Personal Performance: Ducks In A Row or Go With The Flow?

Some of us like to have everything planned out in detail. We fill out our checklists and methodically tick off our items--in the proper order, thank you!

Others of us buy yearly planners every December 31st because "this is the year we're getting it together." Then sometime around mid-February we stick Post-It Notes™ in the calendar pages until we eventually leave the calendar at the airport or train station. It is at this point we breathe a sigh of relief and joyfully return to the comfort of running our lives--and businesses--on the backs of napkins and toll receipts.

While one group would certainly (and does) frown on the opposite approach of the other, both have equal opportunities to excel. Each seems entirely natural to its adherents and they often can't understand how the other accomplishes anything. Paradoxically, each needs to stop focusing on "how" and totally immerse themselves in the "what."

And there is a way to do that.

It's All About Being Fully Engaged

David Zinger prompted me to think more about this in his Flow Into Engagement post. David highlighted the work of Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and his approach to "flow."

Think of it this way: you've had special moments where everything just flowed, you were immersed in what you were doing, and it may have seemed as if time were standing still. The work itself was its own reward.

I don't want to steal David's thunder by doing a cheesy cut-and-and past, so take a click at Flow Into Engagement. David supplies an outline of the process as well as links for further exploration.

For those of you who are looking for new ways to become immersed, engaged, and satisfied, this could offer a new way of thinking about how you approach life and work.

Take a moment to subscribe to All Things Workplace so we can continue to explore the workplace issues that are on our minds. I look forward to seeing and hearing from you.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Is Leadership Development Process or Projects?

                        

"Most people who want to get ahead do it backward. They think, 'I'll get a bigger job, then I'll learn how to be a leader.' But showing leadership skill is how you get the bigger job in the first place. Leadership isn't a position, it's a process."

                        

- John C. Maxwell



Yesterday's Are You Doing Real Leadership Development? has generated some thoughtful conversation and reaction, both on and off-line.

The original point has to do with the fact that respected leaders talk about the experiences that have shaped their abilities over a period of time, not their classroom learning. While intellectual endeavors offer a starting point and models for thinking about leadership, hands-on experience is the consistent theme in the lives of leaders who have been tested and found approved.

So my question became:

Why aren't we  putting people into increased positions of responsibility so they can gain experience and maturity?

If you take a moment to read the comments, you'll catch the drift of the sentiments of some experienced business leaders and entrepreneurs:

Kent Blumberg is a seasoned executive who outlines the methodical process of learning in one of his organizations.

Shane Navratil over at Zoomstart talks about Leadership as being an "apprentice" trade, implying a timeline of development until one is considered a "master" (my additional word); he then comes back and notes that corporate growth is so rapid that speed and the pressure to control costs don't allow time to develop "true" leadership.

And The Corporate Cynic's Jerome Alexander laments that what used to be called "leadership" has been disappearing from his radar screen over the past ten years.

What do we expect from "real" leaders?

There's an entire industry built around Leadership. Graduate programs, consulting businesses, workshops, seminars, books, DVD's...I sometimes wonder if it hasn't become a cult in search of an idealized organizational savior. If that's the case for some, then the search will continue indefinitely but the conversation will be wonderfully angst-filled.

For those seeking a realistic and practical approach to building leadership abilities, maybe we need to start by asking:

1. What do we really expect? This is based upon each organization's strategies, value system, and the ability to bring in "the right person at the right time for the right leadership role."

2. Are we willing to invest the time, money, and energy to build mature leadership capability by purposefully putting people in positions of leadership? Are we committed to making an investment in a process?

3. If "yes," how will we do that?

4. If "no," then are we willing to change our expectations and live with the results?

If it's about speed, it isn't about maturity

The business climate now is about speed, quarterly results, and change. With people changing jobs so readily, it is almost impossible to develop people's abilities for the long run in the context of a single organization's culture and needs. When there was longevity as a result of commitment to and from employees you could track, train, develop, and promote much more deliberately. Companies had a sense of confidence about an individual's real capabilities because they had been tested and observed in different situations over a long period of time. You could assess, first hand, both skill and maturity under pressure.

Leadership and the "Project Culture"

With so much job-hopping due to corporate change and personal goals, the notion of a traditional "career" seems to be all but dead. Maybe we should get real and start to look at worklife as a series of projects. If so, then perhaps we're looking to develop leaders whose strengths include the ability to move in and out of new relationships and situations but who are adept at gaining trust and unifying people under those conditions.

One thing I am sure of: You can't microwave leaders and expect a 5-Star Experience

So if we're genuinely concerned with developing leaders, it may be time to examine the validity and assumptions of our expectations. How much is driven by the cult of "celebrity leadership" or consultants and vendors who have never worked for any length of time in a corporation?  Are the criteria driven by agendas more akin to a "social experiment" or the realities of leading an entity through good times and bad? Take a look at what Carmine has to say about expectations and reality at Slow Leadership .

Thought for Today: Leaders can be developed.
So how will we influence (if we can) our companies in ways that define realistic expectations, create a series of leadership experiences, and allow the time and feedback for individuals to synthesize those experiences in a way that breeds the maturity necessary to lead effectively?

I invite you to subscribe and thank you for joining in today. And I encourage your comments and emails.

Photo Source: www.bren.ucsb.edu

                   

                                                                                                             

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are You Doing Real Leadership Development?

Did you ever have so much on your mind and in your heart that you just felt overwhelmed trying to sort it out?

That's how I'm experiencing this post about Leadership development.

I finally asked my favorite question: Why?

The answer was this:

Leaders of all types have provided personal examples of how their abilities were shaped and developed.

Every example involves lots of hands-on, experiential learning and character development.

These leaders developed over time through struggles with failure, learning what to do differently, and  not letting failure--or success--change who they were.

So here's my issue:

If acknowledged "leaders" say that. . .

• They learn from doing

• They learn over a period of time, in some cases a lifetime.

• They learn from both failure and success

• They have a clear sense of self that isn't altered by either of those circumstances

. . .then why do so many organizations have their future leaders "reading" instead of "leading?" How many workshops and seminars can people attend before they realize that their leadership character hasn't really been tested by experience?

And how many organizations wake up one morning and say "Wow, we have really well-educated people. But who do we move into the new management role in Sao Paolo?

"It's hard to lead a cavalry charge if you think you look funny on a horse." Adlai Stevenson

Organizations of every type need to start putting people in positions of increased responsibility to build leadership. You can't fail, succeed, or learn about your leadership character in a classroom. You can learn what it should be...but not how to develop it. Somewhere in the organization there is a project, an outside volunteer program with which the company is connected, or a problem that needs to be solved using a group of people. And everywhere there are people whose leadership abilities could be developed and encouraged by heading up something of substance.

Real Life Leadership

Michael Mckinney at Leading Blog offers substance in The Well-Differentiated Leader . He relates a recent speech about leaderhsip by U.S. Navy Cdr. Kirk S. Lippold. Lippold was the commander of the USS Cole, attacked in Yemen in October, 2000. Here are Lippold's comments as posted by Michael:

"When you talk about leadership, for a lot of people, it boils down to one word, and that is integrity. If you have the integrity to do what's right regardless of the circumstances and the situation, you are a leader in your own right, because so many people today fail or waiver on that one key trait.

"As commander, you provide the crew with the command philosophy, then you give them goals and guidelines to get there. By that philosophy, you start with the foundation of integrity, but it is also good work ethic, taking care of your fellow sailors, making sure that you look out for each other, not just for the time you are there on the ship, but when you are on liberty.”

I've been in the military and, trust me, Lippold had many prior experiences that prepared him for this one. Without those, I contend that he wouldn't have had the same ability to act quickly and confidently.

A Well-Differentiated Leader

Michael  continues in his post by noting an idea by the late Edwin Friedman in A Failure of Nerve.

'The well-differentiated leader is not “an autocrat who tells others what to do or orders them around, although any leader who defines himself or herself clearly may be perceived that way by those who are not taking responsibility for their own emotional being and destiny.”

By the well-differentiated leader “I mean someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals, and, therefore, someone who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about. I mean someone who can separate while still remaining connected, and therefore can maintain a modifying, non-anxious, and sometimes challenging presence. I mean someone who can manage his or her own reactivity to the automatic reactivity of others, and therefore be able to take stands at the risk of displeasing. It is not as though some leaders can do this and some cannot. No one does this easily, and most leaders, I have learned, can improve their capacity.”'

Both Friedman and Lippold are clear that leadership is about character building and not an intellectual process. Yet organizations continue to talk about "the smartest guy in the room."

Thought for Today:

Lippold belongs to an organization whose decisions can mean life or death. Yet all along the way, he and others are given increasingly risky positions of responsibility to test and grow their character. This is but one example of that approach.

What is it that won't allow business managers to create the same kind of development experiences for their people when the only downside is time and money, yet the payoff is at least one more generation of success for the organization?

Back to NYC...to be continued...

Photo source: www.backyardmissionary.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Success Common Sense and Good Presentations

Bud Bilanich at Success Common Sense recently posted The Importance of Knowing Your Audience, a transcript of part of our radio interview/podcast.

I hope you'll have a look at the post and wander around Bud's other blog, The Common Sense Guy. He has a straightforward way of thinking about things that reflects the sensibility of his Western Pennsylvania blue collar roots combined with the thoughtfulness of a doctorate from Harvard.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Strength from Weakness and What You "Can't Not Do"

I spent the earlier part of the day--beginning at 4:30 a.m.--driving 5 hours round-trip to participate in a 3-hour meeting dealing with Talent and Talent Management. My talent is clearly not in scheduling.

So when I got back to the office, my antennae were sensitive to articles and blog posts connected to either of those topics. Phyllis Roteman from The Learning Rap came through loud and clear with Richard Branson Shows Boredom Can Be Good.

Successful People and Their Struggles

Phyllis notes that:

Richard Branson, the Virgin brand mogul, gets bored easily. He channels this "problem" into a positive by "getting himself into numerous businesses that he can spread himself around in."

Charles Schwab was dyslexic and almost flunked out of Stanford, having failed English twice. In business, he overcame this reading problem by speaking from the heart (nixing the need for reading and writing long memos and speeches).

Cisco CEO John Chambers was also dyslexic, so he relies on memorized speeches and interacting personally with people as much as possible.

Each of these people found a way to succeed in the face of some weakness.

Strengths from Weakness and Natural Talent

I'd like to propose that you and I look at our lives in light of those two gifts. And they are both gifts, although the first one may be difficult to see at first.

Strengths from Weakness

This isn't happy talk or psycho-babble.

Each of us is faced with some struggle around which we have to make a choice. Either we succumb to the struggle or we see it through. What we label as "overcoming" is really the molding of our character through adversity. In that process, we discover and develop strengths that serve our natural talents and purpose in life. All of the examples above reflect that.

If you choose to acknowledge your struggle and see it through, you'll end up leading and mentoring others who are struggling with similar challenges.

Why?

You'll possess knowledge, wisdom, and empathy about the issue that others cannot gain from classroom study. It will become an area of passion and personal meaning. You'll become known for your insight and strength.

What You "Can't Not Do"

Your Natural Talent(s)

If you're reading this, you are probably committed to personal and professional development. So at some point, you ask yourself "What are my real talents?"

I do a lot of mid-career counseling with executives who also wrestle with that question. Every one has read about  Following Your Bliss, Pursuing Your Passion, and Discovering Your Strengths. They get the idea. But they find it difficult to separate skills that they've developed from the talents they possess.

During one session--in the midst of my own frustration--I blurted out, "What can't you not do?"

That proved to be a breakthrough question and has turned into a cornerstone of the career counseling part of my practice.

Look at your life. What can't you not do? No matter what your job title or job description, what do you find it impossible not to get involved with? What are you always getting in trouble for because you're not supposed to be doing it--or doing it that way?

Start paying attention to that and you'll start to identify your natural talent(s). And when you're using those talents, you won't even feel as if you are working. That's one of the reasons they can be hard to identify. We're so good at them, we don't recognize them for what they are. And we tend to place a low value on them because they don't "seem like work." Yet they are the part of you that makes you a star.

What to take away

1. When faced with a struggle, recognize that seeing it all the way through will present you with a new strength. You don't yet know what that is.

2. When you make that choice, it will become an area of your life where you will help, guide, and mentor others. Your burden will become one of your gifts.

3. If you are an HR person or manager who is interviewing candidates: Ask the candidate to describe a struggle that has led to a new talent, and how they use it. Pay attention to this. It will be a powerful part of their career potential

4. What can't you not do?

Stop not doing it.

Photo Source: www.nuovo.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Raw Meat, Replacing Reality, and Effective Speaking

It wasn't easy getting all of that into the title.

Mike Wagner at Own Your Brand provided the motivation with his Some Like it Raw post. Mike is a first-class brand guy whose metaphors lead to metaphors.

In his post, Mike likens the customer experience to either raw or cooked food. The cooked stuff is all about being slick, going with market research and demographics, and pushing a highly-produced "invitation" on us through some medium. Mike notes that there are times when we want to see something slick with high production values. But I think the words "we want" are the operative ones. Much of the time, we get tired and skeptical of what Mike calls the "overcooked" world of marketing and hype.

Why?

Because we didn't ask for it. We didn't say we wanted it. We're smarter about marketing, psychology, and media than ever before. So we're more skeptical as well.

How About the Raw Version?

Here's what Mike says:

"Raw brand invitations don’t worry about super-high production value. They avoid slick. They’re very direct and straightforward. Transparency is more important than technique. And it’s served up using social networking and conversational media. YouTube, blogs, wikis, and word of mouth are some of the great ways to disseminate the raw, unfiltered story of your brand. Your potential customers, tired of the overcooked messages of the broadcast world, are eating it up."

Your Listeners Want a Raw Presentation

The same is true when it comes to presentations, meetings, and speeches. I'm convinced of that. For 30 years I've invested about 30% of my time working with individuals and groups on how best to speak and make presentations. My counsel has always been the same:

• Tell your story using stories.

• You are invited to speak because of who you are. Don't work on being someone else.

• A few good pictures can be worth a thousand words each. Or, you can use lots of graphics and pretend that the audience came to see your rendition of War and Peace.

• Truth comes in sentences. "B_ _ _S_ _ _" comes in paragraphs.

Take this with you: A good presentation starts a good conversation. You can tell you're doing well when people start asking meaningful questions related to your topic but are no longer worried about hearing your presentation.  Think about it. This is when the real movement begins to happen. Revel in it.

You Can Only Create Memories By Being Memorable

"Memory isn’t a filing cabinet of facts. It’s a library of stories we’ve told ourselves about the way life was and the part we played in it."

That wonderful contribution comes from Adrian over at Slow Leadership . If you click here you can read the entire post about how "stories about events are more powerful than the reality they replace."

The next time you are asked to speak--whether it's a group of 10 or 1,000--ask yourself about the kinds of stories that will touch the listeners and create the memory.

• Engineers have filing cabinets of successes, disasters, troubleshooting trivia, and design anecdotes that will turn any number crunching session into a memorable meeting.

• Financial pros: Show the marketing and sales division that what you are doing can help them save/make money if they apply the same principles to their personal finances. Tell them a story about the part of your job that makes it unique and satisfying.

• Executives: When you are talking about change, talk about the toughest lessons you've learned about change. Tell them your biggest failure story and your most rewarding success. Most of all, tell them what you're going to do now as a result of what you've learned, and how you believe it will be helpful. Save the "____ Steps of Change" slides for a training session.

We live in a high-production, flash media, airbrushed world. And we recognize it as soon as it starts.

If your job is to promote "The Matrix XI," then be as flashy as you can be.

If your job is to promote Matrix Management, then the people around you want--and need--the real deal.

Cook up something raw.

Related note: If any of this food metaphor thing has tweaked your taste buds, pay a visit to my friend Viji at  vcuisine.  Viji's stories start with an enticing photo and end with a detailed, easy-to-follow recipe.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are You Getting the Most Out of Professional Assessments?

How is your organization using professional and leadership assessments?

Self-assessments, 360 degree feedback, assessment centers, and other similar tools are widely used in the workplace. What's your experience with them?

A lot of information is generated during the assessment process. I was reviewing some feedback that was coming in for a client and realized that there are lots of good uses for it. And we may not always be taking the best advantage of the information and the potential process. So. . .

Would Some of These Help You and Your Organization?

Assessment feedback, by definition, is given to the subject of the assessment. That person is often asked to reflect  and decide what, if anything, to do with it. That's fine. Making changes is a choice. But here are some other ways to get the most from the data. You may be doing some are all of them now. If not, here are some thoughts that I hope you will find helpful:

1. In the case of 360 feedback, encourage the recipient (I'll use the word "Manager") to get together with the group that generated the data. It's an opportunity, at minimum, to acknowledge the time and energy they put into the activity.

Suggest that the Manager share the themes and take-aways from the data. 360 activities have some of the same dynamics as surveys. Participants want to know what happened with their input--and what will change as a result. This is a chance to do just that. And, if the Manager has misinterpreted something, the group can add clarity.

Yes, I know that the feedback is anonymous, blah blah. However, the act of inviting the respondents to come together also invites a deeper level of candor. And the fact of the matter is: These are people with whom the Manager has to work. Sooner or later it will be time to increase the honesty of conversations. This is an ideal framework in which to do that.

2. A Good Reason For A Good Conversation with "The Boss."

If you're the Manager, make an appointment with your boss. Tell what you think you want to do differently. Ask if the boss sees the data and your intended changes in the same way. Or differently. Here's the principle: Giving straight feedback is difficult for a lot, if not most, people. Including the boss. If you provide the data and ask for suggestions, you've done the work that your boss my find tough. It may be the most meaningful conversation you've had with that person.

3. A Good Reason For a Good Conversation with Your Reports.

If it's a 360, some or all of those folks provided feedback. I wouldn't call a departmental meeting and declare "Let's share." I would do one of these two:

• Make it a point to informally share what you learned and are working on with each person. Do it in the course of normal conversation.

• If you have a full group meeting coming up soon, take 10 minutes to talk about the assessment, the process, what you learned, what you are working on, and what kind of support you need to do those things. The payoff? You get help. You set the model that getting feedback and doing assessments is a valuable activity.

4. Self Assessments. Any or all of the above will be helpful to validate your self perception. We have ways of deceiving ourselves on both scales: positive and negative. Have the conversations that will give you an accurate picture.

Let's assume that you--or whoever is being assessed--will use the info for development. Here's the payoff you don't want to miss: the data provide an "objective" reason to have a "subjective" conversation. When you rally around the information, you are in an arena that's focused on performance factors and not necessarily you as a person. (That may be a result. Why not find out while you still have time to make changes?).

Most of all: an assessment offers  a legitimate reason to have the kind of conversation you've been missing.

Go for it!

And...a warm thank you to Ellen Weber at Brain-Based Business for making me one of this week's MITA Millionaire Bloggers . As I mentioned in my "thank you" comment to Ellen, I wish my  Mom were still alive to see "Steve Roesler" and the word "Brain" on the same page.

I know she'd have a comment, too!

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Managing Change: Do You Think About This?

Where Have You Experienced This?

When one person leaves or enters a group, the dynamics--and group effectiveness--change.

Why?

Groups--no matter how large or small--are about equilibrium. That equilibrium comes from a balance of power. Over time, we all learn where we "fit" in a group given the topic, our role, and how things operate. When someone comes or goes, our sense of influence changes. That's because new relationships and alliances begin form in order to establish a new balance of power.

What To Do?

1. Stop action.

2. Read the paragraph above to the group.

3. Re-visit why the group exists, make any necessary modifications, and ask for agreement from each person.

4. Clarify each person's role. Whether someone leaves or someone new arrives, there has to be a change in responsibilities and how things will get done. If you talk about it now, you won't have to resolve the conflict about it later.

Groups and organizations are systems. Systems work the same way as our bodies (systems). If you pinch one place, you'll get a referent "ouch" someplace else.

The next time something is about to change in your group, go through the four steps above. You'll minimize the ouches and get back to equilibrium and productivity because you've taken good care of your system.

What About Personal Changes?

You no doubt have plenty of stories about the impact of changes you've made in your own life. For some powerful insights on personal change and relationships, take a few minutes to read Pam Slim's really good post at Escape from Cubicle Nation .

What stories or insights do you have about organizational/personal change that come from your experience? Weigh in and help another reader!

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employee Engagement: Can't Disengage Yet

Employee Engagement is engaging.

Yesterday's post  titled "What Does Employee Engagement Really Mean?" generated a lively and thoughtful conversation through comments and emails.

Why?

Well, I think organizations see the impact of dis-engagement. They react to it because it gets in the way of productivity, growth,retention, and customer satisfaction.

But I think the real driving force behind Employee Engagement are the employees themselves.  There is a generation of workers who are prepared to contribute, but not at the cost of violating a set of values that include:

• A challenging work environment
• Opportunities for growth
• Respectful treatment and interactions

What Are People Saying About Employee Engagement?

Shane at ZoomStart weighed in with some clear and simple observations. He says this:

"In my experience all of these points  boil down into one. Responsibility.

The key is to hire good people and let them do their jobs. When you give people direction without micro-managing them they take ownership of the work they're doing. They're responsible for what happens. They become engaged."

Simon Clay Michael is all about career planning and job searches. Here's his immediate thought:

"I'd add Physical Space to the list.Having spent a lot of time (in a previous life) visiting and working from client sites, it was easy to see that poor work spaces or office appearance did set the "Mood" for the employees, and ultimately their level of engagement.

He later added this to the conversation: " As soon as you said fundamentals, I thought of a more obvious requirement: "Tools". Having the right tools and equipment.

And Peter Vajda expands the topic in a holistic way that includes some questions for reflection:

"Walking the talk" about engagement needs not be discussed and espoused so much as it needs to be lived. It's hard to live the life of engagement, i.e., honest, healthy, mutual relationships, when one is caught up in the daily insecurity of needing to serve one's own ego, when one comes from a "I-You" place rather than a "We" place.

As a manager, when my aim is to support others to achieve their results, to be helpful to others, to view the organization, the team as a group of "people", not objects, right here and right now, then perhaps engagement will be more than a discussion topic, it will actually be a way of life, life at work."

One liners - for me..ask questions to foster engagement, such as:

What's on your mind? What do you think?
What do you want/need to do your best work?
What are we doing/not doing that is inhibiting results?
What will happen if we do/don't (action)?
What won't happen if we do/don't (action)?

And One More Way to Look at Engagement

Kathy Sierra notes that Too Many Companies Are Like Bad Marriages at Creating Passionate Users . Kathy talks about the "before" and "after" customer relationship experience. Try substituting "employee" relationship and see if you are experiencing--or creating--similar situations. I think it's a practical

Thought for Today: Engagement involves a commitment that two people make to each other. Maybe we should stop talking about Employee Engagement. That seems to imply a responsibility on the employee's part. What if we said Employment Engagement? That lends more of a sense of mutuality to the dynamic and requires a two-way commitment to maximize the relationship.

What about that?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What Does Employee Engagement Really Mean?

I was in a meeting last week that led to the topic of Employee Engagement. When we started talking about it, everyone was passionate. But the longer we talked, the less I was convinced that we were talking about the same thing. In fact, we all had a personal, sensible, gut level idea of what it meant. But the "definition gap" emerged when we began talking about how to approach the issue.

Predictable, actually. Whenever you find yourself in disagreement about "how" to do something, it's a signal to back up a step and agree on a common definition of "what" you are working on. 

How Do You Define Employee Engagement?

There's a timely post from the folks at  Management Issues. Patricia Soldati notes that "all the employee engagement research undertaken over the past few years has defined the term differently, and as a result, came up with different key drivers and implications."

The Conference Board researched the issue of definition and came to the same conclusion: different studies reflected different definitions of Employee Engagement. So they came up with a "blended" definition and some key themes that represented all of the studies.

The definition of Employee Engagement: "a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels for his or her organization, that influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort to his or her work".

That makes sense and is easily understood.

What I think is truly helpful to those involved in creating Employee Engagement is the Conference Board's synthesis of 8 key drivers of engagement. These offer concrete targets for development:

• Trust and integrity – how well managers communicate and 'walk the talk'.
  
  
• Nature of the job –Is it mentally stimulating day-to-day?
  
  
• Line of sight between employee performance and company performance – Does the employee understand how their work contributes to the company's performance?
  
  
• Career Growth opportunities –Are there future opportunities for growth?
  
  
• Pride about the company – How much self-esteem does the employee feel by being associated with their company?
  
  
• Coworkers/team members – significantly influence one's level of engagement
  
  
• Employee development – Is the company making an effort to develop the employee's skills?
  
  
• Relationship with one's manager – Does the employee value his or her relationship with his or her manager?

Can You Work With These?

What do you think?

For those of us who have to turn theory into practice, I like the simple and concise one-liners that can lead to purposeful action.

Take a moment to share your experiences and thoughts about employee engagement activities. The topic is meaningful to employers and employees. So there's a lot to be gained for everyone concerned.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Trust, Relationships, and Kids Are Not Our Hope

I hope you'll hang in for just a minute with this one. It touches on more than one aspect of business and life.

The past couple of weeks, as you may know, have been involved with supporting an executive transition. The blog posts haven't been as regular or even lengthy, as is often the case. Why?

Execution takes time. Thinking and writing about it takes time,too. But once you are in the middle of it, it requires a focus that keeps one in the "execution" zone and out of the "deep thought" zone. Hopefully, the preliminary deep thoughts are adding to a successful implementation.

It's 9 am EST on Saturday and I'm headed back to NYC. As one who writes about clarity, integrating your life around purpose, and living peacefully, why would I be headed back to the client office building on Saturday?

Trust, Relationships, and Kids Are Not Our Hope.

About 20 years ago, a group of executives at a client company asked if I would work with their college-aged kids on some career counseling and clarification. I did. It was very satisfying.

A few years later, another exec group at another client asked if I could coach their soon-to-graduate collegians on how to present themselves  effectively in interviews  and stand-up presentations. I did. It was very satisfying.

And that sort of thing has continued to happen over the years.

Retailers can give you a free product to show goodwill. Auto mechanics offer a free lube or oil change. What can consultants offer? Themselves, their time, and their expertise.

It is time-consuming and, depending upon the engagement, can be a bit emotionally consuming. So why do it?

Relationships and Trust go hand-in-hand. Consultants of all types operate at the will of their clients. It hadn't occurred to me until long after the first engagement of this sort that those execs saw me as someone who was willing to help for a deeper reason than money. (They kindly offered it--I turned it down).  If they could trust me with their kids they could trust me with their businesses. In each case, the client relationships lasted a very long time.

Why young people?

Because I don't believe that children are our future. I believe that our future lies with children who become healthy adults because they've been guided by healthy adults.

So I'm off to do some career counseling with a young person who is genuinely seeking it. I can't give away discount coupons or an oil change. Hopefully our time together will yield something meaningful for this young man.

Thought for Today: What have you been given that you could be giving away?

Somewhat related post: Check out George Reavis' offering at FrontLine Leadership Trends . It's a nice insight into how Proctor & Gamble are looking at relationships.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are You In Love With Your Plan?

What is it about agreeing to a plan that allows it to take on a special life and power of its own?

Many companies devote huge amounts of time to strategic, long-range plans. Managers feed data up the line, which gets fed down the line for revision, which gets fed back up the line...

I'm not knocking planning. It's a must.

I am wondering if the very magnitude of some planning exercises cause us to follow them too long without re-visiting their validity.

It's an individual thing, too. Once we announce a goal or desire, we often feel compelled to keep going even when we're no longer feeling drawn by it. My own process is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I usually tell a close friend about a new goal; it makes me more accountable once I've announced it. On the other hand, I probably don't slow down quickly enough when things aren't going well because I don't want to be seen as a quitter.

What Can We Do?

U.S. President and retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower said this:

"In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable."

He was a process guy who knew that the final plan wasn't going to go according to schedule. But the process of planning would lead to the thought and discussion necessary for success.

I think that's our clue. We can start with a plan, but success lies in the process of re-visiting and questioning it regularly.

Staying Focused and Balanced is a post by Ed Brenegar at Leading Questions. Click and you'll see an expanded version of these 4 questions that can be used to check how we're doing with our plan. I'll paraphrase a bit:

1. What is the impact of our plan?

2. Who are we impacting?

3. What opportunities do we have now?

4. What problems have we created?

Those concise, open-ended  questions can generate a lot of good information that will help us stay on track, get on track, or decide to make a new plan.

Ed also mentions a little ritual that Tom Peters likes to use for the same purpose.

Do you have any favorites to add to the mix?

Click on Comments and offer your suggestions. And while you are at it, I hope you'll subscribe and join the conversation regularly. Just click on your favorite feed or subscribe by email.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Decision Making: Confused or Conflicted?

You and I go to meetings where the decision-making can
seem unbelievably confusing.

And how about those decisions where we just can't seem to arrive at a peaceful conclusion?

After giving it some thought and observation, I think I've got a way to look at this that I hope will be helpful.

Confused or Conflicted?

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the two this way:

Confused: being disordered or mixed up. 

The result is not being able to think at your usual speed.

Conflicted: (a feeling of) mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.

The result is inaction, over-reaction, or both.

Yes, both are possible. We can react strongly to the conversation around the decision, but still not be able to make the decision.

Note: Each of these phenomena apply to individual as well as group decisions. Those self-conversations in our heads can get every bit as frustrating as the ones across the table!

What To Do?

1.Stop and diagnose.

(Please remember Steve's rule for everything: "Prognosis Without Diagnosis is Malpractice").

2. If the issue is Confusion, ask:

    a. Are we clear on the goal of the decision?

    b. Do we have the right information, and all of it--or as much as possible?

    c. Do we have the information organized in an understandable way?

    d. Does everyone involved have the same understanding of the goal and the information?

    e. Do we have a structured process for making our decision?

When you are clear that all of the above have been satisfied, then you're probably dealing with Conflicted-ness. (My spell checker is definitely conflicted trying to deal with that one).

3. If the issue is being Conflicted, then you'll probably experience silence or overt argument. You're  seeing the result of deeper issues--perhaps even at the personal values level--that need to be resolved. Whether silence or argument:

    a. Talk straight immediately. Say, "We've got a good understanding and a good process. But there's something else stopping us.What's really getting in the way?

    b. Don't speak again until someone offers a comment. After the first person responds, don't evaluate the remark. Thank them. Allow for everyone to respond without evaluation.

Principle: Until the real issue is named out loud, it will silently undermine the decision process. Once it's named and acknowledged, it is neutralized. When it comes out into the light of day, it can be seen clearly for what it is and discussed accurately. This is the most difficult thing for groups (and individuals) to deal with. Why? There's always the fear that "my issue" will be discounted, misunderstood, or seen as a blockage to "good teamwork."

Yet the person who offers the first bit of truth is the one who leads the group to a more satisfying decision.

    c. After 'b', you will know exactly how to proceed because the substantive issues will be out there in clear view. You'll see both an increase in both energy and collaboration.

Note: Organizations are usually pretty good at organizing. And even those of us with a more casual approach to life still have our own method of organizing it.

If you are really stuck on a decision, go with "Conflicted." In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say that more often than not, we aren't confused. We usually know the right thing or best thing to do. It's facing up to our conflicting wants and needs that get in the way. "Having it all," whether in a business meeting or personal life, is a decision criterion that can only lead to internal conflict.

Thought for Today: Clear priorities offer the soundest foundation to decision making.

Related bonus for today: Check "What Do Peers Say About Your Smarts"  by Dr. Ellen Weber at Brain Based Business . The questions that she poses for self-development are really the kind of  "self-clarifying" questions that ultimately lead to better decision making.

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

"Who Do I Want to Become?" vs. "What Do I Want to Be?"

Which question are you asking yourself?

Your choice will help determine the depth of your life as well as the comfort-level of your career.

I've been watching a new CEO client begin his tenure at a global company. He is very comfortable listening, talking, giving direction, and saying "I don't know. That sounds good to me. Go ahead and do it." (Whatever the "it" is).

What I'm really seeing is a man who has, over a lifetime, decided to "become" the kind of person he wanted to be. I know for a fact that he didn't set out to be a CEO. In fact, he was invited into the role. The reason he received the invitation, I believe, rests in great part on who he is to the people around him.

Yet "who he is" was shaped by not ambitiously jumping into a position that was too far ahead of "who he was" at the moment. His career path shows a progression that was slow and steady, building solid relationships and new knowledge along the way.  And each step on the ladder reflected genuine accomplishment.

Now he has become a CEO; he doesn't have to play the role of CEO.

And that's the distinction between where the two questions above will lead you.

Who do you want to become?

Or do you want to play a role?

Think about the how the difference will affect your life.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Explain Less, Engage More, Communicate Better

About 30% of my practice involves coaching executives who are doing stand-up communications, either live or on Video/TV.

The biggest learning challenge is not to get people to speak. It's getting them to be silent. And to do it at the right moment.

Organizations--especially businesses--can breed a  "you must know everything or else you know nothing" mentality and culture. The result? People showing up with reams of data and the business story equivalent of War and Peace.

Yet engagement, by definition, is a joint activity. Trying to dazzle your audience with everything you know disengages them, makes you the center of attention, and makes you responsible for everything that happens (or doesn't). Think about that.

Where Can You Use the Zeigarnik Effect?

Kevin Eikenberry  has a post on that phenomenon that will get you thinking about "leaving them wanting more."

The principle really is important to all of us who need to communicate and influence. The next time you plan your presentation or speech, lay out the facts and then ask (sometimes rhetorically),

"What would you do next?

Or do this:

"We're going to take a 5 minute break and I'll show you how we plan to deal with _______."

TV shows do it all the time. They know about the Zeigarnik Effect. And they know it keeps us engaged.

Would you like a couple of online examples to get the juices flowing?

John Moore at Brand Autopsy will have you returning to his blog. Once you read the post, consider yourself "Zeigarnikked." (My apologies to Bluma Zeigarnik. Now I have to figure out the conjugations of his surname).

And I am looking forward to seeing the answer to Liz Strauss' compelling question.

Thought for today: Don't hog the stage--engage.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Flatter Organizations Mean Competency plus Collegiality

I had dinner last night with Mr. Matrix.

His real name is Jim, and he is VP of Manufacturing for a global company; Jim has been both a client and friend for 12 years. We share a common trait: the desire to turn a plausible theory into a practical solution.

Jim's Matrix Insight

Somewhere between the second and third Tapas serving, I heard this:

"You know what really drives the success of a flat, matrix organization?"

Competency. A whole lot of competency.

(If you're a bit unfamiliar with matrix organizations, click here ).

Knowing what happens when Jim has an epiphany, I did the only reasonable thing under the circumstances and ordered another glass of Cabernet. Jim has made the matrix work for a lot of years in a number of different manufacturing and operational assignments. So I was inclined to listen.

Why Competency?

You probably know the pitfalls of matrices: serving two bosses, conflicts over priorities (and a whole lot more), fuzzy roles, and the paradox of increasing complexity while decreasing the hierarchy. So I've always focused on strong leadership and decision-making between the functional and executive managers. That's consistently proven to be a highly productive path.

Jim agrees. With this addition, however.

He has found it easy to work with and coach the leaders in that way. He's also discovered that when that doesn't lead to the right outcome, the issue is competency in the matrix. Here's why:

A matrix depends on highly collegial relationships within the organization. People need to inherently trust the expertise of others to get things done and to hand off tasks. Influence power vs. position power is the byword. In technical disciplines, it's nearly impossible to influence others without professional respect. And that comes from a recognition of professional competency by one's colleagues.

Take-away number 1: Spend time putting highly competent people into flat organizations. Or hire them. You'll have to backtrack and do it later so you might as well do it right the first time.

If Speed Is One of Your Goals, Then Slow Down

Competent people working on individual parts of a project will run with their piece of the action. But it's only a piece. As a result, you need to have brief check-in meetings regularly with the two leaders present in order to solve potential functional/executive conflicts in real time. If you don't, the problems will surface later when they are bigger; ownership and tempers begin to get in the way; and  you'll have to backtrack again. One step forward and two back don't help us with the speed thing.

Take-away number 2: Slow down and meet so you don't have to stop and argue.

What are your best tips for flat organizations? A lot of readers either work in, or consult to, companies that want less hierarchy and more speed. Here's an invitation to add your own "best practices" from personal experience.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What A New CEO Needs to Convey

What do you want from a new CEO?

Or any new executive?

If you've been following this weeks brief posts--here and here --you know that I've been involved in the first week of a CEO transition. But from a practical point of view, what does that really mean to employees in an organization?

I'm watching the answer to that question unfold here in a video editing studio while the final cut of an interview with the new CEO is being compressed and ready for upload to the company's intranet. This is what the employees will see from their new leader:

1. A conversationalist vs. a presenter. They'll feel as if they've been part of a conversation, not part of an audience.

2. Someone who knows the issues. He'll share his initial impressions of what's working and what isn't.

3. Direction. They'll know what will be important in near term.

4. Philosophy, but only briefly. People will know what he pays attention to over the long run, and in what order.

5. There will be change and there will be context for "why."

6. He knows where the employees excel and says so. He knows where performance is not exceptional, and says so.

7. Everyone will hear that he wouldn't have assumed the role had he not had a genuine belief in the future of the company and the commitment of the people working there.

8. There is a single focus around which things will be measured in the short run. But that only makes sense in the context of the long term strategy.

9. They'll see an individual who has worked in, or led, almost every function in a corporation. The professional confidence factor will be high.

Most of all, they will have a genuine reason to be hopeful about the future.

Because of 1-9.

Take a look at the combination of truth, conversation and direction. That's why people will be energized--and hopeful.

And hopeful is what we all want to be.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.