Investing in Leadership Futures

Don’t Change Everything, Start with 1%

Learning today that we will be presenting at a leadership development conference in Argentina in June, 2012, made me immediately think, of course, of a great grilled steak (for which Argentina is famous for).  Our topic? Inviting disruptive change into one’s professional life in the spirit of leadership innovation.  Steak and innovation.  What better chance to share a few coaching lessons learned from my own journey as a novice grillmaster: 

 

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?

What Charlie Sheen’s recent performance should teach us about Talent Risk Mitigation

“The most important decisions that businesspeople make are not what decisions, but who decisions.”  - Jim Collins, “Good to Great”

In the entire Charlie Sheen saga that has been playing out over the past several weeks we really are seeing what can go wrong with mismanagement of top talent who make the company a lot of money.

Assessing Leaders Who Might Make Bad Decisions by Dr. Karen Steadman

I have a friend in the mortgage industry who shared the following sentiment with me about refinancing:

“Do not try to use common sense to understand this process, there is none of that in our industry at the moment.  The mantra in our industry is “rules over risk” which means that they are not concerned whether your loan represents a risk or not, it is all about whether we are able to meet the guidelines.”

Rules over risk?  This approach concerns me. 

Reminiscing on Current Times of Unprecedented Challenge - Drs. Karen Steadman and Dirk Baxter

As organizations grapple with economic turmoil, specialty market upheaval, environmental crises and ever-increasing requirements from both consumers and creditors, some leaders may find their focus waning.  If something falls outside of immediate issues, it may fall off altogether.  Other leaders, however, are learning more than they realized possible.  We believe these unprecedented times will provide significant lessons that, if captured and acted upon by leaders, will provide accelerated learning points that are difficult to simulate any other way. 

The Power of MicroFeedback - Karen Steadman

My first professional experience with what I now term “MicroFeedback” was approximately 12 years ago when I was asked to take notes in a very important meeting for my boss.  Little did she know she would receive a 10 page record of the conversation as well as my observations of the audience members, their responses to her, her conscious and unconscious changes in behaviors based on reactions and input from the audience.   As an assessor, I tend to take people-watching to the extreme. In this case, the data that came back to my boss that day encouraged her to take her project in a very different direction.  She also promoted me and shifted my time to allow for many more meetings. 

My love of MicroFeedback has only grown.  I often observe my clients in groups as large as an earnings call or as small as a 1:1 simulated event I create to inform areas for growth.   We debrief the wealth of data to help optimize their performance but, interestingly, such hyper-observation is helpful long after we meet about it.  Knowing that I will be asking them for their own report *next time* they are in the same situation has been described many times as if I am “riding around on their shoulder”.   They are more aware, they make their own microadjustments based on inputs, they apply positive changes in behavior and I’m not even in the room.    Wonderful!    Interviews with stakeholders validate the results and people always notice something is different.

This week, I found a great way to challenge myself on the power of MicroFeedback, the BodyBugg.   This gadget is a “personal calorie management system” that uses very sophisticated technology to measure calorie burn.  It feeds into a web-based program that tracks calories burned down to the minute and reports trends over time.   I have the visual display on my wrist so I can tell you in the moment exactly how many calories I burned while kickboxing and compare it to the moment I was watching TV (BIG DIFFERENCE!) With my new Bugg on my left arm, I’ve achieved 2x to 3x the result this week than the 3 weeks prior.  Coincidence?   I doubt it.  I have been able to re-validate for myself the following obvious yet powerful behavioral laws:

• MicroFeedback promotes Instant Adjustments as well as Sustained Changes for “next time” – watching the calorie burned per minute fluctuate during 1 hour of exercise instantly promoted me to adjust my level of effort.  This week, I saw my effort drop off at the end of a class which incented me to pump up my efforts immediately to meet or exceed where I was earlier.    I remembered the point in time for my next class and made sure to NOT let myself drop off at that time.  My results were much higher the 2^nd time because of my sustained effort.
• Observation is Powerful Even When No one is Watching – The Bugg tracks calorie burn but it relies on the person to track how many calories they eat.    However, I dare you to try and eat a piece of chocolate cake with this little gem on your arm!   It doesn’t stop you, see you, or smell the cake but there is that extra incentive to skip it knowing the Bugg is like your coach sitting on your shoulder.
• Without Data, there is often a big difference between Estimated vs. Actual output – The most enlightening information from this week has been the difference between my estimated effort and the actual output.   I took the same yoga class today with the same teacher as I did last week and there was a 175 calorie difference.   I knew I felt more “game on” last week, but I would not have estimated nearly half as much.  There will be no slacking on 2^nd set for me next time. 
• MicroFeedback feeds a Natural Desire to Improve – My executive clients are competitive and so am I. Rather than running around with no end goal, the Bugg program and gadget has helped me set relevant, achievable, positive targets and then provided me the data to reach or exceed them.  The trend lines from day to day show a view of slippage but also clues for how to improve. This experience has been very positive for learning from the past in order to improve the results in the future.
• Informed Stakeholders are Critical to Success – Though the Bugg has been helpful, I do believe my results so far have been enhanced by letting others know what I am trying to accomplish.  I have several comrades in my exercise class who are now tracking my progress.   There is no way I can show up without it now!

Armed with this new validation for instant feedback, does anyone have any creative technology ideas for me to simulate “Coach Karen” who can ride around on someone’s shoulder?

 

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

Networker ≠ Social Butterfly by Dr. Dirk Baxter

Social Butterfly: a gregarious person who likes to attend parties and other social gatherings.

 

Networker:   someone who creates positive opportunities by building networks of like-minded people. Networking allows one to create mutually beneficial relationships and generate business opportunities at the same time.

 

Everyday there are more and more networking events as people are trying to connect to others in professional settings, find their next position, and drive new business.  Unfortunately, many of my clients have a distasteful picture of the process because they incorrectly equate “networking” with the visual of the Butterfly – flitting from conversation to conversation – collecting cards and names but never resting long enough to solidify the opportunity to truly connect with people.  With this visual in mind, many are turned off completely.  I encourage people to look at the networking process differently as it appears they may have the wrong visual and end game in mind.

 

Here are a few of my “Do’s” and “Don’ts” for optimizing your own networking experience:

 

DO: Ask and REMEMBER who people are and what they do.

The butterfly measures success by the number of meetings. On the contrary, the networker truly seeks to know, understand and remember what that other person does.  Take notes.  You may not have a way to help each other now but the opportunity may present itself later.  Seek to remember.

 

DON’T: Be afraid to take the conversation to a deeper level

A critical error of butterflies is to have brief, superficial conversations.  For example, they may spend precious time to speak to the “important” person in the room (often the guest speaker at an event).  Instead I suggest that you note who goes up and talks to the speaker – and then go introduce yourself to that person. You likely have similar interests – leverage the fact that you just had a shared experience and take the conversation to a deeper level.

 

DO: Talk to people that you do not know

Some butterflies take the same path and repeat the same patterns over and over again. If your goal is merely to socialize at these events, you will lose out as you safely gravitate to people you already know.  The key is to not only meet people, but to meet new people.  I challenge you to push yourself out of your pattern – ask your colleagues to introduce you to people they know or challenge each other to meet new people together.

 

DON’T: Attempt to talk to the entire room

The butterfly wears themselves out searching everywhere for the perfect landing spot. Your goal should be different …be strategic to meet a few people and anchor yourself in a good conversation. This isn’t to say that the effort that you put in pays immediate dividends, but you should be focused in your efforts and set goals before the event.

 

DON’T: Forget to ask for a card & FOLLOW-UP

Butterflies are famous for quickly moving on to the next thing.  Differently for you, plan for the important follow-up. Having a conversation is powerful, but you may be quickly forgotten. Within the next few days invite someone to coffee or at the very least invite them to stay connected with you on LinkedIn.

 

DO: Help others and Pay it forward

Butterflies are social in many ways as they fly in groups, but they are not partners for each other.  The true standard of a good networker is the selfless interest in “paying it forward”.   Think through how you can help other people build their networks and always pay it forward.  

 

Read the Experts - here are my favorite writers who provide great insight into creating your own positive networking experience:

1)    Tim Sanders “Love is the Killer App” – Tim inspires me because he strongly emphasizes helping others as critical to networking. If you help others you actually help yourself.

2)    Simon Vetter “Stand Out” – you have a brand whether you like it or not, Simon outlines how to build your professional brand and most importantly, how to market it.

3)    Harvey Mackay “Dig Your Well before You Are Thirsty” – we all need a hand from time to time. Networking aids us in collecting that critical information BEFORE we need it.

4)   Bob Littell "The Heart and Art of Netweaving" found at www.netweaving.com - I like Bob's points that good things happen to those that make it happen:

a.   Strengthen your relationships with your existing clients, customers and referral sources, especially those who are doing well because of the nature of their business and/or industry

b.   Develop new relationships with potential clients and customers realizing you may not be “selling” them any products or services now

c.    Expand your network of existing and potential referral sources

 

Successful Consensus Building: Modern day Leaders vs. Bees

What do economists, social scientists, money market specialists, management consultants and animal biologists have in common?  They are all searching to understand what makes collective decision-making go right or wrong and advise on ways to more often and more quickly “get it right”.   This recent economic crisis has brought many examples to the forefront where speed, greed, and a lack of inputs produced disastrous results. For a few tips let’s look to emerging research on bees who have apparently been making pretty darn good decisions for about 30 million years.

As a group, bees rarely make mistakes.   On their own they typically don’t survive.    True, they aren’t necessarily tasked with negotiating climate treaties, achieving profitable numbers every quarter or hedging the diminishing sources for oil.  However, expert Tom Seeley, author of soon to be released book Honeybee Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2010), believes their success should not be discounted by modern day leaders.  He has improved his own faculty meetings by studying the behavior of bees stating “We’ve all been in committee meetings where agreement was never reached because nobody would ever give up”.   Apparently, bees know when to fight for a cause and when to let their personal enthusiasm wane to build consensus…..most often for a superb result. 

The following “swarm smarts” I adapted from Seeley's work are helpful for leaders to keep in mind when trying to build consensus and make decisions:

*Avoid groupthink and allow for argument – contrary to popular belief, bees do not just follow each other blindly nor do they follow one opinion (not even the queen’s).   When bees are seeking options they encourage individuals to research on their own, “report freely and argue.”  For example, numerous experienced scouts are encouraged to seek new opportunities and report back many options for all to sift through.   Too often leaders stifle conversation and diversity of opinion because they have already made their decision and are merely going through the motions of listening to options.    This approach may seem like a shorter route but it more often leads to a much worse result including reduced inputs to the leader over time.

*Adapt when needed - when the alarm is sounded bees rapidly shift course by lowering their threshold levels to make a decision and agreeing to reduce deliberation time.  They encourage argument if possible but, when necessary:  stop arguing, rapidly assess what is a “must have” vs. a “nice to have” for the group, and move forward.   They adjust later when they can fully assess the situation and incorporate the learning for next time.   How many leaders wait too long working in the wrong direction and fail to adapt while in search for the perfect solution?

*Know your audience and communicate clearly – The rare time when bees fail is when a “must have” is known but the failed bee does not tailor the message to the audience and is handily ignored.  In one instance cited, the bee dances furiously but others only see noise and frantic action rather than a clear, easily defined recommendation.   Leaders who rant and dramatize rather than present the facts may lose their audience just when they need it the most.  The hive goes in a different direction.

Earlier this year, a special multidisciplinary conference came together to analyze decision making in everything from voting patterns and alliance building in European Parliament to the rapid search capabilities of ants.   I would have loved to be a fly on the wall.

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?