Talent, Systems, Change, and Truthful Self-Perception

Earlier this week I was involved in a third  "talent" counseling session with a corporate person who is making a mid-career change.

I had the benefit of long-time observation in various situations as well as sound data from two good proprietary assessment tools that genuinely help differentiate innate talent from learned skills.

We hit a point where I described a consistent behavior I had observed over time and how it impacted numerous aspects of his work.

He was totally floored. Not because he had never heard it before, but because he had never connected that one idiosyncrasy with the totality of his efforts. Like a spider web, this one item affected time management, relationships, deadlines (un)met, and finally the desire--and need--to re-focus his career.

Robyn McIntyre noted in Systemic Talent Interaction the need to underscore "accurate" self-awareness when looking at things that influence one's talent as well as overall talent management. She's right, of course. We all have a tendency to bump up certain aspects of our self-perception as well as undersell others.

So how does someone 45+ in age get a huge behavioral surprise?

I Never Realized The Truth Before

"People have told me about that 'habit' but nobody ever described all the ways that it affected them. It never occurred to me that just one thing could be so damaging."

What happened here?

1. He doesn't automatically 'see' the systemic nature of behavior. And he's not going to. He needs to have an associate connect things for him but is unbelievably talented at attending to the details as they are presented.

2. He's a hard-working, well-intentioned guy, not a serial killer.

3. No one ever sat down and told the whole truth, nothing-but-the-truth. That goes for bosses, co-workers, friends, and family.

4. The truth was so overwhelmingly powerful that I watched him get re-energized, not discouraged.

Note: I don't offer potentially hurtful truth until I can offer a potentially hopeful solution. To do otherwise is just dumping.

Do You and Your System Tell the Whole Truth?

There is an admirable and desirable human tendency to not want to hurt other people. Thankfully.

At the same time, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what is hurtful and what is helpful. Wouldn't you think that a career filled with performance appraisals  might have surfaced this earlier? Or, perhaps there weren't any regular--or even sporadic--useful conversations about how things were going.

Let's face it: in addition to not wanting to hurt someone's feelings, we also don't want to be seen as ogres. So we often hold back the part of the information that is the most serious and, therefore, potentially the most helpful.

Ask yourself this: Who in your life do you trust the most? The people who give you mostly 'yeses' or the people who say 'no' and then explain why?

Building talent is serious business, for the individual as well as the organization. There's no way for someone to have an accurate self-awareness without truthful information. And there's no way to grow a healthy and effective organism that we call our 'business system' without  a watering can filled with truth.

Just so you know: The guy referred to above  already has opportunities  elsewhere. Because of a systemic look at his situation, it turns out that the "type" of organization (highly relational, upbeat) is probably the determining factor in his future success and satisfaction. Time management and deadlines aren't a problem--as long as he is orchestrating the activities and interaction of people most of the time. The time issue turned out to be a result of the job demands being refocused on the disposition of facts and figures.

It wasn't just a matter of talent. It wasn't just a matter of the system. It was the systemic interaction of the two carried out in a well-intentioned system of sort-of-the-truth.

The truth will, in fact, set you free.

I love this work.

photo source: shemesh.larc.nasa.gov

 

Comments

[Jo]

Good day at the office!

[Steve Roesler]

Indeed, Jo!

[Robyn]

I LOVE that you were able to help him, Steve! Accurate self perception is likely a part of a good EQ - understanding yourself enables you to make positive changes which result in more positive changes: a veritable cascade of mental yippees! Plus there is something so delicious in helping people to make connections that just feeds my INTP personality. I guess one thing to have handy in your toolbag is an accurate assessment of the person you're coaching. A lot of damage can be done by people giving assessments based on faulty perceptions. A dear friend of mine is intelligent and kind, but she is seldom able to "get" anyone accurately and her pronouncements about what she thinks is wrong in their lives often seems to come from another galaxy, with the result that people often avoid her. I say, if you've been proven wrong consistently, it's time to stop offering advice. And if you can't recognize when you've been consistently wrong, then you need feedback yourself.
Another handy item in your toolbag would be counseling skills: if you're going to deliver some potentially disturbing talent assessments, you should be clear on your approach before going in.
Now here's another question for you, Steve: if you're a manager who - as part of your job - has to give those annual reviews, which ideally ought to include talent assessments, and you (self-perceptively) know you're not that good at reviews (you're striving to get better, but you aren't there, yet), what should you do? Follow-up: What if you're a manager who knows there's something "off" about one of your employees, but you're an INTP like me, and can't figure out what it is? Then, what do you do?

[Dean Fuhrman]

Steve ... that is very cool that you had the opportunity to do this for your client. What we often need is something that cleans the lens of our perception, particularly when it comes to how we hold ourselves out in the world. As you point out it would most likely be rare that one could discern all that alone about oneself no matter how self aware. It takes an outside force to make it happen, which can be another rare thing. Kudos to you for being that rare force.

[Jim Stroup]

Hi Steve,

Actually, this story reveals a great benefit of access to well-rounded consultants - given, that is, the unfortunate organizational and familiar relationship dynamics that lead to the shortcomings you identify. But just as an external consultant can benefit a team of management professionals who have all the skills but inescapably lack perspective for the very fact of their positions, individual executives can benefit as well - and for similar reasons.

Great story - thanks for sharing it in this context!

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Robyn,

That's an honest and thorough scenario that you describe: a tribute to the validity of your INTPness:-)

I began to answer your question and then realized that I was doing a dissertation in order to try and "get it right." So instead, I'm going to do a post on it because you and others you know are not alone. And the answer has systemic implications.

Thanks for the spark, Robyn. .

[Steve Roesler]

Dean, that's a kind and encouraging comment. And much appreciated, since clients (sometimes) think that we do this stuff just for the money. This one didn't, nor did the boss that hired me initially.

I think I'm going to co-opt your phrase "clean the lens of our perception", because that's what it really is about.

At the risk of sounding like "the old days were better" (they seldom were), there was a time when most of us had an unofficial mentor or two who guided our way, talked with us seriously about our lives and our work, and ended up traveling with us in spirit over time. To some that may sound touchy-feely but, in fact, it wasn't. These people made a decision to befriend us in ways that made us feel a sense of accountability for living up to that which our mentors saw as potential not to be wasted. In my lifetime I have had three such people and make no decision of any consequence without sitting back and re-playing their counsel.

It's next to impossible to have a clear lens without someone offering a verbal handi-wipe every so often. But it requires a willingness to listen and hear as well as work on the giver's part. That work includes understanding the breadth and depth of the person's life in order to make the suggestions contextual, relevant, and consistent with the individual's overall situation.

This is the kind of consultation that I enjoy the most. At the same time I often wonder, "What has happened to the kinds of friendships that used to provide what I'm now called to provide 'professionally'?"

It's something to think about. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Jim,

Hope the Wordpress update sorts itself out soon :-)

You've always got a global, systemic take on any situation and this is no exception.

Here's the thing: I could not have been as helpful to this client had I not worked regularly within their organization for many years. It didn't take long to see the pieces and begin to put them in place. Had I been called in for the first time, we absolutely would have reached the same place but it would have taken longer, been more expensive, and required learning some of the systems that impacted the work.

What's really interesting about this one is that the boss--with whom I have a good relationship--suggested that I stop calling myself a consultant and bill my work as Coaching. I asked why. He said that consultants are people from large firms who come in and present voluminous data regarding how one's company should be different, then leave without telling them how it can be done. In his mind, Coaches help get it done.

When I started out, consultants were the ones who helped get it done. I'm learning that terminology and perception may actually be impacting my business in the minds of some potential clients.

Following Dean's advice, maybe I have to clean the lens of self-perception in the context of how a new generation of executives and managers may view consultant/coach as a dichotomy.

I hate when this happens.:-)

[Tom Haskins]

Steve:
To these other well-deserved kudos, I'd add that your lens of perception seems to be clear due to your own self respect. You come from a place that does not need to find fault with others to compensate for any personal misgivings. Most workplaces are rife with the drama of self contempt, projected onto others who appear more powerful or insecure, experienced or lacking, connected or isolated, etc. The ongoing "blame games" corrupt most interpersonal feedback.

In my experience, the dichotomy has always been there between consultants of the "hit-n-run, submit a polished report, climb the ladder in the consulting firm" variety AND the "get-down-n-dirty, work through the implementation, submit updates as project managers" variety. That distinction also occurs in all the helping professions between the work-on and work-with approaches. In sales and teaching, it's the difference between product /content centered and customer /learner centered. I also see it as the same distinction between pursuing ego trips and acting with compassion.

My theory about the decline of informal mentors relates to increasing fear in the world. When it feels like lives are on dangerous or battlegrounds, there's no sense of having the time, luxury or safety to be a mentor. Everyone is looking out for themselves, avoiding costly mistakes, and coping with intense performance pressures. Mentoring takes the detachment that not only comes with being an outsider to the situation, by emotionally on a more calm, inclusive and trusting wavelength.

Thanks for this inside look at one of your successes!

[Robyn]

Tom, great insight on mentors. It might have been Ken Robinson in a TED video who said that the inculcation of fear of making a mistake has caused a loss of creativity because one can only be creative if one is willing to make a mistake. If we apply this to Steve's remarks about mentoring we get to your comment about needing safety to be a mentor. If workplaces are filtering out people who are willing to take a chance (i.e., filtering out creativity), it becomes apparent that they must then have to HIRE creativity (like Steve) to fill the gap.

[Steve Roesler]

Tom and Robyn,

Ok. I'm going to stop originating posts and just put your conversations up there:-)

Didn't this take an interesting turn?

The discussion by experienced people is now leaning toward one of the most basic human emotions--fear--as an inhibitor to growth and relationships. By itself, that wouldn't be new or startling. But in the context of "the war for talent," it would have serious implications:

If talent requires identification, developing, and relational support;

and if people are too busy, self-protective, and/or risk-averse to reach out to others in their organizations;

then there is a systemic spiral in effect that perpetuates the ongoing talent issue.

That's my immediate thought, anyway. What do you think?

[Robyn]

That's a great summing up! I hope you will do a follow-up blog on what can be done by businesses to break the spiral effect.

[Steve Roesler]

That sounds like it might be a worthwhile article, Robyn. Thank you.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: The downward spiral is a realistic assessment of the dynamics in the war for talent. Picturing the dynamics as cycles of fear, abuse, war etc capture the closed, persistent and destructive quality of how fear effects situations.

Yet the spiral is not a creative or opportunistic way to connect the dots. Perhaps a new strategic advantage will emerge for those enterprises that can move their cultures off of dangerous/battle grounds. Fear is highly contagious but many leaders have cultivated the respect (trust, buy-in, follower-ship) to successfully calm their people down, restore faith the systems, commit to taking risks, and envision optimistic futures. Fear may be the default setting, but it's possible to change expectations, stories and forecasts with some creativity.