Avoiding holiday staffing blues

For some businesses, the holiday seasons of summer and/or Christmas represent their busiest and most lucrative period. Thanksgiving "weekend" that includes the famous Black Friday is probably the most demanding time for retailers with huge numbers of shoppers rushing through the doors. During the summer time, construction businesses are wanting to make the most of good weather to minimize delays caused by inclement weather. Tourist based businesses have high seasons in summer to correspond with when most people are relaxing and taking time off work.  At the same time, there are pressures from staff to be able to take their annual leave during these same times so as to coincide with school holidays, summer and generally family time off.

It is a difficult balancing act for businesses to ensure there is adequate staff coverage while at the same time allowing staff their requests for time off.   It is understandable to prioritize anything that encourages cashflow but taking care of staff needs also promotes stability and reduces HR costs. What are some ideas?

1. Clearly communicate expectations to staff well in advance
However you do it, via emails, a policy and procedure manual or via the employment contract, give staff a clear understanding of the ways that you will handle leave applications. Is there a particular time of year when all staff are required to work? During times when staff are most likely to apply, do you have a first come first policy or another way to select who will be successful with their applications? What is your process for applying for leave? Is there provision for staff to carry over unused annual leave to the following year?

2. Maintain good staff records
So as to ensure that staff take their required leave, maintain comprehensive staff files that include what days have been taken and payments that have been made accordingly. There are many software programs available to make this task systematic and user friendly.

3. Develop a staff roster for stretched holiday periods well in advance 
A staff roster showing those who are in place to maintain the business during holiday periods will help remaining staff understand the level of coverage they are providing. This same staff roster can then be used to communicate with clients if needed to let them know what staff are available to take care of their needs.

4. Vacation messages
Vacationing staff should be encouraged to record vacation messages that explain the period of their absence and the contact details of the covering staff member. This should be in both email and  phone form. There is nothing worse for a client than continuously phoning someone within the business and not understanding why they have received no response to their messages. It is also reassuring for these clients that the business has a backup system in place so that they are not left without service during the holiday period.

5. Back up desk files
With the same goal for continous service, it is recommended that staff, particularly those involved in ongoing management or project development, maintain detailed deskfiles that enable any other staff member to take over the work in their absence. Even better still, staff leaving on holiday should begin to brief the covering colleague at least a week in advance so that any questions about projects that are active can be answered.

6. Plan to have covering staff maintain the general flow of work
There can be a tendency for staff to "clean up" as much as possible before they go on leave with the intention that nothing further will be undertaken until they return from leave. The whole idea of annual leave is to enable staff to become destressed and to rebuild strength. It makes little sense for the staff member to then return from annual leave to be faced by a large mountain of work that has been waiting for attention. Playing catch up at the end of holidays has the potential of undoing all of the good produced by the break. If at all possible, it would be useful for vacationing staff to hand over their work email passwords so that covering staff can deal with any pressing issues that arise. If the business has only a skeleton staff in place during these seasonal times it may be difficult to achieve much extra but at the very least, urgent matters can be dealt with even during a key staff member's absence.


Managers or owners should not discount their own work and should find someone from among staff who would be both capable and willing to keep an eye on their work. With the advent of cellphones and emails it is becoming more and more frequent for managers to take work with  them on holiday, to be accessible during the holidays for emergencies. However, more and more often "emergencies" have been extended to just about any difficulties staff still at work are experiencing. A poll conducted by CareerBuilder in May 2011 polled 5,500 full-time workers. Of the respondents who said they were planning a vacation that summer, 30% indicated they would contact work while on vacation and 30% said they planned to take office work with them. Being so available during vacation time is a contradiction to the very reason for leave and will not facilitate relaxing or unwinding. If a proper handover coupled with a good deskfile is put into place it should minimize the need for staff to contact vacationing colleagues, including the manager.

(A side note: The same principle of a regularly updated deskfile enables sound succession planning for all key staff roles. No-one is indispensable in a well-run business. It is sound business practice for each role to have at least one other backup person within the organization who knows at least the rudimentary responsibilities and who can step in as needed.)

7. Plan to ensure key organizational activities are maintained
On a similar note, there are key aspects of the business that need to be maintained, even during the holiday period. Even if you decide to shut down the business during a particular holiday period, there is a need for such aspects as staff salary/wage payments, payments of invoices on time and the dealing of urgent matters. If needed put into place automatic payment options during holiday periods or ensure that at least one person is able to take care of vital financial transactions during this season.

It is a contradiction in terms but holidays are incredibly stressful for businesses. Sound advance planning can reduce that stress and increase customer confidence in the stability of your business.

11 Advantages to Becoming a Transparent organization.

I was a little bit proud to hear that New Zealand had been declared the most transparent country in the world again by Transparency International, a shared spot with two other countries. It brought back memories of working for government departments in the dim, distant past and being assailed by the Audit department to review our work. 

Being audited was always an intense process involving having someone go through your work and your files with a fine tooth comb. Invariably, the audit would always highlight "areas for improvement" and there would be much discussion on how we would survive the next audit when it came.

Becoming transparent in our work is not some distant, unseen process that happens in the upper echelons of government leaders. We can tell that it is a permanent fixture when it becomes an attitude of mind, a given process that occurs in each and every department and in almost each and every organization. But why should we be proud of transparency in our organizations? I am an avid fan of both internal and external audits to increase our transparency and here are some of the reasons why.

1. Transparency engenders trust:  True transparency enables us to see everything in the open, warts and all and this openness engenders trust from both within and outside of the organization. When we are prepared to be scrutinized and to have our flaws examined then it sends the message that we have nothing to hide. It is the old story of "what you see is what you get." 

2. Transparency provides data for sound decisions: Investors, clients, staff and management are all able to make sound judgements when they have all the facts at hand. Hidden surprises can derail an organization or a service whereas transparency provides confidence that we can rely on the facts as presented. Of course, if being transparent throws up significant issues occuring within an organization then this may initially appear to reduce confidence. This can be overcome when a plan of action to address shortcomings is simultaneously presented with the report on issues, sending a clear message that mistakes lead to improvements.

If a governance board has access to clear and transparent financial information, its future decisions will be more considered. If management has sound, transparent data on staff functioning then it will be more able to target training and recruitment. If staff have clear, transparent information on their roles there will be less confusion, less overlap necessary and more efficient use of their time. And so on and so on......

3. Transparency promotes ongoing organizational improvement: It is difficult to address problems within our organization if we are blind to what is going on. The same attitude that seeks to hide those problems as they arise will also stifle efforts to improve. The beginning of any success in resolving difficulties lies in clear identification of the underlying problems. When an organization is regularly audited, whether externally, internally or both, then there is always data on which to base improvements. Transparency is an essential precursor to sound evaluation. 

4. Transparency enables the sharing of the load: As we become more transparent and more willing to share what is happening within an organization it is easier to determine when assistance is needed or when support of particular staff or the organization as a whole would be beneficial.  

5. Transparency is economically sound: On so many levels, transparency increases economic accountability and enables the more effective use of  limited resources. When there is no transparency, it is easy for resources of money, equipment and staff to be sidelined to ineffective, inefficient or even corrupt purposes. 

Let us not be naive that this form of corruption is only happening at government level. I have witnessed this occurring at an organizational level among nonprofits. Resources expended taking care of personal agendas or paying for whatever form of corruption bleed profits dry or, in the case of nonprofits, divert funds from where the needs exist.

6. Transparency engenders initiative and self-empowerment: The trust that transparency brings in turn encourages initiative and self-empowerment. If employees believe that their work is truly visible and acknowledged in regular processes of scrutiny, they are more likely to feel safe to test out their ideas and to use initiative unless an employee is worried about being exposed for non-performance in which case they are likely to look for a way to hide from the scrutiny. There is an oxymoron in the fact that the very environment that promotes self-examination and improvement implies that we are all fallible and not perfect in our work. We cannot improve if we are already perfect. A sound, transparent process does not vilify staff for poor performance but should provide an ongoing environment whereby improvements are sought after.

7. Transparency means greater clarification of roles: Where openness in business processes and information exists it becomes easier to determine the respective roles of each of the players. You can see the roles in broad daylight making it easier to negotiate transitions between roles, negotiate the distribution of responsibilities and to monitor workloads. Adjustments between roles are also so much easier because transparent processes will quickly make apparent where they are needed and the results of any changes put into place. 

8. Transparency attracts donors/investors: One of the key reasons why donors declare their unwillingness to donate to nonprofits is the fear that their funds will be inappropriately spent. The problem they experience so often is that they cannot truly see where their funding is being expended. An organization that is transparent may be able to establish the trust of donors because they are offering sound information on how their resources will be applied.  

9. Transparency means improved risk management: If our organizations are truly open in their processes then problems will quickly be recognized and therefore dealt with while they are still early on. Without the mechanisms of transparent processes, then developing problems may rest unaddressed for quite some time. It begins at the management level. If governance and management model secrecy through the environment and processes in place, then staff will follow the example and will hide any problems they identify. Conversely, if all messages within an organization communicate openness and acceptance of scrutiny then employees and volunteers at all levels are more likely to speak up if they identify a new issue.

Transparency provides the means for sound risk management. You cannot manage what you can't measure or see. 

10. Transparency keeps us focussed on our goals and objectives: Transparent processes provide a unifiying force and an ability to constantly refer to the mission and objectives of an organization. Data in transparent organizations has the capacity to be continuously gathered, analyzed and then used in decision making. If that transparency is geared towards alignment with organizational goals then true evaluation can occur at an effective level. All staff at every level are being held accountable for the achievement of organizational objectives.

11. Transparency promotes continuity of service:  I have witnessed so many nonprofits started up by energetic, charismatic and dedicated leaders only to falter when the leaders move on to other projects or retire. 

There is this policy I have termed the "what will happen if you fall under a bus?" policy. No-one is indispensable and leadership in organizations or nonprofits who hold tightly onto all information and control who sees what information are a great risk to continuity of service. Having transparent systems and processes as well as transparent accounts enables more simplified succession planning. A successor in any role in the organization should be able to pick up documentation that has been maintained in a consistent way and know how to work within the role. 

So given there is such a good case for transparency, why is it that so many nonprofits avoid it? How do we implement transparent policies and procedures into our organization? That is the subject of another blog.

Anger in the workplace: Why do we do it?

I don't doubt that we have all either been in or have witnessed one-a massive, all out argument or fight between two people or parties. The statistics of anger being expressed in the workplace are pretty astounding. In a study in the United States nearly 1 in 4 of all employees suffered chronic anger on the job, (The Marlin Co. & Yale School of Management). In a five-year national workplace study, 28% said that they lost work time trying to avoid a bully, while 12% actually resigned their jobs to avoid the bullying instigator, (Christine Pearson, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill). English studies show similar results. 45% of Britons are reported as losing their temper at work and 64% of Britons working in an office have had office rage.

So from where is all this anger emanating? And how do we handle it? When I look deeper into this subject I see some differences in the types of anger being expressed.

Situational Anger: Each of us faces situations in which we naturally can feel frustrated and angry. In these instances of situational anger, it is a healthy thing to express and not supress that anger.  This may include our owning up to ourselves how we are feeling in such a way as to not offend others around us. It is about sharing "I" statements so as to release negative feelings. Anger that has been left unexpressed or dealt with can create major problems for a workplace as it increases the level of stress and can eventually explode or implode. High stress levels have a direct correlation to higher levels of absenteeism and to high staff turnover. So completely suppressing our anger and frustration is not helpful.

At the same time, it is best to work through anger as quickly as possible because ongoing anger issues may affect productivity. Remember the last time that you were really angry? How hard was it to think clearly and to remain focussed on the facts? It is only when the anger has subsided that there is the capacity to restore rationality.

Anger as an escape mechanism: It has been said before that the best form of defense is attack. There are a group of people who hope to escape from criticism, scrutiny or difficult emotions and who use anger as their tool of escape. This may sound contradictory but when someone is communicating anger the first instinct of those on the receiving end is to step back to protect ourselves from the onslaught. When we step back then the angry person receives some respite from examination. If someone in your office/workplace is being angry on an ongoing basis it is worthwhile making a determination as to whether they are coping with their work.

Anger as a punishment or a motivator: Some management staff may have the misguided notion that they can motivate staff through the use of anger when mistakes are made. As an example of this type of anger, we see it frequently illustrated in sports-based movies where the infuriated coach gets fierce to motivate his team and then they all go out a win the match against all odds. Such a commonly held belief is misguided because anger tends to either incite corresponding anger or withdrawal of staff members. It is the stuff movies are made of but not so much reality.

Anger as an attempt to emotionally manipulate: Where anger in the worplace becomes an even greater problem is when that anger is directed as a weapon against someone or against the organization in a destructive way. We may not realize it consciously but where debate and anger are brought together in an argument in the workplace then there is an attempt to persuade the other side of the rightness of our         position with an emotional force that is intended to manipulate and even to force our viewpoint. This type of anger is a blatant attempt to control another person.

When discussion based on expressing facts, thoughts and respectful listening is infused with angry emotion there is a message, "Either you believe me or I will be hurt, angry and/or offended." Alternatively, there is the message, "How dare you think differently than I do?" Behind this is a false principle that we have the right and the capacity to change a person and their thinking/behavior by the force of our emotional rhetoric. This premise is fundamentally flawed because people can only change themselves. They will only change as much as they allow themselves to be influenced by our reasoning or by our emotions.

If you experience or see others in  anger in our workplace put on your analytical hat and ask yourself what is going on behind the anger. It is much easier to respond appropriately if we understand the underlying reasoning.

Change: Friend or Foe?

A whole industry has been put into place to manage change within the workplace including many variations on the theme of change management practitioners. Current thinking would tell us that being able to adapt to change is an important skill but a recent LinkedIn discussion asked an important question: "How much change is too much?"

Some time ago I came across this validated stress test by Holmes and Rahe that taught me a great deal about change and how it affects our stress levels. It was an eye opener at the time but I have increased in my appreciation for this tool as I have studied and learned more on this subject. For those of you who may not be familiar with it here is a copy:

http://www.testandcalc.com/richard/resources/Teaching_Resource_Holmes_and_Rahe_Social.pdf

So what have I learned about the relationship between change and stress?

1. ALL change carries with it some level of stress. Stress is not just an emotional reaction but it is the body adjusting to varying levels of change. Who would have thought that an outstanding personal accomplishment or a holiday would carry with it stress points on the stress scale? Are these not positive events?

2. Some level of stress is necessary for us to live and to work. It is stress that gets us up in the morning, that has us set goals ahead, that sees us wanting to start new projects.

3. Change induced stress becomes the more difficult to manage if there is a lack of personal control over events or situations or even a perception of a lack of control. This point has major implications for those given responsibility for change management processes within organizations. The more that management and/or staff perceive that change is outside of their control and that they are mere puppets, the greater the level of stress involved.

4. The greater the personal investment, the higher the level of consequent stress when change occurs. It is understandable that the death of a loved one brings the most significant level of stress but it also applies that those who consider they have invested themselves wholeheartedly in their work role will feel the greatest threat and stress when that role is under review or signalled for adjustments.

5. Our bodies need time to adjust to stress and so the greater number as well as depth of stressors in our lives, the longer it takes for our body to regulate itself. For example, when making a single change such as to a new town or even country we need to take into account all the ensuing changes. We change our environment, our food, our friends, our work, our social activities among other things. Each change, even though they may seem small in nature, place a degree of stress on our bodies. Just try to purchase health insurance when you travel and the horrendous cost that entails. This is partly because so many people become ill while on holiday, directly induced as a result of the stress of all the changes that holidays bring. (This does not mean that we should not go on holiday but merely that we need to be mindful to take care of ourselves.) Stress management studies have shown that if stress is not reduced or at least managed effectively that we are more likely to be ill and if we do not listen to the signals that our bodies are under stress we may suffer increasing levels of ill health even to the point of death.

6. In an opposite sense, a sound and good routine that underpins our lives in whatever circumstances and wherever we live helps to mitigate the levels of stress. Routines send a message that at least part of life is under control and not subject to the whims and fancies of circumstances around us. A routine may include getting up regularly at around the same time, exercise, quiet reflection time or a particular day of rest.

7. Have you ever wondered how those people who have a constant stream of stressors in their lives seem to cope admirably? There is another secret in this that goes along with what we have already discussed. When stress is constant then it becomes predictable and therefore more manageable. If you are being bombarded by change but it is coming at a fast and furious pace at a constant rate then the body has received a signal to arm itself. On the other hand if change is intermittent then the body is 'surprised' by the changes each time and has had little time to steel itself and roll with those changes.

The key concept underlying much of what we are discussing here is the concept of control over our circumstances. There are as many stress management programs out there as there are sheep in New Zealand so this blog is not about providing detailed advice in this area but more to provoke questions about how to plan and manage change at both an individual and organizational level by taking into account the levels of stress being produced. Change managers would also do well to consider looking at the stress levels in the lives of each individual in the organization, not simply as it relates to the workplace but life-wide stresses to determine those staff most at risk of suffering as a result of the changes.  

A second key concept is the use of the word "perception" because if we are looking out for change as a positive thing in our lives then we are gearing our bodies up to take change in our stride and to expect to have to adjust. There is a certain measure of self-control, of self-determination in this process which automatically reduces the level of stress being experienced.

None of us are infallible however and it is impossible to predict every occurrence. We live a dangerous life when we constantly bombard ourselves with change without taking measures to safeguard our health and emotional well-being, without reading the signs when we are seriously suffering from stress.

Change is both an enemy and a vital friend to the body.  I love the sea but I respect it and acknowledge its power. Stress for me is similar. I embrace change as healthy to remain flexible, to increase personally enriching experiences but I recognize and acknowledge the power of change to induce great stress. In the face of great change in my life I realize I need to plan to mitigate and/or reduce stress. I guess it is off to the multitude of stress management material online for me. 

You don't have to be wrong in order for me to be right

We appear to live in a world of absolutes, of solutions that are expressed as simple and measurable. I am not sure what happened to make the world so black and white. For all our battles for various freedoms it certainly feels as if we as a society have actually become less tolerant of differing viewpoints.  There is a tendency for many in our society to range themselves on either side of a great divide and to hurl personal abuse at the perceived opposition because they have attached themselves to a particular viewpoint or way of thinking. While it is understandable in a mock debate to take sides and argue vociferously for our point of view in order to have victory, real life situations are seldom so simplistic.

Why do we have such a desire to label everything and to confine our judgements of people and organizations into a well-defined and very small box? Perhaps there is a measure of security in defining something so clearly as to eliminate all dispute. I have noticed a plethora of measuring tools on the consultancy market since I have moved to the United States and these tools seek to explain, to define, to measure down to the finest detail. Explanations make us feel safe and are designed to instill confidence in our decisions and our choices and even better still if there is a beautiful looking chart just to prove it. (Mind you I love a good looking chart.)

Now I am not decrying psychological tests or nifty measuring tools at all but merely suggesting that we are in danger of looking for the easy way out to come up with the 'right' answers, that we are not looking at a wide variety of qualitative as well as quantitative data. Part of the problem is the belief in the black and white assumptions that everything and every decision is either "right" or "wrong". What happened to the principle that there are a number of rights possible? I would respectfully suggest that in our desire to simplify our choices we may miss out on the richness of having a variety of possible routes to success.

I almost began to fall into this myself but have you noticed the number of postings on LinkedIn recently that begin with "5 steps to....." or "7 ways to.....". The message is clear, just follow these simple steps and all your problems will be solved. I confess that these kind of headings are attractive because they promise something quick and easy to remember and apply. I am drawn to their simplicity and I want to know how to get that simple solution. However, where have the consultancy/change management/coaching etc processes gone that involve great analysis work to understand the underlying issues. Whether as a consultant or as a manager within an enterprise there is a real skill in being able to look at a wide range of data to form the basis of our recommendations and decisions.

I heard a fascinating marketing story about a North American manufacturer wanting to market a soap powder to the Arabian market. A top marketing firm in the USA was engaged to come up with a marketing campaign for this soap powder and set about doing their homework: what color of packaging would attract the buyer, what kind of straight forward message would most succeed? The marketing firm came up with a very straightforward concept that appeared to have all the hallmarks of success. On the left of the page was a picture of a woman holding dirty clothing. She is seen to dip the clothing into the solution containing the new product (found in the center of the page) and then finally to the right, she is seen to take out a sparkling clean piece of clothing. Unfortunately, the marketing campaign failed and there was no increase in market share for this product. The marketers were sent in to make an analysis and they made changes, to the color and to the wording but all to no avail. Finally, these American marketing specialists were exasperated and decided to seek out the advice of marketers based in one of the Arabic countries. They took one look at the campaign and this was their assessment:


The colors were great, the wording was wonderful but there was a fundamental flaw in the presentation. Arabic is read from right to left! If you were a house wife in the middle east would you buy a cleaning product that turned your clean clothes into dirty ones? The marketers had made a basic oversight and had made decisions based on their own paradigms rather than trying to reflect the paradigms of those receiving the service.

These were two different viewpoints and yet both actually valid in their respective contexts. When we can understand that our viewpoints are not the only 'correct' ones then we will open ourselves to a richer, more lucrative field because we will be able to have a bow with multiple strings.

Can we overcome our micromanaging personalities?

In the previous blog we discussed why some managers are sometimes overly controlling because of fears and insecurities that they carry. In this blog we will try and discuss how we can overcome any desire we may have to micromanage.

I have always been a fan of the book, "Getting to Yes" by Fisher and Ury, the definitive book on the subject of negotiation. However, I became excited by its concepts for a different reason than just negotiating contracts or outcomes. When watching couples having difficulty in their relationship, I was amazed to see how often there was a case where one member of the couple was trying to control the other member. As we discussed earlier, this desire to control appears to come out of a lack of trust, that the other partner might not take care of their feelings and their interests. The attempt to control the other person was a safety mechanism of self-protection.

As I looked for applications in the business world, I began to equate the controlling partner and the controlling micromanager with the hard negotiator who was more concerned with maintaining their stance and was hard on all parties concerned. What I enjoyed seeing in therapy sessions was that when we worked together to get the couple to focus on finding solutions to the problems rather than focussing on the people, the fears and lack of trust subsided. The most vital part of this process was in generating options or finding a plurality of possible solutions to resolve problems. I wanted to explore this further. Why was the mere generation of potential solutions and prioritizing those options so powerful in disarming a controller?

The following is my theory on this:
1. When people see things in terms of black and white, or in terms of a singular solution then a great deal is riding on its success. It is either success or failure.
2. When people think in this rigid fashion then they tend to personalize the result. It is not the problem that has not been solved but that "I am at fault if this does not succeed."
3. This significant pressure to succeed in this singular solution engenders genuine fear that failure is a real possibility.
4. Once options are generated and alternative solutions are possible as back ups to the most prioritized solution there is a reduction in the pressure (i.e. if the first method or solution chosen does not work then there is a plan B, C and D that is possible to pursue.)
5. If all parties are involved in generating these possible solutions then the pressure is off the single manager. Everyone concerned has buy-in and all parties are focussed on advancing solutions rather than on the personalities involved.
6. Being hard on the problem and soft on the people involved once again takes the pressure off the relationships themselves and allows all concerned to concentrate on succeeding with the task.

And so my underpinning theory is that micromanagers are often very rigid thinkers who are focussing on themselves and their power and are hard on people and not the problem. When they give into fear they are focussing on their own needs and not on a future outcome. They have difficulty in generating options. This latter is a skill that does not come naturally to some people but can be taught. There is a catch to getting a micromanager to think in these terms.

There is a really revealing story that illustrates the problem. In the dead of night, a man falls over a cliff and as he falls he prays to God to save him. He is relieved when his fall is broken by a branch that he clings to very tightly. A voice then comes from God to the man, "Do you want to be saved?" The man replies in the affirmative. The voice then adds, "Then let go the branch!" Terrified, the man carries on clinging to the branch for his life. The following morning, the man is found dead, still clinging to the branch. In the light of day it becomes clear that the ground is a mere few feet below and had he let go of the branch then he would have been saved.

While this is obviously a mere story it illustrates the mentality that is often found with the micromanager. They cling furiously to what is familiar, to what they already have in hand. Change is something very difficult for the micromanager because change includes the possibility of losing control and the fear of the unknown result. If you as the micromanager can analyze each situation "in the light of day" or with real data and clear information, you will more likely allow yourself to see the range of options that are possible.  "Letting go" is a key characteristic of a good manager.

To Control or be Controlled-that is the question

It is a truism that it is difficult to insulate the work environment from the home environment. Many organizations are recognizing the importance of caring for the overall emotional needs of their employees to guard against stresses at home affecting their productivity at work.

I would like to take this concept one step further. Is there a correlation between the way that we handle our relationships at home and they way in which we handle our employees or colleagues at work? To explore this further, let's use the example of the person who is the classic controller in the home. This person is the one who wants to know exactly what any person in the family is doing at any point in time, sets very tight and strict boundaries on family members' free time and gets very upset when they are not consulted about the very smallest of decisions. They need for the family members to revolve their lives around them.

From the initial perusal of this description it would appear that there is an ego issue going on and a certain level of arrogance whereby the controlling family member feels a sense of power and entitlement. However, while working as a therapist, I was constantly struck with the direct relationship between a client's need to control and their sense of fear or insecurity. Controlling personalities were not those who had the most power but in fact were often those feeling powerless, impotent. Their desire to control was a means by which they were attempting to minimise being hurt and trying to reduce the feeling that they were being controlled by others. It is the classic, "attack is the best form of defence" argument. This observation was true in both the parenting and in the couple relationship. The "controller" attacked from a place of insecurity and fear and knew no other way to exert their personal power other than by force, whether emotional or physical.

The theory that I am proposing is that these same underlying insecurities are at play for those who use an overly controlling management style in the workplace. We have all met the manager who micro-manages every single move of their staff, who will not let their staff make any decisions without running it past them first and who are highly critical of the efforts of their employees. Studies have shown that such management styles tends to have a number of undesirable effects:

• Employees tend to withhold their opinions or their input for fear of being criticized
• Passive aggressive behaviors increase in the workplace in reaction to the controlling behavior e.g. slow down in work pace
• There are increasing work absences due to illness 
• At worst, there is a higher staff turnover as employees reach saturation point and are unwilling to stay in such a controlling environment.

The paradox is the same in both the home environment as well as in the work place. A person who fears losing control, who feels insecure about the relationships around them and whose fears drive them to control others ends up getting exactly what they feared. They become impotent, relationships are no longer effective and eventually break down.

So what is the answer? I would like to present a second paradox that is necessary in order to resolve this. The more that someone lets go of their self-perceived power over others and acknowledges that those around them are capable and worthy of trust the more likely they are to have significant, meaningful relationships. Brené Brown expressed a similar concept as a result of her research that vulnerability is an essential element in developing true intimacy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o) Vulnerability is not about becoming a piece of carpet to be walked all over but it is about two things from what I have observed:

1. Stepping in and having faith in your own personal power. 

This means to accept that you are a powerful person without having to exercise that power over someone else. This is true inner power that can demonstrate a sense of self-confidence and trust in your feelings, beliefs, principles and decisions. There is a humility in this personal power that says that we don't have all the answers and that we are still capable of learning.

2. Leaving space for those around us to contribute and make decisions 

This implies that we have trust in those around us and allow ourselves some level of vulnerability in our relationship. True personal power and confidence says that we have no right or capacity to exercise what I would call unrighteous dominion over any other person, man, woman or child. Vulnerability means accepting that other people have something of value to add, that they are capable in their own right and best yet, that I may learn something and be enhanced because of their contribution.

So this sounds idealistic. What happens if the other person does not fulfill those expectations? That will be a subject for the next blog. This is but one example about viewing our lives as one great whole rather than compartmentalizing our lives. So the idea is to examine the way you are at home and how you behave at work. Is there a correlation?