Employees: People or Roles?

Director of Sales. VP of HR. Research Associate. Customer Service Agent.

Every time I receive a call to consult or coach, one of the first things I hear is the person's title and location on the organization chart. Invariably, the client turns out to be an actual person:

Laura. Luis. George. Dottie.

There's something about organizational roles that allow them to--at least initially--take precedence over the identity of the humans behind them.

I'm quite practical and get the need for org charts, functional titles, and visual relationships. I'm also aware of how the initial focus on titles and roles can subliminally influence the beginning of a working relationship. Here's what I mean:

1. Manager to direct report: "Set up a meeting with the Director of Sales, Europe to review the projections for next month."

Direct report doesn't know the Director. Conjures up images based on title, function, and location. Puts them through the "great mental filter of life." Starts to lose confidence about the ability to interact successfully.

2. VP of HR to external coach: "I'd like you to work with our CFO. She's a real detail person and needs to get the big picture regarding our business. The CEO has a time line for this. Could you get involved as soon as next week?"

Not unusual. If it were me I'd ask the clarifying questions needed to get a more complete picture. But all I can see at this point is the top of an organizational chart.

3. New Director of Customer Service, pointing to screen: "Here is the re-organization as I see it. Notice how the Call Center associates will have a dotted line relationship with Distribution as well as reporting directly to me."

OK. I know what it looks like in a presentation. But who are these people and how will we actually work together?

Humanize or Objectify: The Choice Matters

Humanize: The faster we can begin to relate to other people as people, the more of a chance we have of making a connection that matters. (You may find that you don't particularly care for someone, but at least it's based upon real data).

Objectify means that we assign meaning to things, people, places, activities, and the like. But they may not be correct and can be based upon preconceived notions, stereotypes, and the comments of others. The worst part: it makes the person an object. Once we do that, we no longer see them as someone with the same kinds of needs, wants, frailties, talents, and humanity as ourselves. And then begin to act accordingly.

What I hope you'll think about today:

1. When talking about your organization, talk about the people by name. Mention an interesting characteristic that you value about them. Then mention the title and role.

2. If you're calling a coach or consultant, talk about the person by name if you can (sometimes you can't at first). Offer some insights regarding their experience and background--their uniqueness. Then talk about their role and the developmental goals.

3.Talent Management. When you are discussing the movement of people up and around the organization, talk about characteristics as well as skills. Humanize the roles that need to be filled. How often have you seen really intelligent people cause distress because they simply didn't have the characteristics--or character--to relate to others.

4. It seems safe to keep a distance from others. It's dangerous if you want to have a fulfilling life on or off the job.

It would be useful to hear situations or comments around this phenomenon. It's tough for people to work with each other--or help each other--if they don't actual know each other.

What's your take?

Speaking of roles: We want to thank Kevin Eikenberry and Best Leadership Blogs of 2009 for nominating All Things Workplace. You can vote at the link and check out the lineup of terrific leadership blogs in the action this year.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership Expectations and Self-Trust

Does the attention given to "leadership crises" and "talent wars" ever make you pause and wonder: "Why do we wring our hands about this day after day?"

Note: I believe good leadership is important and necessary. But if business people are problem-solvers and we're still proclaiming leadership and talent big problems, then what's up?

Here are some thoughts:

Skewed Expectations

1. The issue isn't always whether someone is actually exercising leadership. The issue is often "this is what I think a leader ought to be and (s)he isn't that way." (I don't feel warm and fuzzy all the time and I'm supposed to feel warm and fuzzy all the time. It's the leader's job to determine that I feel good).

2. Sound-bite/Star Search leadership. The Leader-as-Celebrity syndrome takes a pop-culture approach to who is good and who isn't. "Our CEO doesn't have the stage presence and media following that ____ _____has." No. Your CEO quietly and without fanfare helps create profits and jobs and then goes home and spends time with the family.

3. The Business Book leader. We want our leaders to be the kind that best-selling authors say they should be. OK, let's see where this leads us:

Let's say you aren't feeling like a natural leader. No problem. "Unnatural Leadership: Going Against Intuition and Experience to Develop Ten New Leadership Instincts" will help you grow unnaturally. Solves  the problem.

"Leadership Secrets of Jesus" might surprise some, not the least of which would be Jesus. He would no doubt be a ticked off at Paul and those prolific disciples who already published his secrets under the mundane marketing moniker, New Testament.

OK, so you aren't especially filled with grace today. No problem, you can still be a leader. Everyone loves Abe, so how about "Lincoln on Leadership: Executive Strategies for Tough Times". This will be especially helpful if you happen to be president during a civil war and the best general already signed up for the other side.

What to Do?

If you want to know your leadership capabilities get out there and lead something. Anything. A civic group, little league team, or sailboat club. Maybe you're in a leader's role at work now. Great. With regularity and sincerity ask people, "How is this going?" (If you ask, "How am I doing?", the more bashful folks may shy away from a direct answer).

Then, listen and ask more questions about what's working well and what needs to improve. When you hear an item mentioned multiple times it's probably worth acting upon. 

The payoff: You'll start doing the things and working with the people who need to come together to make your group or business effective. You'll be leading.

As for the books, look for the consistent underlying principles that never change--regardless of time. One of them is this: If you only read you'll never lead.

How did you learn to trust your ability to ride a bicycle? You tried it, fell off, got back on, and rode until it became a habit. 

Get out in front of something you care about.  Stay focused on how that's going.  Don't worry for a second about whether or not Abe would have done it that way. He had a different project. The people around you and the results that emerge will be the sources  to measure success.

Why not hop on your leadercycle today?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Managers Guide Passion

Talking about "passion", especially in the workplace, can create passionate debate.

No one is against the idea of being passionate about one's work. But Managing Leadership's Jim Stroup has this thought:

Passion for work is generated by the value of that work - not by a mindless "passion" gene or character trait. As a result, the responsibility for generating passion should be placed back where it belongs - on managers, or even on directors and owners, not employees.

Managing Passion Creates Engaged People

Although passion may be an individual  experience, in the workplace it's the manager who is the perpetrator of passion.

Matching the right tasks with the right people breeds the kind of productive experience that offer satisfaction as a result of accomplishment. That kind of matching means that managers have to know their people well enough to know what their individual talents are--then use them accordingly. This does at least four things (you may want to add more):

1. It offers the opportunity for the company to benefit from the strengths that it supposedly hired.

2. It shows the employees that their talents are, indeed, recognized, and that they (the employees) aren't just "human" resources.

3. It shows the employees that their managers know "who they are and what they are all about."

4. It offers a genuine chance at a reality of "excellence" rather than "excellence" as a buzzword.

Maybe we should start referring to this as "managing passion": understanding the best of what people bring to the job and  managing  more deliberately  to help people become productive in satisfying ways.

Note: Look, there are tasks that all of us have to do, regardless of the work we've chosen. We not only aren't passionate about them, we don't like them. It's part of life and being an adult. Managers aren't there to "make people happy." Happiness is a personal choice. But managers get paid to produce excellent results. They can't achieve that goal without bringing about excellence in their people. And I don't think I've ever heard anyone express disappointment at the opportunity to excel.

Management Engagement

That's what has to happen to make all of this a reality: management engagement. Employee engagement implies that there are vast numbers of workers malingering on the job--and we have to "get them engaged."

I would suggest that there are vast numbers of managers who don't know their people well enough to orchestrate work in ways that lift people's desire to engage. There are too many mismatches going on out there.

It ends up being, in great part, a relational issue.

Managing is not an easy job to do well. But it's impossible if a manager doesn't take the time to build relationships that allow insight into individuals' strengths and desires when they show up for work.

The employment agreement is a contract: We, the organization, need to accomplish this; and we're hiring you, the employee (regardless of level), because you bring this to the organization

The manager's job is to orchestrate all of the "this".

I like the idea of Managing Passion.

Photo source: roberts-playground

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

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.

How To Help Yourself and Others Learn

What else are you learning about today?

It's easy to fall into the trap of focusing on our professional specialty. We feel pressed for time and, perhaps, default to the topic that's related to our immediate job. But is that the best way to get better at it? And, is it even desirable?

Dr. Ellen Weber at Brain Leaders and Learners has shown evidence that brains are not made for repetition. Ellen points out  "... that the brain is not wired to do the same things in the same way. Your brain is not even the same at the end of the day and it changes daily."

More and more, job candidates are asking potential employers, "What will I learn here?" If they don't like the answer they may keep on searching. For leaders, managers, and heads of projects, helping people learn is a critical contribution to both individual and organizational success.

How can you impact learning in your organization? Here are four areas to consider:

Four Effects of Learning

Effect on Curiosity: For every action there's a reaction. When we say or do something, people want time to react to it, talk about it, and understand what it means to them.

Practical Application: Allow time for questions and answers. The give-and-take after you speak is where people actually learn and where they begin to develop an affinity for, and commitment to, the topic. Even if you're an expert, the learning takes place as a result of people wrestling with the information or idea rather than being the recipients of a data dump--no matter how eloquent you may be.

Effect on self confidence: How you deliver and discuss the information impacts how people feel about learning it. People with position power--managers, supervisors, team leaders--all have the ability to build confidence in the learners or create a defensive atmosphere.

Practical Application: Tell the group at the outset that you value their questions and that you hope they'll jump in when they experience an "Aha!" or a "Help me, I don't get it." When someone asks a question, throw it back out to the group to give someone else a chance to form an answer that may be framed in a way different than your own. Thank people whenever they ask a question or offer an answer.

 Effect on motivation: Even as youngsters, we knew who the teachers were who made learning exciting, interesting, and engaging. Why not be the "managerial version" of your best teacher. And remember this: Managers Are The Mediators of Motivation.

Practical Application: Take some time to develop questions and break people into groups to address them; if you're talking about a new marketing approach, give people a block of time to do a concept and present it to the group. You know the content. The time you spend designing the right approach will pay off in engaged learners and, ultimately, effective learning.

Effect on Creativity: Unless you're involved in safety procedures, accounting rules, or a regulatory issue, people want to be able to offer their own "variation on a theme." One of the reasons to bring people together is to capitalize on the collective creativity and varying viewpoints in the room.

Practical Application: Give people latitude to take the discussion in directions that you never thought of. Remember, you're in charge--but to try to be in control will shut down the kind of learning that the group--and you--have an opportunity to experience.

Bonus: When the noise level goes up and people start debating, discussing, and delving into the topic, you've been successful. Let it go until the energy begins to die down. Then, capture the points that they were making with their co-workers and discuss next steps. When learners sit passively, you may feel more relaxed because you feel in control not having to respond to questions or manage the group. What it may really mean is that they aren't engaged, aren't learning, and are waiting "until the bell rings" so they can go back to their workspace.

But that's not all!

Here are some people whose topics and approach will have you looking at your own work from a different perspective:

Valeria Maltoni, the Conversation Agent.

Mr.Creativity Mark McGuinness at Lateral Action.

Contrarian Consulting's Alan Weiss.

Master of design Garr Reynolds and his Presentation Zen.

Drew McLellan at Drew's Marketing Minute.

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.

Best of Leadership Blogs 2009

I'm honored that All Things Workplace is nominated for the third annual Best of Leadership Blogs 2009 competition, hosted by Kevin Eikenberry at Remarkable Leadership.

Voting will take place throughout July  with the winner being announced on Monday, August 3rd.

I've been a reader of most of these blogs, either occasionally or as a subscriber. This offers a good excuse for students and practitioners of leadership to see what--and how--different people approach the topic.

The Ten Finalists

Leading Blog by Michael McKinney

Great Leadership by Dan McCarthy

Seth Godin’s Blog by Seth Godin

Jon Gordon’s Blog by Jon Gordon

Leadership is a Verb by John Bishop

All Things Workplace by Steve Roesler

Work Matters by Bob Sutton

Leader Talk by Mountain State University

Next Level Blog by Scott Eblin

Leadership At Work by John Baldoni

And now that it's kicked off, you can vote here.

For more, here's Kevin Eikenberry:

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.

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 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.

How Do You Spot an Emerging Leader?

You've seen this happen:

1. Totally random people are placed in a group.

2. They are given a task.

3. Lo and behold, a leader will emerge.

At work it may result in the acquisition of an Ocean Liner factory in Nebraska; if it's Aunt Ethel and your family, you end up eating at the Amish Country Buffet instead of Casa del Gnocchi.

What is it that prompts people to grant a person leader status?

 Research and Emerging Leadership

A study published in Personality and Social Psychology suggests that leaders emerge through a combination of:

a. Their own outspoken behavior, and

b. how that outspoken behavior is perceived by the others.

Anderson and Kilduff (2009)  looked at how dominant individuals in a group were perceived by others in the group. Perceived competence is important because it's difficult to become a leader if everyone in the group thinks that person is a jerk regardless of how dominant (s)he is.

Here's the punchline: Anderson and Kilduff's research shows a big gap between the actual competence of leaders vs. how they are perceived by the others.

In the second of two studies the researchers had participants compete with another group on a series of math problems. The groups were videotaped. Then, member behavior was closely examined. Dominant participants were inclined to offer more suggestions to the group. The result? These people were perceived by the group and the observers  as the most competent.

Here is some very practical food for thought: The "leader's"  behavior encouraged others to see that person as competent even though their suggestions to the group were no better and sometimes worse than others. So the truth of the matter is that the leaders didn't always contribute the best but their voices were usually heard first and most often.

What to Take Away

Leaders emerge through processes that are somewhat more subtle than we realize. Rather than dominating others in the traditional sense of the word, emerging leaders show their "competence" by adding greater amounts of verbal contributions to discussions. Others assume that the greater contribution means the group will more likely succeed under that person's leadership.

The next time you are part of an unstructured group, be vigilant. (Or, if you want to be the leader, be talkative!).

Note: This is about emerging leadership in random or unstructured groups. It's very real and worth being aware of.

Tip: If you hear a loud, consistent voice that is taking you in a certain direction, start adding structure by asking, "What is our real goal and what criteria do we all have?" Then take time for everyone to weigh in. The same leader may remain, but you'll know the reason why and your decison will be deliberate and purposeful.

In organizations, most groups of people don't start on random terms that produce an emergent leader. But it's useful to understand more about informal, everyday groups that can impact many other aspects of our lives, from community groups to politics.
________________________________________________

Bonus: If you want to know just how crazy "intentional" leadership development can get, then check out Dan McCarthy's "Another Too Dumb To Be True Leadership Development Program." (Maybe yelling louder and longer isn't so bad after all!)

All Things Workplace is honored to be named in the Top 10 Blogs for Advancing Your Career. Sincere thanks to über-coach Marty Nemko and Blogs.com.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leader Development at Mountain State

"The real key to leadership is for leaders to know when to lead and when to follow."

--Dr. Charles Polk, President, Mountain State University

Last week's Are You Really Developing Leaders? highlights the critical ingredient of action and doing in leadership development as stated clearly by current, high-performing managers.

That grabbed the attention of Becky Robinson who writes Mountain State University's Leader Talk, the official blog of their School of Leadership and Professional Development. We began discussing real leader development and the University's quest to continually link the classroom with real life. Two things made me want to go further with this:

1. Becky's enthusiasm and investment in the success of the program.

2. My commitment to working with universities and their students to help build faculty and student leadership and prepare students for organizational life.

A Glimpse into Real-Life Leadership Education

Becky shares this:

 As president of a statewide professional organization and a business owner, Robin Holstein was a leader long before she entered the Coonskin Armory in Charleston, WV to begin her Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership from Mountain State University. With more than twenty years of work and life experience between her high school graduation and her first day of class, Robin knew that completing her degree would be challenging. Still, the intensity of the eighteen month program surprised her.

 

Robin joined a blended cohort of Air Guardsmen, and graduated as the only woman and only civilian. This cohort has been important resource to her. After completing assignments and reading outside the classroom, the cohort met to discuss a designated topic, guided by a faculty member/facilitator. Each week, their discussion sparked a dynamic interchange between the course material and real life. On topics ranging from leadership principles to human resources, the group used personal examples to relate their opinions and ideas.

 

One benefit of the cohort experience, Robin shared, is that it mirrors a real life boardroom experience.  She had to learn to work with a diverse group of people, to relate to their ideas and opinions. Emotions flared when people polarized on topics at times. At each classroom  she practiced negotiation and persuasion and learned to communicate well.

 

When the organization she led faced declining membership and scarce budgetary resources, Robin turned to her cohort for encouragement. She had a plan, but wanted support. She initiated a merger with an organization from a nearby state. As a result, the members of her organization have new opportunities for networking and training.

  

Robin's experience is a great example of what is happening in Mountain State's leadership programs. At each of our campuses and online, students in cohort groups join together to learn leadership skills in an interactive way that prepares them to make a difference in their organizations.

 

Since I started writing LeaderTalk, I've been captured by the vision of our faculty, the enthusiasm of our students, and the potential of the future.

 

Mountain State has been teaching leadership for several years, under the School of Business and Technology. About three years ago, Bill White, the founding Dean of the School of Leadership and Professional Development, realized his goal to establish a separate school to focus on leadership development and leadership studies. The school has seen incredible growth, and he is forging ahead toward other goals:

• to see leadership recognized as a discrete academic discipline
• to create a premier center for leadership learning
• to establish consistent outcomes for leadership learning across the country.

 

We are excited about the development of our new doctoral program. In October, the first set of students will begin this three year program. Though the first set of students will study in seat at our main campus in Beckley, West Virginia, a second group will begin the program in February 2010 in a hybrid program that will include a combination of in seat study and four days per year of study in residence. Both groups will be working toward a Doctor of Executive Leadership degree.

 

The doctorate joins our Master of Science in Strategic Leadership and our Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership offerings. All three degrees are designed around a three fold purpose. We are developing stewards of the discipline of leadership who will

• conserve leadership knowledge
• generate new knowledge about leadership
• and transfer leadership knowledge to others.

 

All three degrees are intensely practical and are built around a cohort format that encourages students to immediately apply their learning to real life situations.
_______________________________________

Steve's note: In my own telephone discussion with Dr. Polk, he said something that cuts through the long running pop-psych, re-hashed "leadership" advice and offered this:

"To understand leadership you have to take time to observe your own behavior in different situations. There's no understanding 'others' until you get an accurate picture of how your own behavior impacts theirs. That's what we want to be sure happens in our programs."

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership: The Art of Being Brief

I've never heard anyone complain about a meeting or presentation that was too short, have you?

My friend, Marty, and I were just discussing a surgical procedure. He may have to have the same one that I experienced a few years ago. Marty is a very intelligent, thoughtful guy who asks the right kinds of questions. But his most animated question was: "How long does it take?!"

I laughed, given that the Doc could probably make it last for about a week and a half depending upon the anesthesiologist's mood and sense of humor. 

But the real answer was '45 minutes'.

He looked relieved. And it occurred to me: I had actually asked my doctor the same question. Even though we know we'll be sound asleep we seem to have a sense of, and concern for, time.

 So…have you filtered your meeting-thinking or presentation prep the same way? Could you say and accomplish more with less?

The Leader's Guide to Slide Surgery

1. Do I need so many slides? (You don't).

2. Do I need every slide in this section? (Probably not).

3. Do I need this slide? ( I don't know, but you should be sure).

4. What can I say with fewer words? (You'll feel the love).

Your group will appreciate the brevity. This reflects preparation on your part that translates into respect for them. You'll also create the kind of "meeting white space" that generates the real discussion needed to make something happen.

What will you eliminate?

Bonus Leadership Reading: Check out how you view leaders and the notion of "institutionalizing them" at Managing Leadership. Jim Stroup will give you something to ponder.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Better Meetings, Better Leadership

You and I are looking for ways to be more efficient at what we do. People are looking for leadership that helps them be the best at what they do.

Meetings offer one of the best opportunities to display--and evaluate--leadership.

Getting together makes a lot of sense in a world that values teamwork more and more. When groups operate well, we leave those meetings with energy and a desire to move forward.  Inefficient meetings? we dribble out as if drained  of our life-blood and dreading the next meeting.

Both are indicators of leadership.

Since solid leadership is a big deal, this post is a bit longer than usual.

Change your Meetings, Boost your Leadership

1. This sounds simple but the best question you can spend time answering is: Does this really require a meeting? Often the answer is "no" and that decision will make a lot of people very, very happy.

2. The second question is: Who really has to be there? I can't tell you the number of meetings I've helped set up and then had to ask the client, "Why is Ralph invited?" The answers range from, "I think he'd be offended if I didn't include him" to "Ralph is on our distribution list". If I went and talked with one of the Ralphs of the world, they would more often than not scream, "I wish (s)he'd stop wasting my time with those stinking meetings!"

Who are your Ralphs? Nuke 'em. Everyone will be happy and more productive.

3. What's the real purpose of the meeting? Will there be a decision required at the end, is it educational, or do you want to discuss and refine the elements of a project? If you know your purpose--and tell everyone in advance so they can prepare accordingly--your leadership aura will glow a lot brighter.

A Solid Model to Follow

When I started out back in the early 1970s, Tannenbaum and Schmidt  developed a leadership decision-making model I found helpful in organizing meeting agendas. They cited seven modes of leadership; I've narrowed it to five for simplicity.

They noted that all meetings include two components:  participation by the members and authority of the leaders.  Before each meeting the leader has to decide how much participation and authority he or she desires.  In other words, the leader decides what to communicate and how to best communicate in a meeting environment. 

1.  The Tell Mode:  Let’s say you have a new policy to communicate and no one can change the policy.  You simply want all members to hear about the policy at once in order to create the most understanding.  According to the T&S Model you desire the most authority and no participation from the group.  In some cases when the Tell Mode is in play, you’d opt to send an email or other written communication in lieu of a meeting.

2.  The Sell Mode.  Let’s continue the example above with the same policy you wish to communicate.  This time, however, you want the group members to buy into the new policy.  Even though you cannot change the policy, you want to ”sell” the members on aspects of the policy.  Instead of just telling them, as in the Tell Mode, you are selling them.

3.  The Test Mode.  In this case, unlike the previous two examples, there is an ever so slight chance the policy can change.  You toss the policy out for input as a test.  If the group totally rebels, you can change the policy.  This is the first instance along the continuum where there exists a possibility for a change in the decision.  As a meeting manager you must ask ahead of time, can this decision be changed?  If the answer is maybe, you are at least in the Test Mode.  If the answer is no, you must either be in the Tell or Sell mode.

4.  The Consult Mode.  We have now moved down the continuum of participation in which there exists more participation from the members than authority from the leaders.  In other words in the Consult Mode, the leader gives up a lot of authority to encourage group participation.  Why?  This time the leader desires to hear from the group members as consultants to the decision.  This is the first instance in the model where the leader has not yet made a decision.  The members share ideas and suggestions, but the end decision lies with the leader.  The leader keeps the final authority and the group knows that.  If you, as the leader, go into the meeting with a decision firmly made, you are not in the Consult Mode.  You must either be in the Tell, Sell or Test Mode.  A Consult Mode leader spends a lot of time in the meeting listening.

5.  The Join Mode.  The final stage along the continuum is the polar opposite of the Tell Mode.  In the Tell Mode participation was zero and authority was highest.  In the Join Mode participation is highest and authority is zero.  The leader gives up all authority and joins the group to make the decision together.   These are the most unruly meetings.  When members know they are in the Join Mode, however, these meetings can also turn into the most rewarding experiences.

For meetings to operate effectively, leaders must decide before the meeting which mode suits their communication needs.  Tell, Sell and Test Mode meetings take less time than Consult and Join meetings.  It's easy to see where leaders often make mistakes.  They  enter meetings in the Tell or Sell Mode but sort of pretend they are in the Consult or Join mode. As a result, the group wastes a lot of time talking about things that go nowhere.

You can bump up your leadership presence by simply changing the value and impact of your meetings.

Wouldn't your next meeting be the perfect time to start?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What Do Managers Want from HR?

When Conventional HR Wisdom Isn't

You're in HR. You want respect. You want respect from all levels of management.

You want (gulp, argh): " A seat at the table!"

If so, first do some of the grocery shopping, set the table, help cook the meal, and wash the dishes. I think  you'll find a place card with your name on it--written in permanent ink.

But here's my cheesy rhetorical question of the day: Is that the message HR people are hearing from the profession?

• Strategizing For HR from HR Magazine

• Sibson Consulting's in-depth How HR Leaders Are Getting And Keeping A Seat At The Table.

This isn't a rant about HR. I've been part of an HR department at a major corporation and work alongside  HR execs all the time.

What it is: A response to a real-life CEO's recently-expressed concern that HR needed to be more involved in helping managers and employees implement changes. His hope is for HR to use OD, employee communication, and behavioral expertise to be part of day-to-day  execution.

He's not worried about the strategy. He wants everyone focused on making it happen.

Is Strategy Just More Fun Than Implementing?

Have a look at the Google search results for a few variations of strategy vs. implementation:

When it comes to "change", strategy has the edge over implementation.

When it comes to HR, strategy shows up nearly 8 times more than implementation.

What Managers Say They Want from HR

A while back, Nick Burkholder wrote for HR Leaders about the issue. He asked 30 line managers in different industries throughout the U.S. what they really thought of HR. There were positive comments in the feedback. For his (and our) purposes, here is a partial shopping list of the managers' remarks:

• Don't say you want to be a partner, be one. Real partners don't just say it, they do it. No one cares what HR wants. I don't care what anyone wants except my customers. Stop obsessing about a seat at the table. Prove your value and when you should have one you will.

• Have some understanding of what I do. Every person is different and so is every business unit. Take the time to know what is different about us, how we work.

• Walk with me. Periodically be with me as I face the routine, don't just be there for the celebrations and troubles.

• Help me to do the right thing. I want to do the right thing, work with me so I can understand. Help me to help my people and very importantly, my management to understand.

• Be proactive. I value the HR perspective but all too often it is hindsight offered in the midst of dealing with a problem that probably could have been avoided. Think ahead, sit with me and plan ahead.

• Explain, don't tell. I don't want my employees to do what I tell them, I want them to do what they understand. HR should be the same way. "HR" is preachier than "Personnel" was.

• Help me to accomplish my objectives. Review them with me and tell me how HR may be able to help. I'm confident HR could be a big help with what really matters to my job and career. Everything else is at best secondary to me.

• You don't have to come to all my meetings. There seems to be two types of HR professionals. Those that attend all my staff meetings and those that are rarely if ever seen. Come if and when it will be of value -- to both of us -- otherwise don't. You must have something more important to do.

• Admit when you make mistakes. In my experience HR has a tendency to be the master of obfuscation -- such that I can only assume they're ducking responsibly. The rest of the business world knows it makes mistakes and is better at fessing up.

• Give me a chance to address differences before going around me. You have to give supervisors the chance to address issues with staff or management before blowing a whistle on them. Most of us learned this when we first started working and I really resent it when the HR police get involved.

The Lesson

Managers are looking for help in a lot of different ways. They want applied expertise, not philosophical advice. Strategy doesn't seem to be a burning, or even smoldering, issue.

Here's a related, personal aside.

My consulting practice has proven to be a parallel experience. Clients want a particular expertise and experience. They are willing to have a deep discussion about the situation at hand. Once the discussion is over, I'm expected to do something or help others do something. Without the action there's just no value.

When former U.S. President Harry Truman was asked if he had a rule of thumb for success, his response was Trumanesquely brief and poignant:

                "Find out what people want and then help them get it."

The conversation is open to Managers, HR, and employees: What do you think would be most helpful to HR folks when it comes to increasing credibility, effectiveness, and organizational influence?

_____________________________

If you haven't visited them yet, be sure to learn even more about HR, Talent and Management via Fistful of Talent, Rowan Manahan's Fortify Your Oasis, and Dan McCarthy's Great Leadership (especially Great Leadership Updates. How to actually manage is the purview of experienced management authority Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership and Lisa Haneberg of Management Craft.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Speaker Tip: Take A Pause for The Cause

"Logical pauses serve our brains, psychological pauses serve our feelings."--Stanislavski

Watch a really good stand-up comedian. You see pauses between jokes. Sometimes even a pause between syllables.

Sometimes they do it to allow the audience a chance to catch a breath or to create interest about what's coming next.

Why?

Because good comedians are masters of change.

Night after night they move a new group of people from one intellectual and psychological state of being to another.They knew the flow of human dynamics.

The Importance of The Pause

Psychological pauses build tension and heighten curiosity.

Logical pauses between words and sentences give an audience the time needed to piece together the key elements of the joke or series of rapid one-liners. When it all comes together, you've got a room filled with laughter.

Make "The Pause" an intentional part of your presentation, meeting, or change initiative.

Psychological: When you pause to create a "curious" state of mind, the tension makes people want to listen. That gives you the opening to help them learn.

Logical: Change initiatives mean new information and new experiences. Periodic, intentional pauses allow everyone time to make sense of what's happening and create new context.

Where can you insert intentional pauses in order to become a really good "Stand-Up" leader and speaker?

photo source: Wikipedia

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

5 Tips For Making Changes and Transitions

Decisions get made. It's time to start.

The Goal is clear. There is a picture of what the end should look like.

Now we just have to "do it."

Some don't make it...

.. .individually or organizationally.

Given that there are entire industries built around "doing it"--continuous improvement, change management, life coaching-- there must be some trick to that whole in between area. If you are involved in any kind of a change, here are 5 tips that you can take to the bank. (Ignoring them may put you in the collection agency).

1. Language matters.

"We're going to make a transition from___to____" impacts the brain a lot better than "We're going to change."

(Honestly, I don't want to change--do you? But I don't have any problem making a transition).

2. Friendships matter.

Be willing to talk and be willing to listen. When things change at home or in your family, you have coffee and conversation with friends. Why? It's cathartic. And you don't feel alone. Changes at work are no different.

3. Grace matters.

Transitions and change imply, by definition, that people are trying something for the first time. When your little child tried out her first steps and fell after the third one, you didn't offer a performance appraisal. You hugged her, made a big fuss, took a video, and called the grandparents.

Offer the same to adults who are trying something for the first time. Truth be told, they are feeling like kids at that moment.

Note: I'd avoid the hug and the video; it's your call on whether to phone the grandparents.

4. Accountability matters.

This isn't opposed to numbers 2 or 3. Accountability is an act of deep friendship. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. They also don't let friends do things--or avoid doing things--that are hurting their careers.

5. Small wins matter.

Make an example of anyone or any result that approximates the longer term ideal. Do it often.

If you wait until everyone gets it perfect, there won't be a celebration. There may not be a reason for it.

That's why continuous improvement is called continuous improvement.

What Are Your Best Tips?

I know the readers here are involved in changes of all types. Help someone else today with your favorite transitional tips and suggestions and we'll add them to the mix! (With attribution, of course. See #5).

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.