Your Workplace: How Does Culture Impact Perception?

Clear-thinking people everywhere acknowledge that it's easy for two people to see the same situation very differently.

In a world where we increasingly work across time zones and cultures, this would have even greater meaning if perceptions were influenced by one's culture. While those of us who work globally may have experienced--and thought about-- the inherent reality of these perceptive differences, Canadian and Japanese researchers  have confirmed some very specific distinctions.

When East Doesn't Meet West

According to the study:

Researchers showed Japanese and North American participants images, each of which consisted of one center model and four background models in each image. The researchers manipulated the facial emotion (happy, angry, sad) in the center or background models and asked the participants to determine the dominant emotion of the center figure.

The outcome?

The majority of Japanese participants (72%) reported that their judgments of the center person's emotions were influenced by the emotions of the background figures, while most North Americans (also 72%) reported they were not influenced by the background figures at all.

Takahiko Masuda, a Psychology professor from the University of Alberta, noted:

"Our results demonstrate that when North Americans are trying to figure out how a person is feeling, they selectively focus on that particular person's facial expression, whereas Japanese consider the emotions of the other people in the situation."

This may be because Japanese attention is not concentrated on the individual, but includes everyone in the group, says Masuda.

Why Is This Important for Business?

1. It has always baffled me when I've watched Western corporations decide to indiscriminately import programs and processes that  work well in the East. Looking for a "quick fix" or a "magic pill" is a very North American business characteristic. At the same time, there is no reason not to examine the principles behind things that work elsewhere; then, figure out what might be applicable and how to make it work,

When corporate meeting rooms ring with the cry, "Perception is reality," then Masuda's study should be a caution that global reality can't be driven by local perceptions.

2. Even more specifically, definitions of "team" hugely influence what happens across cultures. North American "teams" are made up of individuals who see themselves as individuals participating in a group with a common purpose for some finite period of time (my observation and experience). Eastern team members honor the group as the important entity to be served, not as a vehicle to one's individual career aspirations.

While time and exposure have somewhat altered instances of the above in the minds of some, Masuda's study should be taken seriously by organizations involved in East-West business and collaboration.

This is one instance where perception can be grounded in reality--for the good of all concerned.

 

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Help and Helping, Self-Absorption and Self-Awareness?

Giving and getting help--at work and elsewhere--has prompted some more deep thinking on the part of some good thinkers.

Author, Consultant, and Blogger Jim Stroup chimes in:

"This is a great topic, with a lot to think about. It seems to me though that if we become too inwardly focused about it, obsessed with what it says about us, it will wind up saying things that are not particularly flattering.

I think the best way to avoid that sort of self-absorption is to focus on the work, and ask what one's request for or offer of help would do to advance it. Perspective is important, too. Peter's story points to this: we sometimes want to be wanted, to be viewed as the heroic helper everyone hopes will arrive just in time to save them. But instead we just overwhelm ourselves and cripple their self-development. That's a lesson that needs to be learned from both sides - when we feel prompted to offer - or to ask for - help.

So, it's a tough one for both the manager and the managed. . ."

It is a tough one in great part because it's about relationships. Jim suggests focusing on the issue and how the issue can be advanced through a specific kind of help. Sounds right to me.

But when a seemingly innocent "helping" conversation starts to get uncomfortable, maybe the issue of self-absorption has crept in. You start to hear a little voice in your head saying: "I know we're talking about 'help' but I don't have any sense of mutuality or equality. Something's just not quite right."

Listen to Language: You'll See What's Going On

Part of my professional practice involves being called in to quietly intervene in conflicts between executives. These aren't serial killers; these are people who have somehow locked horns and have begun to enjoy the war more than the peace. What has been most consistently fascinating in these situations is this:

1. The executives in conflict are almost always committed to the organization's specific goals and what is best for the organization.

2. They've both agreed that they need help and have agreed to get help.

3. They are well aware that once the conversation starts, it will probably hit a point where it gets ugly before it gets pretty.

Derek and Phil (not their real names) were, respectively, Corporate CFO and Business Group President of a global company. Phil believed that a large capital investment for a new facility in Asia would lay the groundwork for a significant increase in profitable business. Derek's numbers--and some first-hand experience--caused him to take a negative stand on the idea. Both were experienced, successful, and strong-willed. Both were doing what they thought was best for the company.

By the time we got into the meeting room together, there was a flurry of accusations and name-calling.

After setting the ground rules, I let them enjoy their verbal jousting and justifications for a while. These included expressions of surprise on each man's part that the other didn't see the "help" being provided.

The breakthrough: While listening to them, it began to dawn on me that every one of Derek's sentences began with "I" ; Phil's were about "Asia."

Derek was self-absorbed, Phil appeared issue-absorbed, neither was self-aware in a healthy way.

So that turned out to be the "intervention." I tracked how many times Derek said "I" in a certain period of time and played it back, along with the implications. While Phil seemed to be focused on the issue--Asia--it was about his view of the issue.

Fast forward: We got to a civil working agreement--it did get ugly --both left feeling as if their positions had been heard--neither could figure out, in the moment, what had actually happened.

The bad news: The company followed Phil's recommendation and lost a ton of money.

The amazing news: Derek and Phil now regularly vacation together with their families.

The crazy human part: In hindsight, Derek simply wanted to be right. He was proven right.
Phil simply wanted to get the Asia start-up started up. He did, and apparently had fun playing with it while it lasted. (Yeah, hold off on the comments about what that meant to the shareholders).

The take away for helpers, consultants, and coaches: Listen for the language and watch for the intensity of engagement regarding one's "issue." It may not be about the issue at all--it may be just as self-absorbed as the "I" posture.

What I learned and continue to use:

1. When the language signals self-absorption, I say just that to the individual(s). Then I introduce the distinction between self-absorption, self-awareness, and ask them what they want to pursue from that moment on. (Most get the answer right:-) 

2. Success, when it comes to "helping" in issues of deep conflict, is measured by mutual, peaceful agreement on a working relationship that is healthy-er.

3. Even after a conflict is minimized and people are able to move on, the organization still may not get the very best decisions from the parties involved. Why? Because those decision processes are separate from the conflict resolution itself. (Note: the ability to ever arrive at the best decision may have been hindered as a result of data-gathering/sharing being inhibited during the time of conflict).

4. Helping with conflict means getting the parties un-stuck and able to function on their own. If you find yourself being drawn back for more than two, maybe three, meetings, you are doing long-term therapy and not effective helping. A consultant/coach's job is to make people independent at a given task. Any consultant or coach who is enjoying being needed at the same thing for the long term may want to do a self-absorption check.

What's your experience with helping, conflict, self-awareness, and self-absorption? What else have you seen or done that's genuinely helpful?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Do You Have the Strength to Ask for Help?

Employee engagement, management engagement, leadership, passion in the workplace. . .

These rallying cries fill books, blogs, and backroom banter. The real issue: "How can we get done what needs to get done and create a sense of "we're in this together" at the same time?

It's actually quite simple:

To Get Something Done, Ask for Help

There is nothing that sparks the human spirit--and thus adds meaning to a task--than the satisfaction of providing help to someone who needs it.

Yet my experience--at least in many western cultures--is that it is somehow viewed as  "weak" to ask for help. After all, if I'm a guy who gets things done, I don't want people to think that I can't get things done.

I know you already see the fallacy in this. Most textbook definitions of management include some version of: "Management--getting things done through others."

Hmm. As a manager that means, by definition, I need your help.

What Actually Happens Vs. The Simplicity of Help

See if this isn't a little closer to the norm:

Manager: "Andrew, our sales goals are up by 8%. You supervise the customer service reps. You need to be able to support that. Make it happen."

Now, that 's not too bad a directive at all in the grand scheme of things. (For those who only respond to warm and fuzzy, it's probably not). It's fairly specific, understandable, and has an action attached. However, we've got an entire generation of management research that everyone has been exposed to through workshops and reading. The essence of that research is that people want to be respected, involved in solutions, and have a sense of meaning in what they do.

So, I suggest:

Manager: Andrew, our sales goals are up by 8%. I need help. (Shut up).

Note to managers: Really, you do need help. You're getting paid to make the 8% happen--through other people.

Andrew: How can I help?

Honestly, if the manager & Andrew have a decent relationship, "helping" is about as meaningful as life can get at that moment.

Manager: You supervise the customer service reps. We need to be able to support that 8% bump. How would you go about doing that with your people?

• Statement one: Places next level of responsibility where it belongs.

• Statement two: Specifies the  issue.

• Statement  three:  Involvement and  more meaning.

    (In the event that Andrew struggles a bit, this is the "teachable moment" for management coaching).

What will you do?

What someone does for a living is part of the working agreement. How they do it is why they--as individuals--were (hopefully) hired in the first place. When you allow someone to exercise the personal how, you have created the intersection of individual meaning and engagement .

Are you strong enough to ask for help today?

Special thanks to Adrian at Slow Leadership for sparking today's thoughts.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Where Will Your Talent, Passion and Purpose Blossom?

Thanks to a reminder from Dean Fuhrman, I'm adding an over-arching element that's in the Natural Talents slideshow but was left out of yesterday's graphic:

"What's the best match for you, organizationally?

Dean is a super-experienced executive and quickly logged in with this:

"I was wondering as I looked at this material. . . if there need be any thought of what environment one places one's talent, passion, and purpose? You know you could have a ton of those three, in just the right mix, and in the wrong environment it could be a disaster. A fish on land to mix metaphors."

If you are a fish who has ever been in an atmosphere that made your gills work overtime, you know what he means.

In what kind of organization will your talents, passion, purpose, and personality best fit?

I've found that a helpful way to move toward a good match is to think of organizations as types, or clusters of organizations. Think about these labels:

• Business: employee, self-employed, entrepreneur
• Government
• Ministry/Faith/Religious
• Non-Profit
• Military

When working with people on their "talent" search, I watch them start by immediately eliminating what is an obvious cultural mis-match for them. You'll probably do the same. After you narrow down your organizational choices, take some time to research specific  organizations in those clusters. Talk with employees and friends to find out "what it's like" there.

Years ago a friend of mine had a huge poster on the living room wall that said, "Bloom where you are planted."

My advice: "Plant yourself where you will bloom."

If you are at a place where you--or your organization--is seeking a structured approach to integrating Talent, Passion, and Purpose, call me at +856.275.4002 and we can discuss application of the process to your situation. If you need to leave a voicemail I will return your phone call within one hour.

What are your experiences with organizational matches and mismatches? What are all of the ways that that factor comes into play?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent, Passion, and Purpose: A Visual

How do you view Talent, Passion, and Purpose?

Maybe you haven't consciously thought of the three together. But when both Peter Vajda  and Bill Peel quickly added to the discussion, it was obvious that other experienced folks also believe that the three really can't be separated. Here's Bill's comment in toto:

Here how I see it. Talent (giftedness) tells me what kind of ammunition I have in my gun--what I am or can be good at. Passion on the other hand is emotional energy focused on something. You are not just passionate in general; you are passionate ABOUT something. So my passion helps me identify the target or where I need to aim my ammunition. That's how I see these working together. Taken alone, being passionate about something doesn't identify my best contribution to that arena. On the other hand, knowing WHAT I am good at doesn't tell me WHERE I should seek to invest my talent. Taken together they guide me to the contribution I was placed on planet earth to make.

So I thought I'd give a shot at a simple graphic representation of Bill's words.

If you are keen on delving more into aligning Talent, Passion, and Purpose, you might want to check out a Natural Talents slideshow  that I uploaded to YouTube.

I hope that you will use the deeper thoughts behind these illustrations to guide your own thinking about work and its meaning for you.

Let the conversation begin. . .

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Try Talent, Passion and Purpose

The Passion discussion started on February 26th as a result of Phil Gerbyshak's "Wow" Factor article (Phil, I hope you've found some of those "Wow" people by now).

Since then, the discussion about passion and work has been passionate.

Why?

I'm sure there are as many individual reasons as there are individuals. These are mine:

1. Passion is, by definition, an emotional word.

2. A significant portion of the population is not wired to inherently associate the words passion and work. That doesn't mean those folks don't care about work, aren't enthusiastic, or don't excel in their chosen fields. It's just that the two words create dissonance when used in the same phrase.

3.  Passion, in and of itself, is usually associated with unbridled, unguided, energy. Not a staple of the business world, nor healthy as the prevailing force in one's life.

4. The notion of a direct cause and effect relationship between passion and an effective worklife is utter, feel-good nonsense. (Intentionally focusing one's passion and enthusiasm within the context of other considerations makes absolute sense).

Thank you. Now I feel better. I was somewhat passionate about #4.

Where Did The Passion-At-Work Thing Start?

I don't know and I couldn't find out, no matter how many hours I spent passionately drinking coffee and Googling. Please send in your cards and letters if you can answer the question.

My hunch is:

• Whoever used it first in a business context evoked a positive response.

• An article was published or a speech was made. Validation!

• The word plays well in cultures that lean toward the idea that if it feels good, it's true.

• Because business people aren't necessarily any smarter or more discerning than others, job candidates in many places are overtly or covertly evaluated based upon perceived passion

• Astute marketers ran with the word and built a movement around it.

It worked. I've been writing about passion for nearly three weeks. P.T. Barnum was right: there is one born every minute. I'm him. Over and over again.

To give you a sense of the scope of the "passion at work" movement, here are the Google results:

Note: Don't Google your name to see how you stack up; you may immediately suffer a deep sense of inadequacy.

Do Not Despair: There is Hope and A Legitimate Place for Passion and Work

Peter Vajda  and Bill Peel both added context to the discussion and an element that had not yet been included: Purpose.

See what happens when you read the definitions and start to create a relationship between them:
(Definitions from Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionaries).

Passion

1. emotion (plural) : the emotions as distinguished from reason b: intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction c: an outbreak of anger
3. ardent affection : love b: a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept

Talent

3: the natural endowment or superior ability of a person

Purpose

1. an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions

What guides your planned actions?

It's actually quite simple to list goal after goal and figure out how to get there. But to reach a place of peacefulness and contentment with work--which is what I believe people are really looking for in all of this--one has to arrive at an overarching sense of purpose in life, as well as reconciling the purpose of life.

Without that as an anchor, talent and passion have no guidance system. You'll spend your energy wondering why you seem out-of-sync and discontented, even with talent and ambition.

Have you thought of the importance of "Purpose" those two ways?

In the next post I'm going to attempt to show Bill's model graphically. I hope to see you here.

Sheet Music Source: www.rtpress.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Getting Passionate About Responsibility for Passion

Relationships are, by definition, a two-way street.

So why would relationships at work between managers and their reports be any different?

They aren't.

Which means that the ongoing discussion about Passion and Work brings us back to a fundamental fact of all healthy relationships: both parties are responsible for success.

Chris Bailey of Bailey WorkPlay offers up an honest assessment of his work life at this moment and how he sees the responsibility for changing it:

Currently, I'm feeling run down by work that increasingly feels like a J-O-B. I'm losing my passion for it. I can actually feel it receding away like the ocean tide. I know what my strengths are and what I love to do...and I feel that I don't have a chance to utilize these in my work with my organization. Now, does my manager read All Things Workplace? Probably not, but yeah, he should. In this case, it's me who needs to take the first step to guide the passion along. More generally, sometimes it's the employee (or the even manager) who needs to bring her or his own manager to the table for this dialogue.

It would be great if all managers got the memo suggesting that they can perpetuate passion. That may not be entirely fair to lay this all at their feet, though. The employee has to be there, too. The employee needs to know what they love, what they want to do, what will connect into their purpose...and they must be willing to share this.

And who knows...maybe the employee might lead the manager to a new understanding of how to connect their passion and purpose to the work they do.

A Good Place to Use Some Passion

Managers don't have easy jobs. They're trying to pay attention to you and everyone else in their group.

Why not get passionate about taking some of the burden from your manager's shoulders and simply start a conversation about what's on your mind?

If you want a good shot at using your talents where you are now, then take the responsibility for making it happen. Nothing warms a manager's heart more than seeing someone who is passionate about responsibility.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Passion, Guided Passion, and Engagement at Work

Nothing like talking about passion to make people passionate!

The comments on How Do You Uncover the "Passion Factor"? raised more than a few thoughtful insights on the topic.

No one is against the idea of being passionate about one's work. But Managing Leadership's Jim Stroup voiced a valid concern with this:

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.

Peter Vajda of SpiritHeart points out the soulful nature of a person's passion, then adds:

"it's more akin to an alchemical reaction that bubbles up from engaging activities. . ."

Guided Passion and Engagement

What we're seeing here is the truth coming to the surface. 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 "guided 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 this.

I like the idea of Guided Passion.

Photo source: roberts-playground

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Shareholder Value, Instant Gratification, and The Meaning of Life

Last week was über-busy on the consulting front so the daily posts didn't flow after Monday.

But being immersed in organizational "stuff" pays off in topical material. And the week didn't disappoint.

Lots of Management, Leadership Missing: Experienced Exec generated a really informative ongoing discussion about focus on shareholder value and the issues surrounding that focus. Check out the running commentary after reading this:-)

Shareholder Value: The definition has changed

Don't get the wrong idea: I'm definitely not advocating that there is something wrong with increasing shareholder value. I am, however, strongly suggesting that how value is created carries implications that are not necessarily consistent with the longer term "good."

Wally Bock weighed in with a comment that frames, perfectly, the crux of the situation. Here it is:

I believe that "shareholder value" has changed its meaning in my lifetime. It used to mean "value for the investor," the person or institution who will buy the stock because the company is well run and, as a result, who expects the stock price to rise in the future.

Today "shareholder value" means "short term shareholder value." That short term perspective has poisoned a lot of things. If you're looking to the long term, you know that your people, their knowledge and their relationships will be your primary driver of competitive advantage. If you're looking only at the next couple of months, you can justify getting rid of good people because the savings in salaries and benefits will fall straight to the bottom line.

Instant Gratification for The Few

If short-term shareholder value is the game, then the number of winners is limited.

Stocks become poker chips and the market becomes a big, round table of "shareholders" who are playing Texas Hold 'Em.  The game lasts until the payoff. Then, off to another table.

Who can win with this scenario? Certainly the shareholders (yes, I know they are still taking a risk; but like poker, it won't last long).

And  who in the organization stands to make a killing? Probably the top 10 or so people who the shareholders  rely on to deal an inside straight. The rest of the employees not only don't get part of the winning pot; they may not even be eligible to sit in and watch the game if things don't go well over the next fiscal quarter.

More Changing Definitions?

If you're reading this, then you're probably reading some wonderful weblogs that discuss employee engagement, careers, talent management, and leadership.

Yet each of those topics carries with it a sense of the longer term, maybe even a lifetime.

How can an organization ask for more "engagement" from employees when the employees know that the company is being managed on a quarterly basis?

Can you really have a career in the traditional sense? Or will life be a series of projects and job changes, many a response to downsizing which may be a response to increased shareholder value?

Give me a break on the War For Talent. Wars are fought to accomplish something over the long run. Be honest. It's really the Skirmish For Talent-As-Long-As-We-Want-To-Keep-It.

Leadership develops as a result of a series of experiences that brings about a mature sense of wisdom and discernment. Are we now seeing more  leadership with a small "l" and a definition that is consistent with Wally's definition of the new Shareholder Value?

The Meaning of Life

I've lived long enough to see business cycles and the economy rise and fall dramatically about a half dozen or so times. But I've not seen the kind of emphasis on short-term gratification that we are seeing now.

Delayed gratification is a sign of maturity. So is making decisions that will benefit--or at least not hurt--the community as a whole. (The opposite indicates selfishness and greed).

Today I spoke with a friend whose company is going into its fourth year of existence. It's goal has been 40% growth/year, which it has achieved. Next year it won't quite make the 40%. My friend is concerned that heads will roll. Really.

In all of this, the issue of Character looms large. The Character of Capitalism, with its promise of hope for the many, is threatened by the Ghost of Gordon Gecko's Greed.

This is a time for business leaders--and future business leaders--to closely examine the foundational meaning of life and their role in it.

To those whom much has been given, much is expected.

And not just for the next quarter.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Lots of Management, Leadership Missing: Experienced Exec

Next week I'm leading a 1 1/2 day conference on Change and Leadership . Today, I had lunch with one of the speakers who I am thankful will be able to participate.

Tony Palazzo is a very experienced director with a high-profile defense contractor whose products can mean the difference between life and death. Tony is also a Naval Academy grad and retired Navy pilot. His life has been filled with many opportunities to lead and to follow. He knows the importance of both.

But he surprised me when, during the conversation, he became passionate about a dichotomy that I've always thought was somewhat of an intellectual exercise:

The dichotomy of management vs. leadership.

His take isn't intellectual navel-gazing; it's a powerful thought grounded in a lifetime of experiences and observation.

Tony says that he sees  a lot of good managers out there--people who effectively run the day-to-day operations of their respective work groups.

He sees the issue as one of leadership. In his mind--and in his experience--leadership is demonstrated when someone stands up and says, "We can do this better. Here's how. Let's go!"

"Isn't that happening every day?" I asked.

"No," he responded emphatically, "and here's one huge reason. When engineering firms were run by engineers, leadership emerged because you could quickly evaluate the individual, the idea, and the opportunity. Manufacturing companies found leadership as operations people found new ways to make things run better. They stood up and said so, and people said 'Yeah, let's roll!'"

"What's changed?" seemed like a natural question.

His take: The gods of Finance are setting the rules for how business will be done. Shareholder value is now the end product. Standing up and taking the lead in your area of discipline is a risk that is not only not rewarded, it may get you into trouble if the "Finance Guy" doesn't like it--or doesn't understand it.

If this is so, it would help us understand a couple of things we see more and more:

1. Talented people leaving large organizations to start their own businesses

2. An ongoing plea for more risk and innovation

So I thought about it while driving home. If a company's sees its primary customers as the investors and not the revenue-generators, only those with the largest stock positions--and those closest to them within the company--are seen as "valuable." That has implications for power, control, and financial rewards.

Is shareholder value just one more fad--or is my thinking on this just plain wrong?

What's your experience been?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: It Comes Down to This Question...

This article is the thirty-eighth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Four Questions and a Conversation brought out some good--and varied--comments about Change.

The single idea of the post was a simple one: Whenever announcing or suggesting something "new", it's a good idea to understand the basic questions that most people need to have answered before they can hop on board.

Yet those questions are just a fact-finding mission on the way to the unspoken one:

What's In It For Me?

If there are 200 or 20,000 employees, there will be 200 or 20,000 individual calculations being made in order to reconcile that question. But nothing of consequence will happen until a critical mass of people have decided that the "new thing" has personal benefits that outweigh the effort to make a change.

Whether it's a small change or a large one, each person involved is  doing the "What's In It For Me?" (WIFFM) calculation.

We've all listened to the "We need to get leaner/increase shareholder value/grow market share" speeches. Most people "get it" when the situation is legitimate and laid out honestly. Yet even the CEO who makes the announcement isn't doing it for shareholder value. The CEO is doing it because (s)he has personal needs to be met: competitiveness, executive lifestyle, reputation...or simply a sense of personal accomplishment. "Shareholder value" is someone else's reason for change.

Why does this matter?

Depending upon the size of the change, people need different amounts of time to do their WIIFM calculation. They also need to hear information more than once, along with the ability to ask questions and discuss implications without being labeled "resistant".

In fact, I've got an idea. Instead of laying on the "resistant" label, how about using "hesitant" instead? That's a word with less baggage and better describes what's really going on.

What do you think about that? Maybe we can get a movement going here.

Note: Special thanks to Bob Cenek for the "WIIFM" suggestion. Bob is back with the popular Cenek Report while in the midst of his own Change projects.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: Four Questions and a Conversation

This article is the thirty-seventh in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Making any kind of a change increases the chances for misunderstanding, mistrust, and conflict.

Those become magnified when changes are announced without an opportunity for clarification and discussion.

If you are a manager or adviser and want to get things started in the best way possible, here is a framework to use. It's intentionally simple.

Here's why:

When you are introducing something new, simplicity helps people comprehend faster and adjust more accurately. Making something complex or obtuse causes confusion which leads to frustration--and that's the last thing you want if you are looking for understanding, commitment and action.

Why these four questions?

I was sitting in a kick-off meeting of a new initiative. As people asked questions, I jotted them down. After synthesizing the actual questions, they pretty much fell into these four headings.

Start off answering the four over-arching questions that need to be answered. That will provide enough concrete information to generate thought.( It will also force you to get clearer about your wants). Then kick back and invite questions and conversation.

Note: It's the conversation, not the speech, that builds commitment and relationship.

How is your organization doing when it comes to answering these?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: Mistaking Motion for The Right Action

This article is the thirty-sixth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

"Never mistake motion for action."
--Ernest Hemingway

It didn't start off this way, but I may end up being the poster boy for Hemingway's one-liner.

This article was begun a little more than 24 hours ago with the expectation that it would be knocked out in about a half-hour. Then the phone started ringing, emails began dinging, and those darned clients (customers)  got in the way of a perfectly relaxing day :-)

Attitude vs. Action generated such a terrific conversation that I sat down to think of something pithy as a follow-up. No sooner did I realize I was pith-less than a real-life client emailed from Turkey to rant about a corporate change initiative:

"...it seems to me, that we are focused on activities that should result in Cultural Changes without being specific about the vision of what we want the new culture to be. Additionally, where is the list for the "detail people" regarding what they should stop doing and what they should start doing that will embrace the new culture?"

Visions of Forests and Trees

1. He can't see the forest for the trees (Needs big picture context, or the ultimate vision, in addition to actions)

2. Many of his people need to see the trees but are hearing about a forest called Change (Need to know the five things  to do today to be considered successful; 'keep your vision to yourself' :-)

Isn't this a textbook case of Big Picture vs. Detail individual needs?

Let's be honest: We all prefer to operate out of our personal comfort zones. So if you are a Big Picture person, that's where your inherent emphasis will be. The same is true for the "Here Are The Facts" folks.

But we boost our effectiveness when we acknowledge how "the other half lives" and give them what they need to make the journey. (When we don't, we're actually mistaking motion for action).

How's that working in  your organization?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What to Change First: Attitude or Action?

This article is the thirty-fifth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

We love to talk about Change.

Change is another word for Life, so it's something that we all have in common. People change (or want to), organizations change (or want to)...we all have to decide about how we'll deal with life, individually or corporately: live and grow, or live but remain frozen and immobilized.

When it comes to Change, there is a point in the conversation where someone has to act--and act differently-- or nothing changes.

Attitude or Action?

The answer is "Yes."

In part, It's an issue of learning styles.

• Some people act only after they've gained an understanding of theory and context. Impacting their attitude is the first step in gaining action.

• Others start acting immediately, then step back to see what it all means. Action plus reflection creates context and understanding for the bigger picture.

What's happening in your organization to combine education and action?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Inhibiting Change: Will We Grow Businesses in a Risk-Avoidance Culture?

This article is the thirty-fourth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Changing Our Thoughts About Risk

When does security become risky?

When it inhibits people from learning how to successfully deal with the inherent risks of life.

"Risk-taking" is a criterion for hiring and promotion at many companies. We're not talking 'skydivers without parachutes'; we're looking for people who know how to calculate the odds and shout, "Let's go!" when they think the benefits outweigh the consequences of the risk.

But what if the ability to make those kinds of calculations is lost?

I believe that the possibility exists for this to happen.

The source?: Well-intended-but-misguided adults who believe they can engineer every detail of their child's safety. Apparently I'm not alone.

In the U.K, former government adviser Tim Gill has published No Fear: Growing Up In a Risk-Averse Society. It's even available as a free download if you click on the link. Here is a brief editorial review:

"It offers insights into the roles of parents, teachers, carers, the media, safety agencies and the Government and exposes the contradictions inherent in current attitudes and policies, revealing how risk averse behavior ironically can damage and endanger children’s lives.

In conclusion, No Fear advocates a philosophy of resilience that will help counter risk aversion and strike a better balance between protecting children from genuine threats and giving them rich, challenging opportunities through which to learn and grow."

Will Peter Pan Fly As A Member of Your Team?

Psychologist Dan Kiley defined ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’ in 1983.

The ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’ affects people who do not want or feel unable to grow up, people with the body of an adult but the mind of a child. They don’t know how to or don’t want to stop being children and start being mothers or fathers.

According to the University of Granada, the syndrome is not currently considered a psychopathology, given the World Health Organization has not recognized it as a psychological disorder. However, an increasingly larger number of adults are presenting emotionally immature behaviors in Western society. They are unable to grow up and take on adult responsibilities. They even dress up and enjoy themselves as teenagers when they are over 30 years old.

Humbelina Robles Ortega, professor of the Department of Personality, Evaluation and Psychological Treatment at the university and an expert in emotional disorders, warns that the overprotection by parents can lead children to develop the Peter Pan Syndrome, given “it usually affects dependent people who have been overprotected by their families and haven’t developed the necessary skills to confront life.” The ‘Peter Pans’ of present society “see the adult world as very problematic and glorify adolescence, which is why they want to stay in that state of privilege.”

Peter Pan Syndrome can affect both sexes, but it appears more often among men. Some characteristics of the disorder are the inability of individuals to take on responsibilities, to commit themselves or to keep promises, excessive care about the way they look and personal well-being and their lack of self-confidence, even though they don’t seem to show it and actually come across as exactly the opposite.

Accountability As Adults

The business world revels in "accountability." And we're always on the look-out for accountable people to join our organizations.

But as adults--parents, aunts, and uncles--we are also accountable for building the next generation of responsible adults.

Funny thing about security. Kids do feel secure enough to take some risks when there's a safety net there. That safety net is a parent or trusted adult who is present.

A full schedule of structured activities, orchestrated sleepovers, play days, and safety seats won't outperform a single afternoon of trying to leap across a stream with mom or dad--missing the other side--and finding out you both survived to laugh about it. Then trying it together until you make it.

Risk-taking and personal responsibility aren't a product of outsourcing.

Neither is the next generation of leaders.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change Reactions: Your Emotional Cycle Part III

This article is the twenty-third in a series about Change from Steve Roesler

     "Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time;
    what we really want is for things to remain the same but get better."
          --Sidney Harris

"The connecting dots of all the comments  are all about the importance of looking at change from the point of view of the person on the receiving end. We need to communicate often and in varied formats. If we are aware of the differing levels of software users' needs, we'll provide a range of information. If we appreciate that staff need to know about managerial changes, we'll share as much info. with them as we possibly can."
   --observation by Galba Bright, EQ expert

Move Through the Upswing

Yesterday's journey took us through the downward slope on the Emotional Cycle of Change.

Today we'll look at what happens and what to do after one "bottoms out" and moves further along the curve toward meaningful action.

Regardless of your official organizational role, try switching viewpoints along the way; think of yourself as a manager, then as an employee. I think you'll be moved by how quickly you begin to understand the challenges of each.

Bargaining, Accepting/Rejecting, Moving On

When the personal/group emotions look like "Let's Make A Deal" and people are Bargaining...

• Express certainty and conviction, but not arrogance. "I believe in this change." And revisit a few reasons why.
  

• Visibly move to execute your share of the change. When things are tentative, people are looking for an example. Be one. 

• Be patient but persistent. Think of major changes as times when people lapse into a bit of adolescence. And for good reason: they aren't mature at what is happening! So persistence is important. It provides a "back door boundary" that continues to help people look ahead and not avoid the growth needed to move ahead to maturity.

When you see Acceptance...

• Celebrate using specific achievements related to the goals. By the way: this is the one thing that is ignored most. I don't know why. I've asked, and answers range from "they're getting paid to do this" to "we don't do celebration." The same people give their dogs treats when they finally decide to stop doing their business on the carpet. Go figure.

• Discuss and Document lessons learned. This is not only a chance to do just what it indicates; it's an opportunity for people to gain a group sense of accomplishment and even a sense of celebration.
  

• Probe for opportunities. Once you've all reached this stage, the "how-to" ideas will be ripe.

When some choose to Opt Out...

• Listen to their reasons and acknowledge that they are valid.

• Ask what they want to do next. Help keep them focused on the fact that there is a life outside of your organization and that they can contribute. Tell them what you see as their strengths.
  

• Offer assistance in some meaningful way. Every company I've worked with on Change projects has provide some degree of outplacement assistance knowing that not everyone would stay the course. The benefit to the company: enhanced reputation as a place where everyone is valued, even when their talents no longer fit the current circumstances.

At this point, people are Moving On. Keep moving...the next change is just around the corner!

Please Remember This...

The path isn't linear. I said it before and it's worth saying again. You and your people will bounce around the curve until everyone has reached a state of peace and equilibrium with the "new thing".

Here's where the chart really comes in handy. Keep it close by and use it as a diagnostic tool. When you see someone (or yourself) going into "Blame" mode, identify it and respond in an effective way. Is someone "Bargaining", hoping to make a deal and avoid some of the change? You now have some useful options to be helpful.

Most of all, remember this: people who are wrestling with change aren't items to be "fixed". They're people who are being people.

And Change invites Leadership. In the midst of disruption, we all want two things: Understanding and Direction.

This is an opportunity to offer both.

For more quick reads on Change, I hope you enjoy:

• Yes, They Can: Real-Life Change

• What's Happening With Organizational Change?

• What Life Choice Are You Making: Bitter or Better?
  

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employee Needs, Silent Communication, and What To Do

Silent Communication appears to be an oxymoron.

It's not.

Silence communicates powerfully. But because it's, uh, silent, the interpretation is left to the recipient.

Is that what we really want?

Dr. Robyn McMaster gets credit for starting this conversation with How Do You Respond To The Silent Treatment?

From her brain-based expertise, she notes:

"When you doubt and feel anxious, cortisol, a chemical hormone literally floods your brain and nervous system. And, it throws you into a tizzy so you do not think clearly."

Which means that silence causes confusion. But we don't like confusion. So we add our own meaning to the silence in order to reach a state of equilibrium. However, Robin's insight shows that our mental state at that time is actually weakened, so that our conclusions may prove to be less than ideal.

Silence doesn't cause a vacuum so much as it does an irrational mental spiral. That's a formula for trouble in any setting.

Making Someone Disappear and Re-Appear

The act of making a suggestion or comment--then being greeted with total silence--can be insidious. Why? It communicates that a person's very existence isn't being acknowledged. It's very different than the impact of "Gee, I don't know if that idea will work or not" or "Let me think about that."

The second shows relational acknowledgment and engagement and can be built upon. The first discounts one's being.

If your 'hearing" silence, ask this: "Help me understand whether my (comment, suggestion) is a questionable one or are you thinking about it?"

Getting the conversation going again--even if the answer is "I think the idea stinks"--is better for the soul than being deemed non-existent. And can probably lead to an actual productive conversation.

What if We...

...began intentionally teaching about the impact of silence?

I confess that after years of leading seminars and workshops I only address the issue when it arises as a question. More often than not, it's in a consulting situation rather than in the classroom.

What I've learned from hearing myself write is that it's time to become purposeful about silence, communication, and what it means, to one's self and others.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

Related articles you might like:

• Workplace Conversations Can Mean Workplace Security

• You, We, I--Relate and Communicate

• Great Communicating Thoughts from Bert Decker

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What Does Your Implicit Contract Say?

When 300 engineers at a major East Coast utility were told to re-apply for jobs in their department as part of a major reorganization, they were livid.

"I've been here 18 years."  (Longevity means immunity to change)

"I hired the idiot who's running this thing." (If I gave someone their job, they won't mess with mine)

"They already know what I can do." (I only have to prove myself once)

"No other utility has ever had to go through this." (This place isn't being run according to the norm)

"No one told me this could happen when I was hired." (This wasn't part of the deal)

"My wife and I have planned our retirement for 23 years." ('They' are responsible for my cradle-to-grave existence)

The Danger of The "Invisible Assumed"

When you signed on with your current employer you probably discussed:

Salary, benefits, corporate vision, the marketplace, performance expectations.

Chances are you won't  become really upset as a result of any of those items changing a bit. It's the ones you assumed to be true that will come back to haunt you.

You'll become disenchanted as a result of someone breaking the implicit contract .

The contract that you created in your own mind. Visible only to you.

In the real-life example above, the implicit contract had to do with the unspoken nature of Utilities:

Stable, Secure, Lifetime Employment, Methodical Career Progression...

No one ever said those things out loud. They were just "known."

Q: Do you and your spouse get upset about what you talked about before you got married or what you assumed would be true?

Tips for Employees and Employers

Employees:

1. Before you sign on the dotted line, check out your assumptions.

2. Make a written list.

3. Check out their validity with your prospective company or boss.

Employers:

1. Before introducing a change, take a look at the culture.

2. What is it that drew people to your company in the first place?

    Security? Action? International travel? Work close to home?

3. If one or more of those traditional characteristics (the unspoken attraction) will change, then help neutralize the impact by discussing it openly.

Tell what is going to happen and why. Explain the reality of implicit agreements and that you realize this might be one such example. You'll give people a mental model to understand what they are experiencing.

Finally: What happened to our  300  engineers?

a. They had been told before the process started that no one would lose a job with the company. They would hopefully be better matched as a result of the process. And, everyone did remain employed.

b. The department as a whole was more effective.

c.  About 10% chose to retire rather than  make the change.

What is your implicit contract? How did your employer's reputation contribute to that?

For more on Change:

Making Changes: Does Everyone Know Why Part I

Making Changes: Does Everyone Know Why? Part II

Change or Die from Holger Nauheimer

Photo attribution: www.barco.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employee Needs, Maslow, and Getting It Right

The "Misunderstanding Maslow" Factor

Most of us have been exposed to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In fact, I've read that it is the most-used model in management training. I think it's also one of the most mis-represented and misunderstood.

Just in case you stepped out of the meeting room that day for an oatmeal cookie and bottled water:

Psychologist Abraham Maslow synthesized the research available up to 1954 about what motivates people. He came up with a shopping list of needs that we all try to satisfy. Have a look at the graphic below and double-click for a larger version.

I've never seen much argument about the content of the list. But the hierarchical implication has been rendered invalid by later research. Yet managers are still told that this is a "ladder that people climb" and that employees must have one set of needs satisfied before they move onto the next.

That means there are still vast numbers of well-meaning managers thinking, "Oh, I really can't start working on high performance until we have all of our "group issues" sorted out.

Not so.

The fact of the matter is that we're constantly chasing satisfaction in all of these areas simultaneously to some degree.

For example: You may be working on becoming an accepted member of a team. But that doesn't stop you from spending a little time adjusting your 401k mix and volunteering with Habitat for Humanity.

The only need that I've seen block the rest of the hierarchy is a seriously unmet Physiological need. If you're worried about your next meal, losing your home to foreclosure, or paying out-of-pocket for a major surgical procedure, the pressure at that level doesn't allow much freedom to focus on anything else.

How can organizations use this for meaningful impact?

Management Policies and Managerial Engagement

This discussion is really a continuation of Unspoken Needs of Employees: Survey and Ignoring Real Employee Needs . (Look at those to see what the expressed needs of employees are right now).

1. Physiological and Stability/Safety needs are met through corporate policies: adequate pay, benefits, and safety procedures. These are satisfied when organizations who claim "People Are Our Most Important Asset" back up the statement by ensuring that these needs are met as a matter of policy and philosophy.

2. The higher level needs can only be satisfied by assignments, development, and solid day-to-day management. This means that "Managers are the Mediators of Meaning" for their people. Respected consultants and writers Wally Bock and Jim Stroup also stress that the immediate supervisor has consistently been shown to have the most impact on one's performance, productivity, and feelings about the workplace.

Every supervisor reading this now has one more tool to talk with employees about where they are and what they need to keep their batteries charged at a given moment. But there has to be conversation as a matter of course.

The Employees Have Offered the Answer

Will you accept the gift?

If your company is agonizing about retention and productivity, the expressed need right now is in the area of health benefits. If you can address that satisfactorily, it looks as if your retention concerns can be reduced.

Managers: If you will take time to interact with respect and invite meaningful participation, you stand a good chance of boosting productivity. These are higher level needs that relate to higher levels of performance. It's your job to meet your people where they are.

Employees have said