Seven Things Superlative Leaders Understand About Problem Solving

Challenge your people to learn and grow

Mon, 09/22/2014 - 09:46

Rachel was a new employee at a retail outlet. She was given the requisite week in the training room and then sent out to the sales floor. Part of her job was to restock merchandise that had been returned. She had been on the job but a few days when an item was returned in a damaged box. She checked inside and saw that the manual was also missing.

ADVERTISEMENT

As she pondered what she should do, the department manager stopped by to see how she was doing. She showed him the item and asked him what to do with it.

He did not tell her. Instead, he asked, “What would you do with it?”

She thought for a bit, remembering the store’s policy on returns and a bin she had seen at the end of an aisle. “I would tape up the box, put a clearance tag on it marking that it is missing the manual, mark down the price, and put it in that clearance bin.”

The department manager smiled. That was precisely the correct answer.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Comments

Submitted by Rajohnson on Mon, 09/22/2014 - 11:37

I would suggest that a leader's two-sided objective is to FIRST develop effective leadership around you, SECOND, watch the problems get solved.

I have always thought that "Superlative Leaders" lead by their own example. Thus, a person who constantly delegates every possible action items to others will not be a  superlative leader, in my opinion. Developing colleagues and team members to have their own ability to solve problems, as stated in Mr. Dunigan's article, is a great attribute of superlative leaders, but there is a fine line if crossed,makes a "superlative" leader" just a "superlative delegator".

When there is a specially difficult task, the superlative leaders take charge, and show by their own example,  how intelligent analysis,  hard work, and humility (in taking and implementing others' inputs), can help solve the so called "Difficult" problems.

By putting the development of leaders first was to clarify a priority.  As business issues arise and the heat of the moment is upon us, we have a decision to make.  The decision is to do and put development to the side or to mentor/coach/develop to the solution.

My assertion is that superlative leaders will "develop to the solution" as the first priority as opposed to "solve then develop".  This does imply that a solution might be a littler longer to implementation. 

I suggest that this should be viewed as an investment to the business.  The investment give a two-fold benefit: 1) be a hedge against the urge to solve "just this once" and result in limited time to actually develop the team 2) create the foundation to grow the business as issues are solved.

Leadership as a role readily lends itself into lists of things to do. I do it all the time but must remember to focus on my ultimate purpose. Managers by virtue of their responsibilities do things and endeavor to do them right. Leaders should not limit themselves to doing things. Their job is to develop other leaders. They do so by using situations I mentioned in the article and they remember that everything they do is for that purpose. Raj is spot on when he says that "this should be viewed as an investment to the business." Of course, if there is a crisis, then it is not usually the best time to engage in a focus-group pace. In crises someone must make a decision and right now. But truthfully, we very seldom encounter crises. Most of the day is spent in run of the mill activity. Training others to make decisions takes some of the responsibility off of us and puts it where it should reside. There are certain things that only you can do. It should be our commitment to give everything else away.

We are always on display. People watch. But they don't always know what they are looking at. At that same big box store there is a department manager whose subordinates have complained that their manager is always walling around counting things, checking the stock prices, selling product, and handling whatever directives come from his superiors. Whenever I heard a subordinate complain that he was not leading by example I tried to explain that he was indeed. Leading by example does not mean one must do all the things the subordinates do. Leaders can do those things and will do so if they must. But the example that manager demonstrated was correct. He was doing his job, taking care of those things that were uniquely his responsibility. He did not hide in an office somewhere. He was in the department, on the floor, but doing what he had to do. His subordinates needed to understand that his example was there example - do your job conscientiously.

Add new comment