Talent, Performance, & Family Systems (?!)

I think the real advantage to reading and discussion is the opportunity to finally "hear" something and get it for the first time.

That's why so many similarly-titled books, blogs, and training programs can still command a large audience. We participate until we find the voice and the language that finally makes us go "Aha!"

Talent and Systemic Thinking falls into that niche. Just check out the discussion threads here and here and you'll see what I mean.

Today, I want to offer a couple of simple ways to look at the relationship between people and systems in order to highlight the nature of Systemic Thinking.

Is It Talent or The System? Yes.

Your favorite singer will disappoint you if the staging, lights, and sound don't offer the right technical support and atmosphere.

A lousy singer won't sound any better in Carnegie Hall. In fact, the results may be worse because of the magnificent acoustical systems and orchestral support.

It takes a director (manager) who can see how all of those link together to make sure they're connected and generate total performance that leads to a standing ovation.

What To Learn From Family Systems

Family counselors worth their salt know that an individual who comes with a "personal problem" is impacted in some way by the family system. If there is some normal dysfunction (you heard it right--people simply have problems that cause them to seek outside help), the counselor will look at the system in which the individual lives. The family.

Some families support and perpetuate unhealthy behavior. Even if the individual tries to change, there is an equilibrium that the family has established that simply won't allow it. I'm not saying that people aren't responsible for their own behavior. However, there is often a lack of awareness on the part of the individual and the family: they don't view themselves as a systemic entity. It becomes part of the counselor's task to help them see the connectedness within the system and the impact that each person--and the group as a whole--has on behavior (performance). When that begins to happen, healthy behavior (performance) can increase.

Organizations and the people in them can look at maximizing performance--and organizational health--using the same kind of thinking.

What To Do. . .

Instead of doing a an amateur pop-psych number on someone whose talent seems to be faltering, ask:

1. "What part(s) of our systems actually getting in the way of performance?"

If the systems are solid and connected, then ask:

2. "Does this person have the willingness and ability to move forward with us?"

And, of course, have that conversation directly with the person. Second-guessing will put you in the category of mystical soothsayer, a special role normally reserved for marketing researchers:-)

Where does your organization focus its attention when it thinks that the "talent isn't performing?"

photo source: andre.lt/projects

 

Comments

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: In these conversations you wisely recommend, I've found it challenging to match the intrapersonal and interpersonal systems. Some people will respond to offers of benefit packages, promotion possibilities, etc -- with being very reliable for the employer. Other's find the same offer oppressive, manipulative etc. Likewise offers of bonuses, commissions, contests, etc thrill some and dishearten others. When viewing the talent as a system, as well as the recruiting/employment/development components as a system, we can work on getting both systems to be more responsive to each other. Different strokes for different folks takes a more complex system than a typical aptitude test.

[Karl Edwards]

I would suggest the place in the system to begin your questioning is with yourself as leader. What are you doing and not doing that is creating the context for your team members to respond in the way they are?
Too many leaders are trying to get team members to perform, like the problem is "over there" somewhere in the poor attitudes, weak work ethic, or in-fighting going on between others.
The secret to getting "them" to show up differently, is to stop excluding yourself from the "them" category, and show up differently yourself.
Thanks for the insightful post.
- Karl

[Dan Schawbel]

I would lean more to the talent. No one is going to pay to see poor talent in the first place. If the talent is there, then you have people filling seats, but if the machine is broken, people may understand based on how much of a fan they are already.

[Steve Roesler]

Tom,

You used a phrase that I find useful: "(being) more responsive to each other." It implies a relationship and connectedness in order to perform well.

Really, what we're trying to do here is crank up the awareness of always paying attention to looking at how things sync with each other.

Maybe that's another image to put out there: Synchronization vs. Isolation.

I'll try most anything to make the point:-)

Thanks, Tom...

[Steve Roesler]

Karl, you and I are of like mind here.

Some time ago I did an article on just that: how everyone focuses on "employee" engagement but seems to ignore the fact that it's a leader's duty to help create an engaging set of circumstances.

We all have our favorite starting places for diagnostics in the system, so as long as one actually does the total assessment, we ought to (theoretically) be able to find the missing piece or put the puzzle together to make it whole.

However, I have never--ever--anywhere--seen a situation of any sort that wasn't impacted by the person at the top. That individual either helps good things to happen or allows bad things. It's pretty simple. And sins of omission are no less important than those committed intentionally.

Karl, thank you for adding the leadership element. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Hey, Dan, I can't really argue with that example; although "talent" in the arts is in the eye of the beholder:-)

But from your perspective as a branding guy, what would happen to a talented person's brand if their performances were serially unpleasing--even if it was an ongoing situation due to the sound system or a lousy back-up group?

Would the singer's agent/manager start looking at the big picture and say, "Hey, my client isn't being showcased properly and it's ruining our reputation"?

Organizations of every kind run the risk of doing the same thing: forgetting to check the quality and friendliness of the systems in which the talent has to operate.

Which is why we see good organizational performers leave and look for systems that showcase their talent.

One of the big deals right now, as I'm sure you are well aware, is an organizational emphasis on branding with the "new recruit" in mind. While they may use different language, job seekers are saying "Is this a place (system) that will allow me to showcase my talents?"

Now there's another whole market for you if you aren't there already!

As always, Dan, thanks. . .

[Wally Bock]

Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2008/04/09/4908-a-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx

Wally Bock

[Jim Stroup]

Hello Steve,

Here's the key line in this superb post: "Even if the individual tries to change, there is an equilibrium that the family has established that simply won't allow it."

Whether the individual tries to change, or the "leader" tries to change him or her or the organization as a whole, while relying on self-referential frameworks and aspirations, any change effort is doomed to failure or, at least, unanticipated misdirection.

The manager's role in this instance is to back away to the largest perceptual framework that includes and makes sense of all factors playing on the situation - including those that may or may not call for the change initiative in the first place - and then determine if and how those factors might be influenced as to "naturally" promote the change deemed appropriate.

There's nothing wrong with navel-gazing, in and of itself, and it is certainly important for people to know themselves in ways that are relevant in life and work. But if they restrict themselves to that, they are likely to find themselves struggling helplessly and uncomprehending against larger forces they don't see and haven't troubled to identify which are locked in an equilibrium that may not produce functional results for the organization - a classic problem in marital and family therapy, and one that astute therapists approach by looking for what the equilibrium is, what forces are maintaining it, and then determining if and how they can be re-established in a manner more functional and healthy for the family. Astute managers must do the same for the organization.

This is great stuff, Steve - thanks!