Investing in Leadership Futures

Bananas vs. Pintos - Has the pendulum swung too far in mitigating against risk? by Dr. Dirk Baxter

   vs. 

Since 1906 in the United States there has been an interesting transition in perspective worth noting as we move forward into unknown and uncertain times. Business leaders have gone from being coldly calculating; effectively ignoring a business’s responsibility to workers and the public (e.g., made famous in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”), through a more balanced approach to doing business, to a current mode that is wrought with figuring out what could possibly go wrong before taking too many steps. This newer mode has leaders deeply evaluating financial risks, far reaching public risks and brand risk in order to mitigate against negative outcomes. Though I am a fan of hedging against the downside, I wonder if the pendulum has swung too far from being blind to black swan events (defined as low probability but high impact events) to being scared of everything?

Assessing Coachability – Is that Change Agent Ready to Change? by Karen Steadman

“What isn’t working?” I ask the CEO. 

“Max is bright, driven, results-oriented and has excellent ideas so I naturally thought he was ready for the next step.   Unfortunately, I’m finding out he is also intense, very critical of others and, frankly, a pain to work with if he isn’t onboard with an idea.  The feedback from his new peers is horrible and I am worried he won’t be able to affect the change I need going forward.  Can you coach him?  What is the likelihood he will change?”

My answer – “hmmm…….that depends”.    Before moving forward my task is to conduct an assessment of whether Max is a lost cause in his current situation or merely a diamond with a few rough spots.  Then, and only then, will I be able to answer these coaching questions.   Max is expensive if he fails, yet has succeeded in the past and may have the raw materials to succeed here with some coaching.  A potentially worthy coaching cause but also someone who has a reputation for being difficult to work with if he isn’t onboard.   

My follow-up answer - “I can assess him, and then I will recommend next steps”.

Assessing Coachability

My motto is to always assess well rather than coach poorly. The following are the experiences that someone must pass through before I will deem them as fully “coachable”.   Note that I am merely discussing issues of willingness to be coached in this article….issues such as integrity issues are not addressed.    If someone is deemed worthy of intervention by the company than these tests can help make sure I recommend the right intervention.   The tests are in order and each one requires time.  A person as driven as Max is likely to begin changing from the very beginning.   

Test  1 – Level of Engagement

In stage 1, everything that factors into assessing engagement level applies.  Does the person return calls, are they eager to meet you, do they have a lot of questions (a good thing), or are you obviously being treated as a “have-to”.   If someone is skeptical about coaching but actively participating they can score high on engagement level.  However, if the only reason someone meets with me is because their boss said so, they score very low on level of engagement.  

Test  2 – Level of Awareness

In stage 2 I take a deeper look at the feedback someone has received.  How can someone like Max have received such mixed feedback?   My answer is that strengths in one setting easily become strengths overplayed in a different context.  If left unchecked, the leader who is bold suddenly appears “too blunt”, others who are nice are perceived as “not edgy enough”.   For Max, he has perception gaps to address including:

· Too critical - though excellent at sifting through data and making difficult decisions, he is apparently unable to leave his critical thinking behind even when he should. 

· Too intense – Max is driven but lacks savvy to stop fighting the wrong battles. 

· Too competitive – his results-orientation has crossed over into being competitive to the point of excluding others. 

I often review a lot of assessment data in this stage in addition to conducting formal assessments as the majority of people want to make sure I see that they have had good feedback in the past.  To pass the Awareness test, Max needs to acknowledge that there might be opportunities in which he is not currently using his strengths in the right way even though he has been successful with these same strengths in the past.   

Test 3 – Willingness to try New Things

In stage 3 (which may still be in the first meeting) I ask someone to identify one thing that they believe they should change.  This item does not have to be directly from the feedback but should instead be something they really want to change.    I ask them to identify the item, why it is important, and where they will try new behaviors starting immediately.    The goal is twofold:  first, most people like to gain traction immediately, but it also provides me a wealth of information on their willingness to try new things.  Did they choose something important?  Did they choose something from the feedback?  Did they choose something and then not do anything about it?   This is a real-time test of someone’s willingness and ability to change.

To pass the New Things test, Max would need to identify and act on something within a 2 week to 30 day timeframe.   

Test 4  – Willingness to ask for help from Stakeholders ( THE TURNING POINT)

In stage 4, time has passed to gather assessment data and also gather field data on trying the 1 new behavior.    By this time, it is typically a turning point in which people like Max will decide whether to act on their own items or to ask for help with stakeholders.  IMPORTANT:  if a leader does not want to ask for help from stakeholders, they may appear “coachable”, but likely the boss can be that coach.  I will support them for a maximum of 90 days as coaching with an external coach becomes a poor investment in this scenario.  However, if they pass the Stakeholders test, they are typically considered “coachable” for a retained process.  

To truly pass the Stakeholders test, Max would have to be willing to set up feedback mechanisms with stakeholders and ask for ongoing feedback.  For some people, it is too much and we part ways.

Test 5 - Willingness to commit to an Action Plan

For those leaders that have passed through the first 4 stages, the one last test helps me determine if they will be able to sustain their changes for the long term.   I help them gather feedback AND they commit to willingly seek opportunities to solicit ongoing feedback from those that can observe them.  We create an action plan that they sign because it seems so obvious now how to achieve results the right way.   If they pass the Action Plan test that includes feedback mechanisms, I know that there is a very strong chance they will be able to achieve results through coaching.  If they don’t, follow-up meetings are merely accountability meetings and not worthy of a coaching investment.  It would only be going through the motions.

Recommendations to the CEO

My prediction is that Max is a diamond.   He will be a perfect candidate for coaching if he is able to go through the assessment phase and start using his strengths in a different way.  Assess well rather than coach poorly.  We can help if you or someone on your team is a diamond who is:

Too opinionated

Too critical of others

A poor listener

Too blunt and too bold

Too intense

Too “me” focused

Too difficult

Too nice

Not “edgy” enough

Too attached to the details

Too slow to make decisions

Too easy on performance issues

Leadership on the Gridiron - How to build true Bench Strength by Dirk Baxter

 

Definition of Bench strength

· Sports - the quality and number of players available to substitute during a game.

· Business - the competence and number of employees ready to fill (temporarily or permanently) vacant leadership and other positions.  Example - Building an organization's bench strength through management training and stretch assignments.

I love football.  Though I usually stick to college I find that this time of year between regular games and bowl games I also watch professional. Recently, I read in the WSJ about “The NFL Team That Solved December - Chargers' Perennial Late-Season Drive Is Part Luck, Part Design; What Other Coaches Could Learn.”  

 

This article caught my eye because of the obvious ability of the Chargers’ coaches who were working so well with their talent. Proper leveraging of talent will make or break individuals, teams, coaches, and franchises. So why would this particular team do so well when others don’t?

 

One striking philosophical difference is that the Chargers seem to take a full-season approach to winning in December while other teams appear to be uni-dimensional and reactive to winning single games.  For example:

Chargers:

· plan for keeping star players healthy

· continuously making sure newer players are well versed in critical plays

· challenge newer players during the season while resting star players – even when it isn’t necessary

Other Teams

· over-rely on the key players remaining healthy going into the final month

· ratchet up the play book and come up with new plays to confuse the other team

· restrict the play book so less pressure on newer players   

The difference?  Succession planning.  While other teams are hoping for health and searching for the best wrench to throw at the competition, the Chargers always remain focused on overall talent development.

 

Now I have even more reason to watch the Chargers.  They are my poster team for Strategic Talent Management. 

 

What are the downsides?

The question then becomes: What are the costs to this approach? Why don’t other teams and organizations do it?

 

There can be a short term cost to this approach. As mentioned in the article the Chargers don’t win every game, especially at the beginning of the season. Top leadership has to be comfortable with not always having the best player complete every play.  When any organization builds their next generation of leaders a few balls may get dropped, but the payoff is having the strong bench of talent for the long term. Nobody said talent development and succession planning would be easy, but they are critical to actually winning “in December.”

 

Now where is that remote control…

 

Influencing the rest of the pack

Have you ever received widely varying feedback from a group of stakeholders?  You might be making some assumptions that are ultimately taking you further from achieving your objectives.  Before getting stuck on "they just don't know me well" or "I've never gotten this feedback before", check my scenarios to see if you are working in the wrong direction. For some immediate takeaway application: I've included a few lessons on influencing from what may seem like an unlikely source - Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer. 

Succession planning, M&A scenarios, turnover, promotion or a crisis are catalysts for a rebalancing of who are your key stakeholders and how should you best influence and interact with them.  Best case scenario = consistent and conscious calibration of your influencing plan and seeking ongoing feedback on whether or not you are being effective.  Too often it is not until a stakeholder analysis reveals widely varied responses on how someone is perceived - How can they be "too assertive" sometimes and "not nearly assertive enough" with others?  Effectively influencing depends on the person and the situation at hand.  I observe people making several incorrect assumptions when trying to influence outcomes:

Incorrect Assumption #1 - The Match - incorrectly assuming one should always match their level of assertiveness to the other person's level -   Typical poor result: the conversation gets stuck.  Examples:

• Your peer always speaks their mind so you *match* by being outspoken in order to influence them. You get stuck in an argument and get nowhere.
• Your direct report is not assertive so you *match* by tempering down your level of direction.  You get stuck because they take no action. 

Incorrect Assumption #2 - The Push - incorrectly assuming that an increase in your energy level or efforts will always equate to being more influential - Typical poor result: others attack or withdraw leaving you with lost credibility.  Examples:

• You push for something you deem important without realizing that the group has already decided. People stop listening to you.
• You work longer and longer hours on an issue and learn that the stakeholder gets angry that you have overstepped your boundaries.  You've lost time and colleagues stop asking for your help.

Incorrect Assumption #3 - You are in control - incorrectly assuming that your title, tenure, authority to sign a paycheck or high IQ gives you automatic influence in a situation. Typical poor result: you are no longer chosen as the strongest candidate to accomplish a future objective.  Examples:

• You make decisions because "it is your assigned territory" without seeking input outside your territory. Senior leadership expresses concern that you are not a team player
• You share an FTE who technically reports to you yet the matrixed manager complains you are a bottleneck to decisions. You are deemed a micromanager.

Tips for How to Influence the Rest of the Pack 

I have no fewer than 3 sisters who are veterinarians so comparisons of human behavior to animal behavior are nothing new to me.  There are many behavioral comparisons that do not apply (though you might be surprised!) - however I see direct application from our canine comrades and The Dog Whisperer's work around assertiveness, influence and applying the concept of Who is Alpha to choose behaviors for different situations. In my understanding, the Alpha is the one in control and, if influenced well, promotes a highly collaborative relationship for working towards an objective.  This so-called Alpha can be female or male, and WILL CHANGE depending on the situation and the evolution of the relationship.  Perhaps you are Alpha which means you are influencing correctly in some situations.  However, that can change if you are not conscious about it.  I believe the following lessons from the canine world might be applicable:

Realize that anyone can be Alpha at any time -  sometimes you are Alpha, sometimes you aren't.  Alpha has more to do with level of influence and ability to gain buy-in for results than title. This is essentially relationship power vs. title power.  One of my clients sadly found out 6 months into a new role that she had been trying to influence a situation through her boss and had neglected the person who was actually gaining buy-in from senior leadership - her peer.   

Remain calm, yet assertive - being overly aggressive or unassertive doesn't work.  When approaching the person of influence- remain calm, stay conscious of emotion or frustration, and assert yourself.   One of my clients encountered an Alpha who made him crazy by being very indecisive "hmmm, let me think about that".  Weeks would go by and the more he fought, the longer the pauses and indecision.  When he calmed down and visibly didn't let it get the better of him - he was accepted and the behavior disappeared. 

Learn the boundaries and respect them - working across boundaries without giving or taking too much is ultimately important to working relationships.  There are volumes of work on boundary setting but one key that seems universal is to establish a feedback mechanism to consistently calibrate roles and responsibilities. Boundaries are dynamic and require communication and willingness to recalibrate to work. 

So, a few takeaways for you humans out there:

• Canines can tell you right away who is Alpha. Can you?
• Canines get kicked out of the pack if they don't pass the calm but assertive test.  Relax and go further.
• Canines spend a good portion of their life communicating about boundaries and making sure they know the limits.  When was the last time you rebalanced your influence plan?