, that’s one hundred forty-seven million dollars—at that time the largest single venture investment in the Southeast.) There were immediate prospects for a successful initial public offering (IPO). So, in 1999 and 2000, BuildNet was able to lure top talent at every level of the company: leaders, managers, employees—you name it. No expense was spared, and BuildNet was described in the local press as having established a dream team of leaders and managers. I was attracted to BuildNet after my retirement from SAS Institute by the prospect of enough resources, autonomy, and power to create an employer-of-choice environment in a technology startup. By late 2001, BuildNet had burned through its $147 million, hired and subsequently laid off 1,200 employees, and collapsed in bankruptcy with an additional $100,000,000 (yes, that’s one hundred million dollars) in debt, to say nothing of the lawsuits stacking up like planes trying to land at LaGuardia on Christmas Eve.

What happened?

Well, BuildNet had the talent (with a history of remarkable leadership and accomplishments), ample resources, and vision. But it lacked two crucial elements: Standards of Performance (accountability) and the compelling need to deliver results.

BuildNet had great vision and that vision attracted talent and resources. Had BuildNet achieved a balance between leadership and accountability, had it insisted on a culture where employees took ownership of projects and where leaders articulated expectations and reviewed progress and results, things might have turned out differently. There might have been a successful BuildNet IPO. Instead BuildNet will go down as one of the Dot-Com Bubble Busters.

So you see it’s not just money and budgets, or vision and dream teams. It’s a blend of all those things—great people, a great culture, and accountability to the customer and to the bottom line.