Brown M&Ms
How do I hold people accountable from afar? Start with Van Halen.
Topics covered: David Lee Roth, chocolate candies, non-punitive approaches, watching in absentia
How do I hold people accountable without hovering? How do I verify what I can’t watch? This is a critical question whether you have one employee or a thousand, and it separates managers from leaders.
Managing people is relatively simple. You set some measurable guidelines, let people do their work, then measure the results. For example, you may have an easily measurable task, such as data entry or physical inventory counting. Or you may have a more complex, less measurable activity, such as delivering customer satisfaction. These can all be defined with a metric, then measured under the guidelines. (An upcoming column will address the challenge of measuring complex results.)
Leaders don’t settle for managing, so they don’t settle for simply measuring results to define success. Since management is not the goal, staying in touch during the process becomes more important. So how does one get a sense of employee commitment without watching over their shoulder?
Thinking of small efforts ahead of big results, I think of Van Halen’s brown M&Ms. If that sounds crazy, bear with me.
Van Halen had a massive — by size, weight and complexity — production that included pyrotechnics, electrical infrastructure, and heavy rigging. David Lee Roth describes a “little test” in their venue rider included a lot of detailed requirements. In the details they put a seemingly capricious food request: a bowl of M&Ms with the brown candies removed. The purpose of this request, for the band, was not some rock star preening, but a kind of canary in the coal mine. If the venue management hadn’t complied with the candy request, the band’s team would revisit the entire technical specifications outlined in the rider to check for safety.
My version of this approach is for detail work around the business. It helps me determine which employees might not be following critical intricacies in our work. It is important that this approach is sensitive and non-punitive, because the point is not to catch people “doing something wrong.”
It is also important that people know that there is a reason for the requirement. Explaining why something is important is critical if you want a team who can successfully deliver on the organization’s principles.
For example, in a retail business, you must have a benchmark for how accurate each person’s cash balance is kept. The tolerance for accuracy can vary, and I have adjusted individual accuracy requirements depending on the overall team accuracy. In a system like this, you must recognize that there is huge opportunity to “cheat” to account for this. Not only can someone cheat by keeping cash for themselves, but they could cheat by making up for errors out of their own pocket, personally bearing the cost to keep their numbers in line. Additionally, there are simple errors that people make that may benefit from being minimized. Any method for measuring must take as many causes for inaccuracy into account as possible.
To help me see at a glance how employees were maintaining accuracy when I wasn’t present, my version of the brown M&Ms was bill organization. I would request that each employee kept the cash in their drawer in the same configuration. Bills should be face up, with the top of the bill to the left. This simple request was useful for answering questions on a few levels. One, how well do new employees assimilate to a seemingly non-critical request? Two, do they maintain organization regardless of the stress of busy times? Three, if there is a discrepancy, where they following the standard at the time or not. That is, are they likely to make an error through disorganization or create an error through “cheating” in either direction. If an employee keeps their drawer immaculate and there are cash discrepancies, it is more likely to point toward theft in one form or another.
It is important that this type of “brown M&M” measurement remain simple, consistent, and non-punitive. That is, no employee should be made to feel that they are “in trouble” for failing to execute on these. It is simply the leader’s outward sign of a more complex challenge ahead. The challenge may be in training, it may identify a poor hire, it may point to a morale issue, or any other number of factors for individual failure.
If an employee failed to keep their drawer organized I would just repeat the request for it, and if requested, explain the various uses for it. It would be presented as a solution, a way to help avoid systemic error. New employees could be redirected by acknowledging that we hadn’t properly communicated the importance of this simple step.
If it seemed like an employee may have made an honest mistake, this process could be a support system. I can suggest: “Here’s a useful way to minimize mistakes.” Theft concern could be addressed by using organization to give the benefit of the doubt while the investigation continues: “You are an organized and focused person, how do you think this cash came up short?” This last method shifts the focus from punitive to observational. It says, You know I’m aware, I know you’re aware, and you’re taking a risk, but it is open-ended enough to make it a conversation.
A key to this approach is that its application can be individualized. Your version of the brown M&Ms test should be in service of a widely variable response. To be successful the standard has to be simple, easy to achieve, and easily communicable. This simplicity and focus allows for the information it offers to be varied and maximally useful.
Once you’ve defined the simple process and communicated it clearly, the hard work is in the ongoing work required to keep in touch with each employee regarding their results. Tailoring each approach to the specific interaction you’re handling will gain the maximum benefit, both for the employee and the organization.
