Leadership, Happiness, and Satisfaction

Every so often I check the statistics here to discover what search engine queries bring people to All Things Workplace. I figured that the keywords were going to be mostly "leadership" or "management".

Wrong.

"Job Satisfaction"..."Happiness at Work"..."Where Can I Find the Best Job?"..."Strengths and Weaknesses"..."How Can I Find A Job Where the Boss Listens to Me?"...those are the themes. Career issues--sometimes disguised as communications--turned up on a second page of searches.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Make no mistake. People are searching for how to feel good at work. We want to do well...and we want to feel good in the process.

But these are leadership and management issues. What people are saying is: "We want to be in a place where the "orchestration of work" allows us to contribute our talent. There are times when we need direction and times when we need to improvise our own riffs."

Think about two variables

There's a relationship between how much people enjoy their jobs and how well they perform. That's not a mystery. But there is a dynamic you need to know about in order to manage yourself and others:

1. Some people have to feel good about their job and their workplace before they can get busy and perform at their max.

2. Others have to have to first achieve super results in order to feel good about their jobs.

It's a "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" phenomenon. I picked up on this during a stretch where I was diagnosing "performance issues" for a client.

My conclusion: Managers hadn't caught onto the validity of the two approaches to performance. Naturally, the "feel good first" people were perceived as weenie-like non-performers. However, they actually had a huge commitment to doing well. They just needed something else to help them be able to get there.

What was it? They wanted the managers to understand who they were and what made them tick. That went along way to having the "right feeling" about the job.

The second category of people wanted a scorecard. They weren't about to "feel" good until they checked off their tasks and accomplishments.

Target yourself and your people

1. Which approach most naturally fits you? Figure out what that means to the way you work and the way your work is managed. Then talk with your manager about your desire to excel and how you might use this natural preference to make that happen.

2. Managers: The next time you're in a meeting (or one-on-one), have an informal conversation about the two approaches. Let people talk about what comes first for them. You'll learn a lot about how to manage each person; and they'll get more of what they need in order to hit the top of the job satisfaction/high performance curve.

Punchline: First, know yourself and your own preference. Only then will you have a solid point of reference for understanding the distinctions of the people around you.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Managers Build Talent

You may already have the right people to enable your company to "win"--however you define the word.

We recently designed a leadership 'program' to develop the top talent in a global company. The model created used the executive management committee as coaches for the learning activities. First we coached the coaches on how to coach; then we turned them loose. It's been the most effective learning in nearly 30 years of leadership development and design.

 What's happening that works?

• The top leadership learns a lot about their own abilities.

• They learn about their people while developing closer relationships with them.

• The high potential participants receive coaching and company insight from the leaders who know it best.

• The participants also "step up" their game. How often do you see the top leadership in a company totally dedicate two full days to the talent beneath them?

You Can Do It, Too

Managers are the natural lighting rods for developing talent. Coaching isn't another job--it is their job.

Companies are always looking for ways to develop people economically but effectively. Every research study on the planet shows that employees are most influenced--pro or con--by their immediate boss. That's exactly why managers at every level have the ability to make the most difference when it comes to grooming people for the future.

The mission: Give them the capability.

Three things managers can start now:

Diagnose: Focus on identifying the very best talent in others.

Encounter:  Seek the truth then speak the truth, wherever that path will lead.

Build: Participate in the performance growth or your people.

When managers coach, we get "two personal bests" for the price of one.

Note: Even (smart) stars find a coach somewhere: Check out John Bishop's nice story at Leadership Is A Verb.

Whoa! Just as I was hitting the "publish" button an email came through from Fistful of Talent naming All Things Workplace in the Top 25 Talent Blogs again this year. Given their criteria and primo staff I'm truly honored. And if you are a seeker of talent info, be sure to subscribe to their feed.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leading: Meet People Where They Are

A client was of mine was told that he didn't jump in alongside his people to get new projects and improvements off the ground. As a result, things weren't getting done on schedule. So I asked him why he seemed to 'manage from a distance'. His response:

"My people are long time employees. They're highly educated and have a lot of experience. If I start managing too closely, they'll lose their motivation."

I'm thinking,"What motivation? Apparently they aren't getting much done!

His approach to the situation isn't at all unusual, is it? We live in a time when managers are getting messages that say they should be consultative and participative. OK. But what happens when the work group doesn't know what to do our how to do it?

When there is a change, people want clear, strong direction. We all want to know what, where, when, why, and then, if the situation warrants it, how. Think about it: when we face the unknown, we start to get a little insecure. What do we look for? Direction. Strong leadership. Clarity. Help.

It has nothing to do with longevity or advanced degrees. It has to do with diagnosing the willingness and ability of the people and then adjusting management style accordingly.

In the case of my manager friend, he used misguided assumptions instead of proven research in his initial approach.

Meet People Where They Are

I'm a big proponent of Situational Leadership and have been since it was introduced. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard teamed up to introduce the practical application of the Ohio State Studies.

The principle is this: Before you know how close to manage or how consultative to be with your people, you need to know where their willingness and ability is in relation to the task at hand. The less people know, the closer you manage. The more mature and effective they become, the less you have to direct and the more consultative you can be.

If you've ever taught a child to ride a bike, then think of that as the model. When they start, you have to demonstrate, help them on the bicycle, hold onto them, and not leave their side. As they get a little confidence and are able to go a short distance on their own, maybe you jog alongside if you have to catch them. When you see them smiling and riding a block or so on their own, you shout encouragement. And when they disappear from view; well, yell "I'm going to the house for a cup of coffee." That way they'll know where you are if they need you.

Managing people is a constant series of diagnoses and appropriate responses. It's never all of one thing. And it's never all direction or abdication. It's what people need from you in order to move along the performance curve.

And just to emphasize the point once more: Change=More Managerial Direction. Any manager who is introducing something new has to be prepared to work closer and harder than usual to get things off to the right start.

What's your experience? Are you giving or getting the right thing at the right time?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership: Coaching Clarity Needed

What does Leadership Development actually mean?

The folks at CO2 Partners completed a survey some time back of 3,447 individuals, about 90 percent of whom are middle-to-senior-level managers. They asked this question:

“If you were to receive coaching at work, what focus would be of the greatest benefits to you? (Please select all that apply.)”

The  results of the survey of 3,447 individuals, about 90 percent of whom are  middle- to senior-level managers, are as follows:

• Leadership  development: 59.8 percent
• Communication  skills: 47.8 percent
• Organizational  and political savvy: 31.5 percent
• Job performance:  28.3 percent
• Business acumen:  27.2 percent
• Career planning:  26.1 percent
• Life/balance:  21.7 percent
• Health/fitness:  6.5 percent

Gary Cohen, President of CO2 Partners, makes a good point, though, in his interview with Chief Learning Officer magazine. While Leadership Development emerges at the top of the coaching wish list:

"Actually defining leadership development. . . isn’t quite as popular. . .many people do not fully understand what leadership development coaching is or what it entails."

"Leadership is a captivating objective for most managers,” he said. “So individuals feel obligated to choose leadership development, even if they have no clear sense of what it’s all about. Despite this lack of awareness, leadership ranks first on any survey of coaching needs.”

Cohen said, though, that leadership coaching is not well-defined and that it makes sense many people do not fully comprehend exactly what it is.

Get  Clear About These

I agree with Gary about the fuzziness that surrounds leadership coaching. There is an equal amount of fuzziness when it comes to Leadership Development. As a result, the coaching issue can get blurred. So here are some suggestions after a lot of years wrestling with the issue:

When it comes to coaching--or any kind of consulting activity--90% of the success or failure lies in the contracting phase. So:

    a. Get clear about who initiated the coaching request. If it was a boss, make sure to understand what that person is looking for and why. Which means asking "Who really set this process in motion?"

    b. What are the specific results desired from the coaching engagement? While Leadership is a sexy catch-all phrase, maybe the real issues are managing team performance, running better meetings, or initiating conversations with colleagues in other corporate locations. (All three of those have emerged after probing underneath the Leadership umbrella during contracting).

    c. Is coaching the best way to get at the desired growth? The fact of the matter is that some things are skills that can be learned in other ways. And if you ask yourself how you best learned Leadership, the thoughtful answer will probably be "from leading." Be prepared to suggest expanded responsibility. People grow by being lifted up and then stepping up.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How Wisdom, Discernment, and Integrity Matter

Building leaders is on almost every organization's agenda.

Hiring good people can be a costly process.

Losing employees--regardless of cause--can be equally expensive.

Wisdom, Discernment, and Integrity in Business created a lot of buzz, especially on Twitter.

And whether the long-time, ongoing issues are How One Bad Apple Can Create a Toxic Team, Crazy Co-workers , Bad Bosses, or the rule of No Assholes, people in the workplace are apparently driving other people in the workplace crazy.

What's Happening In Organizations?

Corporations have HR professionals, behavioral interview training, search firms that screen and test, assessment centers, assessment tests. . .

I believe that what is missing--and what needs to be purposefully added to the organization effectiveness equation--are Wisdom and Discernment applied with Integrity.

The vast majority of screening/hiring/promoting practices focus on education, experience, and task-related performance.

But take a hard look at the reasons for dismissal and lack of promotability (not a real word according to the spellchecker!). I've seldom seen well-screened people leave a company because of their technical incompetence. The issue is almost always one of "fit." "How" the individual operates is, in some way, inconsistent with what the organization really thinks is best for itself. (And vice-versa).

Do any of these reasons for separation sound familiar to you?

• He's not a team player
• We need people who can work without a lot of supervision
• We need people who can take supervision
• She doesn't provide enough direction for her people
• She provides too much direction for her people
• He doesn't think about options and possibilities when making decisions
• This company doesn't value my creative thinking
  
• This company doesn't value the fact that I always follow the rules
  

(Please feel free to click on Comments and add your favorites. If I get enough, I'll post a Top__List).

How Can We Change This To Make A Difference?

When we're hiring and promoting, wouldn't it be worthwhile to know who we're getting--not just what we're getting?

It seems to me that we need to understand at least two things in order to make that happen:

1. What "kind of people" do we want? (What values do we hold that need to be evident in our people)?

2. What does it take to develop and use wisdom and discernment needed in business?

What Kind of People Do We Want?

This seems to be the part that is overlooked. Sure, interviewers might say "I liked her" or "He seemed serious enough about the business." Deep down inside, don't we really need to figure out some general characteristics that will help the individual and the work team hit it off over the long run? If it's the kind of job that has management responsibility or potential, then what kind of characteristics do we want to see in our leaders? I know we want them to be able to reach their goals. But what kind of people do we want them to be while they are doing that?

When the issue of "best fit" arises, it becomes foolish to ignore the reality that "how" we are is, in part, the manifestation of "who" we are. To hire and promote based on intellectual/behavior criteria ignores the social and relational nature of organizations. An entire generation of managers, interviewers, and job candidates have been sold on the idea that "past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior." It sounds good. It sells well because it is "scientific." One can create behavioral questions or assessment scenarios that can surface and confirm whether or not a person has, or is able to, perform specific functions. That kind of validation is certainly important. But will that person be able to perform those things well in your organization, given your unique mix of relational expectations, communication patterns, systems, and management?

What if we decided to be intentional about the use of wisdom, discernment, and integrity in the process?

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Pay Attention to the Spirit of Change

We business types seem to enjoy--and gravitate towards--discussions about Change. And it's almost always in the context of managing it, leading it, overcoming resistance to it...as if Change is somehow different than life.

It isn't. It is life.

Which means that how we approach our lives and what comes our way will influence how we approach things that are new and different at work. How we choose to respond to changes will determine our sense of success and  contentment, regardless of what comes our way.

It is, in fact, a spiritual issue. The world view that you possess will determine how you lead or respond to changes, and whether you will lift people up or cut them down in a display of anger or negativity.

I've been involved in leading or assisting  "change" efforts at numerous Fortune 500 firms. Some quite successful, most actually mediocre, a few downright ugly. So it's something that I've thought about often and quite deeply. Here are some conclusions I've reached:

1. Once you announce that you are undertaking a large-scale "Change", you've set the conditions for adversarial relationships. The human condition doesn't necessarily want change; it wants control.

 Therefore,

2. You have set in motion a struggle for control. Self-control, control of the situation, control of other people...

3. If you want to do something new or different, tell people you want to do something new or different. Tell them exactly what it is, why it is (reality), and how it will improve the business/workplace situation (hope). Then be prepared to "be there"--even more than usual--to support the effort.

Change models, for the most part, evolved from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' work "On Death and Dying." She did a magnificent job explaining the emotional cycle that people experience who are facing or dealing with death. In my experience, the model does, indeed, hold up in any situation involving changes. And it is for that very reason that the issue is always a spiritual one. People who are dying need to reconcile not only what is happening to them now, but what has happened in their entire lives--as well as resolving any unanswered questions regarding eternity.

Those of us facing changes at work do the same thing: we attempt to reconcile what is happening, what our career in the organization has been about, and what the unknown future will hold.

For that reason, I believe it's important for organization dwellers at all levels to have an understanding of the model. Everyone involved can then know how to respond in an uplifting or supportive manner when they recognize someone else experiencing a particular step along the way. (That also means painting reality for those who are stuck on Fantasy Island).

That said, my own experiences show this: Making "Change" the overarching theme in communication, training, and managing is a big mistake. It's not what you are about and it will drain the energy from the specific, meaningful improvements you have to make.

What to Do

If you truly believe in what you need to do, then do it. But first check out the spirit with which you are about to deal with the people who have to make it happen. What is it? Really?

If you are on the receiving end, is your response any different than to any other change in your life?

Whether  you are leading or following, the spirit with which you evaluate and participate will impact the accuracy and wisdom of your choices.  And those choices will determine business effectiveness and personal contentment in the days and weeks ahead.

It is a choice. And your choices are the only thing over which you have control. Be careful of the spirit with which you exercise them.

_____________________________

For a thoughtful read that may change your views about leadership, check Jim Stroup's series .

Want to change how people are talking about you? Really. One of my favorites from Duct Tape Marketing & Seth Godin.

And when it comes to changing Employee Engagement, there's no better resource than my friend David Zinger at Employee Engagement Zingers.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change, Transitions, and You

"Things do not change; we change." Henry David Thoreau

You've read the self-help books and sites that talk about the "comfort zone" and how you need to step out of it. Like much advice, it's a bit too simplistic. It's a one-liner that doesn't account for personal style and disposition.

My real issue is with the sweeping statement that "change" requires a lot of effort and mental energy.

It All Depends: What's Your Preference?

When you boil it down psychologically, there are two types of people:  those who score high on Openness and those who score low on Openness in the Big Five Personality Measures. Those who score low generally seek and love routine. They go to bed at 10:00, wake up at 6:30,  do grocery shopping on Fridays and balance the checkbook on Sunday.

Just as some could never imagine moving from  their hometown or giving up a steady job, others can't function that way. They are naturally curious, seek out new experiences, prefer complexity, and  "step out of their comfort zone" frequently. They don't need tips on how to expand their comfort zone. It's fun. What they often need is focus.

Regardless of which group you fall into, expanding your comfort zone just for the sake of expanding your comfort zone is a waste of time. If you catch yourself in the "I must change" zone, ask yourself:

• What am I trying to accomplish?

• How will I know if I've succeeded?

Do Something

Think about what you really want and what you need to do to get it. The start doing things that are related to it. If you are a "list" person, make a list. If not, just start doing. Some things will be easier to accomplish than others, but that's the point. It takes all of us some period of time to get over the mental barrier of expanding boundaries. If they are emotional, it may be a little longer.

It all gets easier eventually. The difference is that some people cross that bridge in 30 seconds and others hit a brick wall that seems eternal.

When I wrote my first blog post I waited three hours to press the "publish" button. Now it's what I do almost every day and I miss it when I don't.

Whatever you want to do, it will involve--by definition--change. Regardless of which category you fall into, do something.

It's called "living."

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wisdom, Discernment, Integrity and Business

"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches."
--King Solomon, Proverbs 22:1

How often do you hear the terms wisdom, discernment, and integrity used during the business day?

And just what are organizations looking for when they are hiring or promoting?

We hear words like intelligent, problem-solver, action-oriented, results-driven, and good decision-making ability.

But what good are any of those if they aren't carried out with wisdom, discernment, and integrity?

It's possible to be action-oriented and still take a lot of wrong actions.

Does intelligence guarantee sound leadership?  History reveals that many leaders with intelligence that was clearly "above average" have oppressed their people, ruined their economies, and even committed genocide.

What Are We Dealing With Here?

First, some slightly paraphrased definitions from Merriam-Webster Online.

Wisdom: ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : (insight) c : good sense : (judgment).

Discernment: the power to distinguish and select what is true or appropriate or excellent; the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure.

Integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : (incorruptibility); the quality or state of being complete or undivided : (completeness).

Why Do They Make a Difference?

Let's start with integrity. It's probably the easiest to deal with and something that we do talk about on the job, at least when it is violated.

Integrity makes a difference because it's an outward indication of our internal character. If we say we have a set of "corporate" values and then live by them--even if it means sacrificing extra revenue--then we are known as having integrity. When we live up to our word, we have integrity. Most of all, integrity is what allows a person or a company to be trusted.

When you possess wisdom, you are able to make judgments that go beneath the surface issue or decision being presented. My observation and experience show that those possessing wisdom have actually learned from their previous experiences and mistakes; have confronted their own part in them; and now are able to see more clearly what is happening within other people and other situations. Maturity--not age alone--is necessary for wisdom.

Discernment is probably the least-used word in business. It implies a well-honed wisdom that allows one to accurately "read between the lines" when dealing with people and situations and see what is true. You and I know lots of people who say "I know how to 'read' people. However, I don't really know lots of people who discern the truth very well at all.

What Happens in The Absence of Those Three ?

When we hire and promote based upon education, experience, and behavioral traits, we're still working on the surface. To get "keepers" we need to dig one level deeper.

At a business luncheon meeting a few years ago our well-educated, high-level executive speaker spent his entire block of time talking about his accomplishments, what he was going to achieve in the coming year, and the plan to get there. When he asked for questions, the guy next to me said something gutsy. He said:

"I'm sorry. Who you are spoke so loudly that I wasn't able to hear what you had to say."

My neighbor had discerned the self-centered character of the presenter. The speaker had not discerned the values, maturity and character of his audience. As a result, his accomplishments couldn't overcome the low regard in which his peers began to hold him as a result of his bravado. It was a defining moment that impacted his career mobility.

When we're hiring and promoting, wouldn't it be worthwhile to know who we're getting--not just what we're getting?

It seems to me that we need to understand at least three things in order to make that happen:

1. What "kind of people" do we want? (What values do we hold that need to be evident in our people)?

2. What does it take to develop the wisdom and discernment needed in business?

3. How are you acquiring your wisdom in a way that leads to discernment and integrity?

How much value does your organization openly place on these?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change How You Deal With Difficult People

I've been presenting a program for clients on "How To Deal With Difficult People" for more than 20 years.

It sounds kind of grim but is really a lot of fun. Why?

Because everyone has someone who "bugs" them. And, when they think long and hard about it, what bothers people most is actually something they really don't like about themselves. There are lots of ways to have fun with this and learn a lot at the same time without navel-gazing.

What I like best about the approach we've developed is that it isn't about coping with jerks. Why settle for coping? It doesn't really change anything.

Do You Want To Change Something?

Good. Then here's a little synopsis that I hope will help.

1. What really drives your blood pressure north?

Identify the triggers are that push your buttons by thinking about past experiences in which your "favorite"  person finally got to you.

What did they do?  That’s different than why it bothered you. Simply identify their actual behavior.  Was it the way they approached you? Looked at you?  How did they look at you? Maybe it was a certain voice quality or tone of voice?

2. How did you react?

Do you immediately blame them for how you feel?  Do you act distracted or quickly find a distraction? Disavow what’s really going on? When they do their "special" thing, what do you do in response?

3. What do you want from yourself? 

What’s the very best you can bring to the situation? Regardless of what they did, what would you do to be delighted with yourself after the interaction?

4.  What do you really want from them? 

Yeah, I know: "Stop that stuff!"

Not going to happen. So, think about this relationship the way the Cheerios people do on their nutrition label. "What is the MDR (minimum daily requirement) of behavior you can hope for and accept? Then start expecting nothing more. (it's quite free-ing, really).

5.  Has someone else learned a way to deal with this person?

 How do they do it?  Who might know how to do it?  Describe your situation in a way that combines "behavior-then-how-I-feel." No need to dump on the offender; besides, it makes you less attractive and less of a good candidate for help.

When you've reached a point where you have an approach, use it. We train our muscle memories to play tennis, golf, and other sports in ways that become unconscious.  You can train your nervous system in the same way. Think about this: if you do just one thing differently you may change the entire pattern.

Most importantly: Life is not what happens to us. It's how we respond to what happens to us.

And you are in charge of your responses.

Go for it!

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How To. . .

I'll tell you how. How to build individuals and teams. How to create conditions for motivation and engagement.

Here it is: If you are a manager giving an assignment, be clear about the "what"--then let your people deliver on how it will be done.

Why? Because you hired them for the how. Think about it. You looked at resumes and then hired people who had something that seemed unique or different. When you tell people how to do their jobs, you take away their identity. We all want to contribute. And that contribution is in the form of the unique way--how--we do our jobs.

Action: Define and get commitment on what you want done--then let people use their unique talents to decide how to do it. They'll grow by using their own trial-and-error process to perfect their methodologies.

You'll be seen as the manager who knows how to develop and engage your team. Suddenly, you'll find people approaching you and asking "Hey, how do you do it?"

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Real Freedom in the Free Agent Workplace

 Coaches, Consultants, Writers, Speakers, Trainers. . .each of you has, as part of your dream, the desire to be “free” from certain constraints.

But you may be boxing yourself in more than you realize.

When you set out on your own, adding value is linked directly to your personal talent, skills, and  knowledge. It’s easy--and somewhat satisfying-- to revel in the fact that you are the brand

Think long and hard about these three questions:

    * Do you want to be the only on-site resource for customers?
    * Do you ever want to generate passive income?
    * Do you want to grow your business?

Some people like being “Da Man" (or “Da Woman”). They get a buzz from being  in demand. That’s OK if the related  limitations of such self-branding are acceptable.

But what if you see a different future? Maybe you’re interested in a way out of the every day stand-up grind that produces revenue and doesn’t involve “closing” the biz.

Most consultants/coaches, for example  would say that their only asset is their brain and the ideas generated. Well, what can you do to turn that into a self-sustaining business?

Start Thinking Product Instead of Services

Many creative professionals sell their services. Let’s be totally hones here  Solopreneurs usually put all the focus on themselves and sell only the services they create and can handle. Big mistake. It stunts your business growth because it looks as if no one else can do what you do the way that you do it.

The solution: move the focus away from you and start treating your service (results) as a product. When you contract, contract for a specific result. That way, your clients are focused on something tangible and so are you. You build a reputation for delivering value in a specific way.

It’s easy to get caught up in the importance of our creativity and uniqueness. Once you get over that and start treating the result as your product, you start building a business that very well may lead to a tangible information prodcut. Why? Because you are focusing on outcomes and how to get there--the “how to” that people long for.

Freedom comes from building replicable systems and products that allow people to have the benefit of you--and your thinking-- without you actually being there.

Do it now. Begin to shift the focus from “you” to your “product”. I guarantee you it will be a freeing experience.

Thought for Today: You may love being "out there" all the time and providing face-to-face service. That's great. Keep in mind that on the spectrum of life, you are more "self-employed" than "in business."

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

When You Delegate, You're Still In It Together

One of the joys experienced by a new manager is having an array of people to call on to "get it done."

One of the challenges experienced by a new manager is having an array of people to call on to "get it done."

I can't think of a role that's more challenging than managing, at any level. One of the traps, though, is a mistaken sense of what delegation is all about.

What Successful Managers Do

1.Help people perform.

That means you have to spend time focusing on the people who do the task, not just the task.

Who needs help? How much? How much is too much? How often do you need to follow up to see how things are going? When you follow up, what do you really need to do to be helpful? (It may be to get out of the way, explain how to do something in detail, or something in between).

2. Invest in people, not use them.

We agonize over how to invest our earnings so that we reap personal financial growth.

When we delegate are we asking, "How can I invest in this person during this task in order to benefit all of us over the long run?"

Or is the question "What can this person do for me?"

Each question leads to very different outcomes. One is personal and organizational growth. The other is a sense of using and being used.

3. Be alongside, in front of, or close behind--but never absent.

No one--no one--is successful alone. However, it's really easy and unbelievably common to fail by thinking we can do it alone.

So the best managers I know live out a model that clearly shares responsibility. They provide direction and support; their people ask questions easily as a result of the "we're in this together" atmosphere.

What's up in your management/delegating life?

_________________________________________________

How about Static Leadership?. Find out more from Jim Stroup.

What happens when new leadership and cultures clash? Wally Bock dissects the clash at Home Depot with simplicity and clarity.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Performance Tip: Recognize The Talent You've Got

When I check the keyword searches that land people here, a lot of them have to do with "find my strengths" or "how do I manage talented people?"

People at work appear invested in clarifying their own strengths and understanding the inherent talent in others. If that's so, I was wondering why there is so much angst about retention. It seems that people would be committed for the long term if their strengths and talents are being valued.

The Managerial Equivalent of "Your Lips Say 'Yes' But There's 'No-No' In Your Eyes"

There is at least one reason why some people--including managers-- are shopping their resumes. It has to do with the distinction between advocating development and then doing the opposite.

Here's a real life example:

Luke (not his real name) is an operations manager at one of my client companies. He's experienced and has been in the manufacturing industry for 20+ years. He is the most well-read client ever. Whenever I see him, he waxes poetically about the wonderful "new" managerial ideas he's picked up from the most recent leadership books he's read.

One of those ideas had to do with recognizing someone's small successes and following through with verbal encouragement or even a small reward (lunch, movie tickets, a $25 gift certificate. . .) Better yet, acknowledge the person's fete during a regular departmental meeting. He also talked about the importance of those ideas during a meeting with his supervisors.

But he wouldn't do any of those.

I asked him why not.

His reply "I'm not going to spend time rewarding or telling someone how good they are if the company is already paying them a salary. They are supposed to do good work."

He doesn't have the same approach with his kids. I've seen him. He acknowledges them when they've succeeded at something. Anything. And he does it spontaneously.

What the heck happens in life(?) between:

and

.

Every day we're all trying to learn or do something new. Let's be honest: part of our day is spent being a kid again when it comes to struggling with a new problem that needs a solution. And we could use a few encouraging words of recognition when we demonstrate a talent that helps the organization.

("Gee, that felt good. I think I'll do it again!)

What would a well-known, successful business person say about the importance of encouragement?

"My best friend is the one who brings out the best in me."
~ Henry Ford

What Do Our Brains Say About Encouragement?

According to the ATW resident neuro-gurette, Dr. Ellen Weber, brainpower is lost to common critiques. In this instance, the absence of acknowledgment can easily turn into the perception of a "critique." For those who can't seem to get their hearts in gear, maybe a look at how serotonin builds better businesses will offer an intellectual bridge to encouraging action.

What's going on at your workplace when it comes to recognizing and acknowledging people's strengths and talents?
_________________________________

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the right. You'll always get the newest post!

Photo attribution to:
www.mingara.com.au      
www.corporateclowning.nl

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Non Verbals Across Cultures: Start Teaching It

It's easy to misunderstand someone from a culture different than your own--especially when it comes to non-verbals. 

Despite this, there's not much intentional training on nonverbal behavior in global corporations. Perhaps there should be. I recall my initiation into this special "world" as a new  management trainer in Saudi Arabia in 1979. Since then, the whole idea of cross-cultural teams and travel has become the norm. I'm not so sure that the same is true with purposeful understanding. Here's my Day One experience; perhaps you've had a similar one:

Real Life

Our support staff was made up entirely of Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and Thai folks. When addressing the group about an administrative problem, the silent responses ranged from a head shake (Indian) to downward stares (Pakistani and Bangladeshi) to a bright smile from our Thai guy. I took this to mean lack of concern or a misunderstanding--perhaps I wasn't speaking clearly. I finally left the discussion puzzled by what appeared to be a collective lack of concern.

By the end of the day the situation was, without fanfare, totally resolved. Huh?

It was only later that another native English-speaking manager with considerably more experience sat me down and gave me a million-dollar lesson in cultural non-verbals. He shared that the Thai smile signaled an apology; the Indian head-shake wasn't a "No" (a U.S non-verbal) but in fact a "Yes, I understand." The other two fellows were from cultures that didn't value constant eye contact while being engaged--but they were listening carefully and clearly engaged.

Teaching and Learning, Explicit or Implicit?

So: is non-verbal behavior something that can accurately be picked up by informal exposure to other people or does it need to be specifically taught?

A study by  Damnet & Borland (2007) (don't seem to be able to access this any longer) suggests it may be better to teach nonverbal behavior explicitly.

This study examined Thai university students learning English as a foreign language.

One group saw videos of native English speakers along with being taught the meaning of the words. While they were not explicitly taught the nonverbal communication, they were implicitly exposed to it.

A second group was purposefully taught about nonverbal communication in addition to learning the grammar and vocabulary. It was this second group that showed the best understanding of nonverbal communication.

In Organizations, It Matters

It can be tough enough during meetings and normal interactions to interpret the nonverbal cues from our own culture . Add the global nature of doing business and one would have to ask: Wouldn't it make sense to simply put this out there as a training program? It could be a lot of fun as well as highly educational in a way that would reduce unnecessary misunderstandings.

Add your own examples to the comments. It would be a big help to readers everywhere.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

5 Powerful Ways for Managers to Open Discussions

Just imagine how disappointed you’d be after setting up a meeting or performance discussion, only to lose your listener(s) with an opening that didn't create momentum. Anticipation of a good meeting--followed by a weak opening-- is like inviting someone for a hot air balloon ride only to find the helium tank is empty.

Here are  5 openers  that will capture your listeners' imaginations and pull them deeper into the heart of your issue.

1. Ask a Question

Opening with a question is a rhetorical device. It creates curiosity and starts the listener thinking. Thinking means active engagement with your topic, and that’s just what both of you want.

2. Share a Quote or Maybe an Anecdote

Anecdotes are brief stories that can make people laugh or quickly establish the main point at hand. A  related quote from a professional authority or well-known person can magnetically hold attention in those opening seconds.

3. Involve the Mind’s Eye

A mental image in the listener's mind is one of the most powerful things you can create, so engaging the imagination is a powerful opening technique. Use words like “imagine,” “picture this,” “do you remember when,” etc.

4. Note a Shocking Statistic

I love starting off with a fascinating fact. Why?  People enjoy fascinating data if it is unique, startling, shocking, or counter-intuitive. Be sure it is directly relevant to your point as well.

5. Use a Metaphor, Analogy, or Simile

These are some of the most powerful devices available when it comes to telling a story in a single sentence. It's a great way to capture attention and also sparks the mental imagery that allows people to tell a story to themselves.

Whether you are sitting down one-on-one or kicking off a meeting, one or more of these will create the kind of engagement that will make you "listenable" and draw others into the discussion.

Wouldn't it be great to become known as the person people want to be with, regardless of the topic?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Recognize the Seven Universal Emotions

This is useful to everyone, especially in a career world that is so overwhelmingly global.

You'll find "experts" on body language and rants about the meaning of this gesture or that one. Much of this is true, with one huge caveat: you have to be patient and carefully synthesize the totality of the gestures and mannerisms in order to develop some degree of accuracy.

If you are making a presentation, running a meeting, or in a management discussion, it may be more helpful to know what emotions are universal. This gives you a better chance at narrowing the possibilities of what kinds of responses you are really seeing. So, here goes.

The Seven "Universal" Emotions

These are common throughout all people and cultures:

• anger     

• contempt

• disgust

• fear

• happiness

• sadness

• surprise

Here's where it gets tricky:

There are 10,000 different facial expressions. About 3000 of these facial expressions are relevant to emotion and most people use only 50-60 in normal conversation. Those 50-60 do relate to the seven universal emotions.

These expressions can be "macro" expressions which last 1-3 seconds or even longer. An example would be a smile. The question: "Is the smile real or fake?" If fake, what does that mean? (Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; people simply want to be polite).

We also make micro expressions that give up our more hidden feelings. These are like reflexes, because it's very difficult to stop them from happening since they are part of our brain's hard-wiring. That's why we get a "feeling" when we watch small discrepancies between someone's words and their expression.

These expressions last only 1/25th of a second. (That is faster than an eye-blink). Most people can't pick up micro expressions consciously. When viewed on film and played as slower speeds, these expressions look just like macro expressions. Many homicide detectives do this. If you don't happen to be looking for a serial killer, it's still a great way to watch what signals you give off when you are speaking or running a meeting.

How to Use This

The seven universal emotions are the ones that are most important to you. You want to know whether someone is angry, happy, etc., with your interaction. Memorize the list (or carry a cheat sheet) and increase your awareness of these.

Do: When you think you have enough visual information to believe that the person--or people--are, say, "surprised", don't make the assumption that you are correct. Instead, matter-of-factly state your observation: "You know, I'm watching the response to this slide and am getting the sense that maybe you are a bit surprised. Is that so?" This will lead to affirmation or will yield other responses that will help you--and them--stay or get on track. 

Don't: Try to be magically clever and tell them  you know how they feel. The last time you did that with your spouse or significant other, how'd that work for you?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Top Ten Things You Don't Want To Say

Researchers at Oxford University have compiled what they are calling the "Top Ten Most Irritating Phrases."

The researchers who compiled the list monitor the use of phrases in a database called the Oxford University Corpus, which comprises books, papers, magazines, broadcast, the internet and other sources.
The database signals new words and phrases and can also tell them which expressions are disappearing. It also shows how words are being misused.

If you are reading this while in a meeting, get your paper and pencil ready for the tally. If you are about to speak, here are ten for your mental eraser:

The top ten most irritating phrases

1 - At the end of the day

2 - Fairly unique

3 - I personally

4 - At this moment in time

5 - With all due respect

6 - Absolutely

7 - It's a nightmare

8 - Shouldn't of (it is “shouldn’t have”)

9 - 24/7

10 - It's not rocket science

Confession: I was in the midst of a potential problem analysis some years ago with part of the planet Mars design team in Princeton. They were planning the entire exploration project. In a moment of frustration I actually uttered the words, "Hey, this isn't rocket science." They suggested that I might be better suited for exploring the New Jersey Turnpike.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employees or Contractors: Who Gets The Most Feedback?

I don't know for sure. But you probably do.

Performance Speaks For Itself. . .  drew  comments that raised the debate about this question.

Becky Robinson is a freelancer who writes about leadership for Mountain State University. She feels that freelancers and consultants  "have to continually prove their worth to keep clients and work"--so it's important to be able to solicit performance feedback from clients.

That's certainly true. But management authority, consultant, and writer Wally Bock says: "As for freelancers needing it more, it seems to me they need this kind of support less. Most freelancers are paid by the project and there's usually feedback on each one. Folks on the payroll tend to slip into the background."

If that's the case, then "contractors" get more information about their performance--and how to improve it--than employees.

Can that be?

Performance improvement is directly linked to the timeliness, frequency, and quality of feedback. If Wally's observation reflects reality in the workplace, then "outside" people are the recipients of better performance management than those on the payroll.

It would be helpful to know what's really happening out there. If you are an employee or a freelancer/coach/consultant, what's your experience? The answers could be quite fascinating--and revealing. Weigh in with a comment below.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Performance Speaks for Itself, But Not At Work

OK, so the posts here usually come out early in the morning. But last night was later than usual. My daughter treated me to an early Father's Day gift and took me to opening night of the Eric Clapton/Steve Winwood tour. (When these guys first started making music 45 years ago, our nights began at the hour this one ended).

I don't usually try to stretch a pop culture event into an object lesson. This is not stretch, so here goes:

In Real Life, Performance Speaks for Itself

Clapton and Winwood walked onstage with the band, did their first song, and Clapton said, simply, "Thanks for coming out." Except for a one-line, "This is for Hubert", an acknowledgment of long-time Blues pioneer Hubert Sumlin's presence in the audience, the duo played non-stop for another two hours and 15 minutes. Multiple standing ovations throughout--no chatter, only performance--for two hours and 15 minutes with no break.

Pure performance. Acknowledgment through instant feedback. And reviews that will "promote" the tour.

In Organizational Life You Have to Speak for Your Performance

Wouldn't you think that a drop-dead project or presentation would promote your career--and make you a "promoted" employee?

No.

Employees at all levels beg for recognition. Managers get paid to manage (which includes develop and grow) their employees. But for some reason, many of the same managers who value performance don't acknowledging it. The result: Their stars look for another stage where their managerial audience will pay attention to the show.

Here's the reality: you have to promote your career and your performance. It's organizationally astute to keep a list of your specific contributions and remind your manager periodically of your aspirations and accomplishments. There are at least a few of reasons for this:

1. Some managers just don't pay attention. They aren't evil-- they have a blind spot. Give them a set of lenses that will help them see 20/20.

2. Some managers do pay attention and then get caught up in the demands of their manager. They forget and simply need a reminder. Remind them.

3. Regardless of what the recruiting brochure or sales pitch was, you are still responsible for managing your career.

It's part of your life--and you are responsible for that.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change and Generational Differences

Is it more difficult to make changes after the age of 30?

The answer is "yes" according to some new research.

The Scientific American Mind ran an interesting article on why change is hard and suggest that most of us experience reduced "openness" after our twenties.  The article is currently available for review here

Here is a quote:

"Once a family and career are in place, novelty may no longer be as welcome. New experiences may bring innovation and awakening but also chaos and insecurity. And so most people dream of novelty but hold fast to the familiar. Over time we become creatures of habit: enjoying the same dishes when we eat out, vacationing in favorite spots and falling into daily routines."

I'm not sure this is a revelation but I do think it's well-stated and to the point. We all gravitate toward anchors of stability in life-- people and places with whom we feel secure. The research implies that through our twenties we're sort of roaming and looking for experiences. What we're also doing is taking in those experiences and making sense out of life...which then moves us toward a chosen "lifestyle" and  increased stability.

What this also implies is that, like all preceding generations, Gen Z will no doubt look at Gen Y as "the traditionalists".

What Does This Mean for the Workplace?

Read the italics carefully. Although we become creatures of habit the research says that "novelty may no longer be as welcome" and that most people still "dream of novelty."

That's why we need to spend time with, and listen to, the newest generation in the workplace. They are the ones who will ignite the dreams and bring the novelty into our lives and businesses. Instead of saying, "We can't do that here" replace it with, "How would you do that?"

Then sit back and listen.



The article by Nikolas Westerhoff was published in the December 2008 edition of Scientific American Mind.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Is it more difficult to make changes after the age of 30?

The answer is "yes" according to some new research.

The Scientific American Mind ran an interesting article on why change is hard and suggest that most of us experience reduced "openness" after our twenties.  The article is currently available for review here

Here is a quote:

"Once a family and career are in place, novelty may no longer be as welcome. New experiences may bring innovation and awakening but also chaos and insecurity. And so most people dream of novelty but hold fast to the familiar. Over time we become creatures of habit: enjoying the same dishes when we eat out, vacationing in favorite spots and falling into daily routines."

I'm not sure this is a revelation but I do think it's well-stated and to the point. We all gravitate toward anchors of stability in life-- people and places with whom we feel secure. The research implies that through our twenties we're sort of roaming and looking for experiences. What we're also doing is taking in those experiences and making sense out of life...which then moves us toward a chosen "lifestyle" and  increased stability.

What this also implies is that, like all preceding generations, Gen Z will no doubt look at Gen Y as "the traditionalists".

What Does This Mean for the Workplace?

Read the italics carefully. Although we become creatures of habit the research says that "novelty may no longer be as welcome" and that most people still "dream of novelty."

That's why we need to spend time with, and listen to, the newest generation in the workplace. They are the ones who will ignite the dreams and bring the novelty into our lives and businesses. Instead of saying, "We can't do that here" replace it with, "How would you do that?"

Then sit back and listen.



The article by Nikolas Westerhoff was published in the December 2008 edition of Scientific American Mind.