Tag:

Management

BlogCultureLeadership

Manage people like Money?

by Ron Potter

An Harvard Business Review article was titled “What If Companies Managed People as Carefully as They Manage Money?”

I like the idea because most companies focus a lot of their effort on how they manage money, projects, profitability, and skillsets.

I don’t like the idea because I don’t think we should manage people (It puts them in the same category as the money, projects, profitability, etc.)  We should be leading people, not managing them.

IPO Preparation

One of my consulting clients was a high-tech firm that had decided to do an Initial Public Offering (IPO).  This means they were moving from a privately held firm to a publicly held firm with shareholders.

They needed to convince investors to put some of their hard-earned money into the new firm, assuming it would generate a reasonable return.

Investment Bankers

There is a sub-set of the banking industry (Investment Bankers) that is solely focused on IPO’s.  Once the Investment Bankers were chosen, the company put themselves in the banker’s hands in an effort to generate early and adequate investment.

So what did these bankers focus on?

The finances? No!
The quality of the leadership?  No!
The competition?  No!

These Investment Bankers focused on the “story.”  What was the story of the company?  What did the story tell the potential investor about the future?  Was the story compelling enough that people would actually depart with their money and invest with the company?

IPO Preparation

The Investment Bankers sent in a team of presenting coaches to help the CEO and CFO prepare to meet potential investors.

For weeks they concentrated on the story.  Was it complete?  Was it compelling?  Did it explain all the required changes and growth for the company?  Would people be willing to invest in this company?

Roadshow

All of this was to prepare these two top officers for the “roadshow.”  Over the next several weeks they would move from city to city, meet with a small group of investors and hopefully, capture their hearts and minds enough that the Investment Bankers were able to obtain commitments to invest.

Then the Investment Bankers made a statement that made me sit up and take notice.

You have 30 minutes

They told the CEO and CFO that if they didn’t capture the hearts and minds of the potential investors in 30 minutes, they were lost for forever.

30 minutes!  They had 30 minutes to get people to invest their money.  If it wasn’t compelling enough in the first 30 minutes, they didn’t have a second chance.  They would be lost forever.

Invest more than Dollars

Then I began to think about the employees.  What are we asking them to invest?

Money?  In a sense yes.
Time?  Yes.  Be here on a regular basis.  Be willing to cover any shift.  Be willing to work overtime when necessary.
Effort?  Be the best.  Go the extra mile.  Work hard and harder.
Brain?  Be quick.  Be innovative.  Be smarter than the competition.

Invest More

In short, invest more than just dollars.  Much more!

If we were willing to build a complete and compelling story about the future of the company for someone who will invest just their dollars, why are we not willing to generate even a better message for those willing to invest a lot more than just their dollars?

Investor not Asset

We often hear CEO’s and other top executives speak of employees as their most valuable asset.

I have assets.  My computer is an asset.  I’m willing to upgrade it, add more memory or space, install a new operating system.  But at some point I say enough-is-enough and I purchase a new computer.

Do we really want to think of employees as an asset?

But, if you think about them as an investor, then you need to be willing to give them your best.  You must have a compelling explanation of the future and how you’re going the get there.  If you can’t express that clear, well thought out future, why would employees be willing to invest their time, effort, and intellect?

Think of your employees as investors, not assets!

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
Blog

Performance vs Trust

by Ron Potter

Those are not my words.  Those were spoken by Simon Sinek.  If you have not discovered Mr. Sinek, look up his website.  I read him and Share Parrish more than any other blog writers out there.

Navy Seals

Simon talks about working with Navy Seals.  Navy Seals are probably the highest performing teams on the plant.  In his work with Seals, he asked, “How do you chose the guys that make it to Seal Team 6.  Seal Team 6 is the best of the best.  The Seals drew the following graph:

Leader or TeamMate

Nobody wanted someone from the lower left: Low Performer and Low Trust.

Everyone wanted someone from the upper right: High Performer and High Trust.

When Simon asked them which type of person they want as a leader or teammate,  they all said they would prefer someone on the right side of the chart than the best performer who had low trust.

Keep in mind that these are the highest performing teams in the world.  But they would select Trust over Performance when it came to a leader or a teammate.

Corporations have it backwards

In my thirty-plus years dealing with corporations and corporate reviews, they have all been heavily weighted toward the left side of the chart.  They graded and promoted people based on their performance rather than the trust they exhibited or expected.  It’s interesting to note that the Navy Seals termed that upper-left leader or teammate as toxic!  Regardless of high performance, if the person wasn’t trust-worth, they were toxic.

Performance Reviews

Why do corporate reviews focus so much on high-performance rather than hight trust?  I’m sure there are many reasons but the two that I see as most prevalent are:

  1. Corporations often want high performance (get the job done now) over anything else.  Part of the reason is that public corporations have bowed to quarterly reporting.  If the return isn’t better that quarter, the leadership is often called on the carpet by Wall Street and the Investors.  They don’t want to be in that position.  Therefore, they promote people who produce high results, regardless of the internal costs.  Remember that the Navy Seals labeled them as toxic.
  2. It’s easier to measure performance than trust.  With performance, it’s easy to check the box.  Was the goal met or exceeded?  Was it done on or ahead of schedule?  Easy to measure and identify.
    Does the person generate trust within their team?  Hard to predict.  The results may not show up for a long time.  Corporate leaders want results this quarter, not three years from now.

Trust builds Long-Term Performance

I’ve worked with a few leaders who ranked high on the trust scale.  There are more stories, but two that come to mind include one leader who I worked with about a decade ago.  Three members of his team are now CEO’s of three different companies.  He built trust!

Another CEO I worked with started two companies and built leadership teams that now run or are high ranking leaders in several corporations.

Both of these leaders (and there are a few more) built leadership teams based on trust.  That doesn’t mean they ignored performance, but trust ranked higher when it came to evaluations.

Visit Simon Sinek’s youtube talking about Performance vs Trust.  Then evaluate what kind of leader or teammate you happen to be.  Then think about the type of leader or team you want to be a part of.  If you don’t like the answer to either of those questions, make a change!  If you’re the kind of person that believes outperforming everyone is what will make a difference in your life, you’re in for a shock.  You’ll end up very lonely.

If you’re the kind of person who exudes and promotes trust, you’ll find yourself much loved!

Lonely or loved.  You make the choice.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogLeadership

“Soft” Skills Win

by Ron Potter

Start with skills

An article in the Wall Street Journal was written with and about Bob Funk, founder of Express Employment Professionals and former chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.  Mr. Funk makes his living by matching people who want jobs with employers who need good employees.

When Mr. Fund talks about the interview process he starts with what most employees think of as the Hard Skills.

Hard skills and experience, he says, are only half the equation, and not the important half.  “So many people do not realize how important the soft skills are to unlocking job opportunity,”

Mr. Funk offers a quote from a boss he had over 50 years ago.  “There’s a person for every job and a job for every person.  That’s still true.”

Try before you buy

Most of the companies he works for are small and medium-size companies with fewer than 250 employees and he places most of his workers in part-time positions.  But over 60% of them go on to be full-time employees.

Hard skills and experience are only half of the equation and not the important half.  (Italics are mine).  Soft skills are the important part of unlocking job opportunities!

Soft skills rule

Mr. Funk found that the top five skills that employers look for are:

  1. Attitude
  2. Work ethic/Integrity
  3. Communication
  4. Culture fit
  5. Critical thinking

While Mr. Funk concedes that education is vital, the most important thing for most people is the ability to be trained.  And while I agree with Mr. Funk on this issue I don’t believe he gives enough credit to that ability to be trained with people of education.

Higher Education

So many of today’s graduates from major universities have been convinced that their degree from that particular institute has taught them everything they need to know to be successful.  I’m a graduate of the University of Michigan Engineering school and for a period of time recruited new hires from that institute.  What I discovered was that it didn’t make any difference which university the candidate graduated from.  What made the difference was number 5 on the list above, the ability to think critically that made the biggest difference between potential employees.

Learning is what’s important

As a consultant, I once ran an old exercise that didn’t produce any results.  When I asked my client why the effort fell flat they said they got the most out of sessions where I was sharing what I was learning.  My own learning produced the best results for my clients.  I believe that a college education gives you the opportunity to start learning.  Showing up to work every day assuming you’re there to share what you already know will get you nowhere.  Showing up to work every day ready to learn will show an eagerness to learn, which will carry you a long way.

 

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogTrust Me

Learning in Chaos

by Ron

As Peter Senge defines it, a learning organization is an organizational structure in which “people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.”

In this sense, a learning organization is an organization that is continually expanding its ability to create and re-create the very patterns and structures by which it operates.

At least that is the goal.

Quick-Deciding Creates Chaos, Learning Order

Unfortunately, what I have found in my work is that quick decision making has won. In many cases, leaders have abandoned the learning organization in favor of the quick-deciding organization.

In times of chaos, confusion, and change, peacemaking leaders need to focus attention on making sure their organizations are quick learning rather than quick deciding.

The fast-paced environment of product development, competition, and shareholder expectations has forced many organizations to adopt a quick-deciding mentality. In this model, a team (much like a football team needing to score before time expires in the fourth quarter) is in a hurry-up offense. The goal is to make decisions. But as Tom Peters correctly observes, “As competition around the world boils over as never before, firms caught with bloated staffs and dissipating strengths—from Silicon Valley to the Ruhr Valley in Germany—are looking for quick fixes. There are none.”

Leading Toward Learning

So how would a two-pillar, peacemaking leader respond?

The goal of the quick-learning team is to seek out and develop opinion rather than steamrolling over it or quickly mustering forces against it. Feedback is highly desired rather than feared.

In contrast, feedback is offensive when you are a quick-deciding team. You develop “sides” on all issues. The competition heats up. Winning at all costs is what counts.

Members of a quick-learning team are all on the same side of the fence, looking at an issue with differing opinions, experiences, and ideas.

Meeting Agendas

Meeting agendas are often a surprising enemy. Leaders, staring at an agenda, feel compelled to make decisions within the time allotted. In most cases, true discussion of the issues and everyone’s opinions (the rooting-out process) is bypassed in favor of table talk that centers on implementation.

We suggest a meeting agenda that maps out what the team wants to learn about an issue. Learning should be the goal with good decisions the result. Remember that the goal is learning quickly and then making good decisions, not just deciding quickly.

Patience is Key

“Patience,” said Saint Augustine, “is the companion of wisdom.” Problems and day-to-day crises test our wisdom and our ability to make decisions under pressure. Great leaders are people of patience and constant learning.

It is the leader’s job to pull everything together into a quick-learning rather than a quick-deciding environment. The leader holds the dialogue together and asks questions that are designed to help team members clearly communicate their information and thoughts about the agenda item. In this way, the meeting’s goal is met: quick learning—rather than quick deciding—for the purpose of making good decisions.

The leader needs to develop not only an inclusive mind-set but also one that honors people for who they are and what they bring to the process. Each person brings unique strengths and outlooks to the table.

0 comment
1 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogTrust Me

Peace and Making Meaning

by Ron

How do leaders create peace in the midst of chaos? How do they restore an organization to the point of balance and productivity? How do leaders reach out to employees during times of uncertainty and worry?

By becoming peacemakers.

The major problem many leaders face is not the mechanics of change or even embedded resistance to change. The chief challenge is helping people understand what is going on around them.

According to a national survey taken by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research in the fall of 2001, only 1 in 5 adults said they felt hopeful about the future as compared with 7 out of 10 who reported feeling this way in a 1990 survey. People are distressed and want someone to bring meaning to their daily lives.

Calm and team effectiveness come when a leader makes meaning out of the jumble of chaos that surrounds employees, suppliers, and consumers. In most situations, every person on a team brings a different point of view, a unique experience, or a personal preference to the table. Every market change brings with it new expectations, new competition, or new hopes. It also brings new opinions, new points of view, and new preferences. How does a leader make meaning out of all that?

Peacemakers focus outside themselves

Leaders who understand the need to make meaning for their teams and organizations understand that it starts with their own style. If we are self-centered and proud, we surrender the ability to see the angst in others. The prideful leader will not see the need for communication or helping others understand what is going on around them. Such leaders hold their cards close to the vest. Their focus is on themselves.

In contrast, leaders who put “you first” and have self-esteem based on humility are able to look beyond themselves and help others see meaning in their circumstances.

Peacemakers maximize opportunities for communication

I have a friend who says, “You need to tell people the story until you vomit—then tell them some more.” Peacemakers take advantage of every opportunity to communicate with people to help them understand chaos and confusion. Communication is not just speaking; it involves listening, too. In true communication, a leader honors everyone’s opinions and frames of reference.

The goal is to learn, not necessarily to check items off the to-do list. This creates a “learning” organization or team that encourages and listens to everyone’s opinions. Before making decisions, leaders of learning organizations probe the dissenters to better understand their opinions. They listen, learn, honor other people, and discover how to make great, lasting decisions.

Peacemakers encourage thinking

Even when people see change or confusion as an opportunity rather than a menace, they still need to feel safe and unafraid. Leaders need to create an environment that is open and flexible.

Leaders need to encourage thinking that seeks the sustainability of improvements, not just the solutions to problems. In order for people to go that far, they need to feel supported and that their thoughts are being heard and acted upon.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogLeadership

Leadership Transitions

by Ron

If you think you can be a member of the leadership team by representing and defending your function, you don’t know what it means to be a member of the leadership team. You really don’t get it.

I think this might be one of the toughest life transitions I’ve seen people go through. Some of the transitions have been well documented through the years and are observable.

Doer to Manager

The first transition in our career tends to be from being a doer to a manager. A manager teaches, moves from empowerment to delegation, grows people, increases their ability to influence, helps them learn. A good manager is very hands-on, growing the people and teaching them basic aspects of the work to be done.

Manager to Leader

The second transition is one that I’ve observed and coached people through for many years. The reason that it sometimes requires a coach is that it is a difficult transition, one that many people never successfully get all the way through. After you’ve been that manager who has experienced some success, you’re now transitioning from being a manager to a leader. You’re now leading managers. You’re not managing doers anymore.

You’re moving more from a teaching mode to a guiding mode. You’re leading is helping managers to also become leaders. This one is particularly difficult because it seems to be the end of the period of your career where we get rewarded for actually getting things done and accomplishing things. People who reach this level have been rewarded consistently through pay, bonuses, and recognition for accomplishing the work. Moving to a leadership role means that you let go of that hands-on application of getting the work done. It means that you need to trust the people around you who report to you to get the work done. You can’t jump in and do it yourself when they fail. You actually have to let them fail to do this. It can be a very tough transition and one that only a percentage of people seem to make through the years.

Leader to Member of Leadership Team

I don’t think we’ve talked about this transition much. I haven’t seen much written on it. I’ve certainly experienced it myself but began recognizing the symptoms only a few years ago. Moving from being a leader, even a solid, well-respected, effective leader, to a member of a leadership team. This move emphasizes collaboration. It’s focused more on the company, or the overall division, not necessarily on functions. It means that you’re faced with dilemmas.

I recently wrote a blog post about bioscience describing why organizations don’t work. It’s because we seldom realize that we need to sub-optimize functions within the overall organization. This is one of the more difficult dilemmas you will face. Making the whole organization work often requires that parts of the organization operate at suboptimal levels for a season. Maybe even the part that you run.

It requires taking off your function hat and putting on your corporate hat. You may be sitting on the CEO’s leadership team, you may be representing finance, or operations, or HR, or transportation, or manufacturing, or information technology, whatever it is that you run as a member of the organization. It’s very difficult to let go, take off your function hat and put on your corporate hat. But, if the leadership team is functioning well, it’s your job to help them make decisions that may cause you to ratchet back your individual and your team’s success over a period for the success of the whole.

This transition to becoming a member of the leadership team may be the most difficult one to make. Few people will get the chance to even try. If you’re one of the fortunate few, don’t sabotage your (and the team’s) success by letting your ego get in the way of the team’s success. Becoming a great team member on a team doing great things brings the highest level of happiness. It’s really a kick!

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogTrust Me

5 Steps to Standing for Something Greater: Part III

by Ron

People do not like to be put in boxes, and just as important, people do not like to be in the dark, outside the door where company values and vision are shaped. People are less energized and tend to drift when they are unsure of how they should be operating within an organization. People need to see their leaders’ commitment to values, and they want a part in helping to shape their organization’s core values and vision.

So how do you show this? There are five steps to helping your company and your team stand for something greater and this week, we’re digging into step 3.

Elevate people to a higher purpose

Lincoln motivated people by leaving his office and spending time with everyone in the government and military hierarchy. One hundred and twenty years later, Tom Peters dubbed this kind of management style as “management by walking around.” When a leader gets out and interacts with all the people, the vision is communicated, the values are acted upon, the leader is observed, and the people are inspired.

Whether or not leaders literally walk around, the important factor is elevating and transforming people to serve a higher purpose. People respond by seeking higher moral standards for themselves and the organization. A higher purpose serves to develop common ground, and the common ground leads to energy in attaining goals. It creates a center of importance around which the team can rally and be unified.

How are you seeking to develop common ground for your team or organization? Have you seen any benefits to “management by walking around” in your own management style?

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogLeadership

Do Executives have Over Developed Executive Brains?

by Ron

Probably yes, but that’s likely to be a problem if there isn’t balance.

Some brain scientist will speak of the five brains:

  • Reptilian – Identifying and responding to threats
  • Limbic – Emotions, relationships
  • Neocortex – Makes meaning out of experiences and memories
  • Heart – Understands how we’re reacting physically and chemically to interaction
  • Executive – Translates information into decisions and future direction

Our modern world seems to celebrate and elevate Executive brain function. Big Data and computer analysis give modern executives more instant information than any leaders in history. CEO’s are hired and fired based on their decision making and vision reputations.

But, every time I’ve been hired to help grow and develop executive teams, only a small portion of the issue is related to the executive function of the brain. Most of my work is spent with emotions, relationships, experiences (and the memory of those experiences) and interactions. Relationships. Trust!

You must be competent at your job to be trustworthy. Steven Covey (7 Habits of Highly Effective People) talked of Trustworthiness requiring both character and competence. Competence tends to be correlated with the brains Executive function. Character and style, how you relate to people are much more complex and the results of the four other brains working well.

One of the great transitions points in career development is moving from manager to leader. Your worth and value to the company are often measured by your competence and Executive brain function right up to and through being a manager. But, when you first step into that leadership role, the style: relationship, motivation, collaboration suddenly become much more valuable.

Leaders maintain the competency. But at the leadership level, that’s simply the price of admission. If you’re not competent you’ll be exposed soon enough. But the best leaders start early at understanding and developing the first four brains so that when they have that opportunity to become leaders, they perform well. In fact, those people who are often identified as “high potential” are the ones with balanced brain functions.

Yes, executives have highly developed executive brains. But that’s only one fifth of the issue. They also have four other brains working well.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogLeadership

Golf Lessons

by Ron

This summer each of my grandsons wanted to spend time on the driving range with me learning the golf swing. That was great fun. Even though I’m not a professional golf coach and only an average golfer, my coaching at the range made a huge difference in their performance. Each seemed to grow from the experience.
That started me thinking about the coaching aspect of leading a team of people. Let me paint two possible scenarios:

1-on-1 Meeting after the event

I could have let each grandson hit golf balls for an hour, made notes and observations, then returned to the house for a good 1-on-1 evaluation. It might have gone something like this:
Me: I noticed right from the start that you had too many moving parts.
GS: What does that mean?
Me: Your feet were shifting. Your knees were moving too wide. Your arms were flopping all over the place.
GS: So, what should I do about it?
Me: Well, let’s start with your feet. We’ll get those stable first then work on the rest.
GS: Great, can we go back out now and test it?
Me: No, we’ll be having supper soon. Maybe we can try it again over the weekend.

Coaching During the Event

Me: (After about the third swing). Try keeping your feet still.
GS: (New swing with still feet but same result). That didn’t help!
Me: But it was a much better swing. Try it again.
GS: Wow, that helped a lot. (He hit several more balls with much better results)
Me: Now that you’ve got your feet still, try twisting your waist instead of swaying.
GS: Show me. (I demonstrated a few swings myself then had him swing a few times until he got the feel for it)
GS: (He hits a few balls that now go straighter and longer). Man, this is great!

Expected Results

Which approach worked better? It’s obvious. The second approach is much more effective than the first. And, it didn’t make any difference of the skill level between grandsons. The individual instruction may have been different but the process was the same.

Development Process

How are you developing your people? Are you saving your notes and observations for your formal 1-on-1 review time?

1-on-1 Meeting after the event

You: Back in March, you made a statement that shut down Carla. That prevented you from accomplishing your goal.
Them: What was my statement and how did you know Carla reacted?
You: Your statement was something about lack of planning and I could just tell that Carla took it personally.
Them: So, what should I do about it?
You: Well, let’s start with your ability to read reactions then we’ll move on to the next steps.
Them: Great, can we work on it now?
Me: Maybe we can try it again at our next meeting in a couple of weeks.

Coaching Immediately after the Event

You: When you made that statement about lack of planning, Carla took it personally and shut down.
Them: Wow, I didn’t notice that. What did you see?
You: First she crossed her arms. Then she pulled some papers from her briefcase and began working on them. She never re-engaged in your discussion.
Them: What should I have done differently?
You: Keep eye contact with people in the room. If you’re losing the focus of Carla or others, you’ve probably made a statement they don’t agree with. Express the fact that you may have misinterpreted some results and ask that everyone share their beliefs and assumptions about what happened.
Them: We have another meeting tomorrow. Would you help me notice if I’ve lost people so I can try this process?

Expected Results

Which approach do you think would work better?
Coaching requires immediate feedback. Don’t wait for your 1-on-1 meetings. Take the time (it takes both time and courage) to develop your people in the moment. You’ll get better results and they’ll appreciate the time and courage it took to care for them.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogLeadership

Worn Out Leaders

by Ron

This was a high-powered team successfully leading a highly valued company. But you’d never know it by their faces. I could see the rings around the blood-shot eyes, hair turning prematurely gray, gray ashen color in their faces. Yet here I was, a smile on my face, full of energy, ready to help them become better leaders. When I looked at those faces I knew this day wasn’t going to turn out well but I didn’t know what else to do. So off I went, talking about leadership models.

Even though they were game to learn, it didn’t take long before one of them said, “Ron, we can’t focus on your leadership model until you can save our lives. We’re spending so many hours working we’re ruining our lives, our families, and our health. Help!

All those wonderful PowerPoint slides I had prepared for this retreat now looked useless and meaningless. This team needed help far beyond what I had prepared for. We needed to talk.

The projector was turned off, the laptop was closed, the phones shut down. What was going on? One person began to talk. He spoke of the excitement, motivation, and dedication he had for the company and its purpose. Others nodded in agreement. But…. he had missed several of his children’s events, hadn’t had an evening meal at home with his family in weeks, didn’t remember the last Saturday he took off or when he had taken his last vacation. He was dying.

I listened to several other stories that were each different but were all the same. They had to get off this treadmill. They were destroying the lives their work and accomplishments were meant to enhance. What could we do?

I remembered Steven Covey’s book Seven Habits of Highly Successful People. Habit three was “Put first things first.” Figure out where your time is going and plot it on the 2X2 grid of Urgent and Important. The four quadrants then become:

  1. Important and Urgent
  2. Important and not-Urgent
  3. Not Important but Urgent
  4. Not Important and Not Urgent

His observation was that all successful people did indeed work on Quadrant 1, Important and Urgent, but the highly successful people then worked on Quadrant 2 rather than being lured into Quadrant 3, Not Important but Urgent.

Over the next few weeks I had this team record where all their time was being spent (they were averaging over 70 hours per week). After helping each other identify which Quadrant their time had fallen into, the horrible truth was that only about 20% fell into Quadrant 1 and about 80% fell into Quadrant 3. One leader, nearly in tears, said: “Did I spend nearly 60 hours last week working on unimportant items?” Yes.

How do good people fall into this trap?

I recently saw the Covey Time Management Quadrants identified as the Eisenhower Box. Covey may have also credited Eisenhower but the Eisenhower Box added an important element. What should be done with each Quadrant?

  1. Important and Urgent – DO, Do it Now
  2. Important and not-Urgent – DECIDE, Schedule it
  3. Not Important but Urgent – DELEGATE, Pass it on
  4. Not Important and Not Urgent – DELETE, Eliminate it

I think the reason most people get into this overworked state is they treat Quadrant 3 (Delegate) like it’s Quadrant 1 (Do it). Instead of delegating it, their ego gets in the way. It’s faster to do it themselves than teach someone else to do it (or some similar excuse). They don’t trust others to do it as well (usually called perfectionism). And the excuses go on and on.

Get out of Quadrant 3 (Urgent but Not Important). It’s killing you. It’s killing your family. It’s killing your relationships. It’s killing your company.

 

1 comment
1 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogCulture

Where are you in the Pecking Order?

by Ron

Maybe you’ve never been around chickens very much. This is where the term comes from. In the mid-1920’s a German author described the hierarchical structure of chickens. “Defense and aggression in the hen is accomplished with the beak.” The ones with higher authority peck the others with their beak. Fun to watch in chickens. Not so fun when you’re the one being pecked.

Egalitarian

Some companies have tried to eliminate the pecking order. One modern online retailer had attempted to get rid of the corporate hierarchy. However, some recent articles about the company have indicated that they’re experiencing an extremely high level of departures and turn over. I’m always hesitant to attribute a statistic like that to any one issue. But, one article I read indicated that the CEO wrote a very long memo offering employees three months’ severance if they felt that self-management and self-organization were not a fit for them. Ouch, that felt like a peck to me.

Hierarchy Can Work

I found two Stanford studies interesting. One concluded that egalitarian work structures were disorienting while hierarchical structures were more predictable and easier to understand which made them preferable. Another study said hierarchical structures had more staying power because they were practical and psychologically comforting. Now you could argue that predictable, practical and comforting are not the characteristics that will carry the corporation through the 21st century. You may be right. But, I believe there is a deeper issue than just structure.

Trust is the Deeper Issue

Many of my corporate clients have asked me at one point or another about their organization structure. The basic question is “Should we be centralized or de-centralized?” My unsatisfactory response is that it doesn’t really make any difference. Every corporate structure is an artificial attempt at organizing people. There are positives and negatives to each approach. The most important is Trust. If there is a lack of trust in the organization any structure will be used for protection, security, and enforcement. If there is a great deal of trust in the organization, the structure seldom gets in the way, people simply want to work better together regardless of what the structure calls for.

I’ve had a few people in my life that have pecked at me. Starting with my mother and including a few teachers and mentors. If I knew we had trust and they cared for me, I didn’t really mind the pecking. If the trust wasn’t there, I felt they were pecking me just because they had a big beak.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
BlogLeadership

Would a good Spy make a good Leader?

by Ron

Yes, this sounds like another post I wrote recently but with a twist. Read on.

I love spy novels! One of the abilities that the good spy’s (at least the ones in novels) have is the ability to read micro expressions. Is the other person telling the truth or not?

This is not a novelist fantasy. There seems to be an actual science behind the idea of micro expressions. Following is the official definition:

Micro expressions are the rapid movements of facial muscles which show underlying emotions.

There are seven universal micro expressions:

  • Disgust
  • Anger
  • Fear
  • Sadness
  • Happiness
  • Surprise, and
  • Contempt

In my last Monday post, Dr. Hank Weisinger talks about using your own micro expressions to make a better decision. Can you also use them to become a better leader?

There is a great difference between managing and leading. Managing, at its best is:

  • guiding,
  • teaching,
  • instructing

Its purpose is to get things done in the most efficient way possible. Our corporations couldn’t survive without good management.

Leading is different. Leading is aligning peoples’ passions and personal growth ambitions with the company goals. If you’re good at seeing micro expressions, you can become a better leader.

One of my more painful moments in my work is watching good managers try to lead by managing more. The leader/manager ignores the expression of contempt that crosses the others face. Sometimes they seem to be unaware. Most of the time they’re taught or encouraged by their manager/leader to ignore it and keep managing. They believe that good leadership is driving people to work harder.

Good leaders help people tap into their own passion to achieve alignment with team goals. Good leaders pick up on the fear, sadness or happiness that crosses the person’s face. If they’re seeing anything but happiness, they’re asking questions and listening. When goals align with passions, happiness is obvious.

Good spy’s notice things that others miss. Good leaders see things that managers don’t. Moving beyond a good manager to a good leader is difficult. Micro expressions may help.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
UA-56012341-1