Investing in Leadership Futures

I want to Fail

 

“Most of life is on-the-job training. Some of the most important things can only be learned in the process of doing them. You do something and you get feedback — about what works and what doesn’t. If you don’t do anything for fear of doing it wrong, poorly, or badly, you never get any feedback, and therefore you never get to improve.”                                     

Jack Canfield “The Success Principles”

There are many books written about winners. People who strive and overcome obstacles, try new things and persist in the face of multiple failures. We put visionaries such as Ford, Edison, Salk on pedestals and celebrate their successes. It is easy to be curious on “why” they were successful. It is easy to celebrate those accomplishments, but taking a look at the whole picture also includes a view into multiple failures and many copies of the t-shirt “been there, done that”.

But what if failing is not for you? What if falling short in a quest is too painful to consider? Well the good news is you can guard yourself against this exposure. Here are some simple tactics you can use so you are less prone to trying something you aren’t good at. Of course the downside is that you will likely not much move much beyond where you are now. To save you effort and possible embarrassment, consider these on your path towards a fail-free life.

  Doctor Leaders, know thyself to heal thyself

“But who should begin? Who should break this vicious circle? The only possible place to begin is with myself. … Whether all is really lost or not depends entirely on whether or not I am lost.” Vaclav Havel

Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic, and one of the greatest icons of the Cold War recently passed away. His story is a hero’s journey and shows his courage and leadership on the level of Nelson Mandela. Vaclav was a young dissident playwright who was imprisoned for his beliefs. Through his self-reflection while in prison, he found the fortitude to continue to write and eventually lead the 10-day Velvet Revolution.

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: 

 

4 Legal Leadership Strategies to Build In-house Legal Capability

4 Legal Leadership Strategies to Build In-house Legal Capability by Dirk Baxter, PhD SPHR and Karen Steadman, PhD

Having the right in-house legal counsel team is an increasingly important facet of a successful talent strategy, however it is often neglected.  If your organization’s current state consists of what would be considered the bare minimum [individual PDPs (personal development plans), career planning meetings individually every 6-12 months, and recruiting for technical expertise], you might be in for some bad news.  The complexity of the modern market and political landscape requires a more agile and interpersonally savvy legal team than previous scenarios.  Here are four strategies that legal leadership should incorporate to help increase the team’s capability.

Press Release-Keynote Speakers for Consulting Conference-John Byrne, Dan Denison, Chip Conley

LAS VEGAS, NV  – January 24, 2011 – The Society of Consulting Psychology  will hold its Mid Winter Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada to explore how organizational consultants create value for their clients through the use of applied behavioral science in change and learning.  The conference will run from January 27^th thru January 30^th and will be held at the Wynn Las Vegas.

Part II – Always Play your Best Hand – More Leadership Lessons for Raising your Game - Dr. Karen Steadman and Dr. Dirk Baxter

 
Our last article with leadership lessons from the world of poker resonated with so many people (leaders and poker players alike), here are a few more lessons to raise your game at work.  

Assessing Talent in a Tough Economy - article featuring Dr. Karen Steadman

Exciting press for Leadership Futures on the Atlanta Journal website and featured in the print edition today

Assessing Talent in a Tough Economy 

posted July 1 and July 11th, 2010 by Laura Raines for the AJC

 

Many companies have been treading water, struggling to stay afloat in the choppy waters of a tough economy. And their employees are tired, said Karen Steadman, president of Leadership Futures, an Atlanta consulting firm that helps corporations assess, coach and transform their top leaders and teams.

Steadman helps companies identify and develop their high-potential employees.

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 Willow and the Oak – Leadership Flexibility Rooted by Strong Systems- Drs. Karen Steadman and Dirk Baxter

 

Since the Chinese outlined talent selection thousands of years ago, the selection and retention of top talent has been extraordinary. Organizations spend billions each year on tests, assessments, and recruitment strategies. Some organizations emphasize technical skill for selection and promotion which, unfortunately, may be a set of infrequently changing variables once beyond entry professional levels....... 

 

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…

 

Derailed - new book by my former boss - Dr. Tim Irwin

I am excited that my friend and colleague Tim Irwin is launching his 2nd book on November 3rd - and it could not be any more timely.  Derailed chronicles the collapse of six high-profile CEOs (Robert Nardelli, Carly Fiorina, Durk Jager, Steven Heyer, Frank Raines, Dick Fuld) and the factors that drove their downfalls, finding that derailment actually happens long before the crash and can be avoided. Here is more information about Tim, the book, and the foreward by Patrick Lencioni.

www.DerailedLeader.com

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.

Challenge as a Motivator- When does a Challenge become a De-motivator?

A recent article in Talent Management references a study that challenge is the key motivator for executives and managers. Executives are motivated more by challenge than managers by almost 30 percentile points. And even more interesting was the difference in employee motivators between large and small companies.  Pride in ones job was a motivator for 77% of all employees in companies with less than 1000 employees while in larger companies pride impacted only 43% of employees. http://bit.ly/V1PrH .

This information got me thinking about the implications it has on a company’s leadership development practices.

If the research is true and there is such a wide difference between executives and managers motivated by challenge, when evaluating managers for future executive roles, should you be identifying those who are motivated by challenge? And if so how would you go about evaluating a manager’s motivations?

I also wonder about the word “challenge”.  What is one person’s challenge is another person’s nightmare and thus a recipe for stress and potential failure.  As a leader, how do you know when you are challenging a person versus creating stress and negative implications on an employee?

Investing in What Matters: Linking Employees to Business Outcomes

Today, we dive into the world of analytics and human capital in an interview with my colleagues Shane Douthitt and Scott Mondore from Strategic Management Decisions (SMD). Always in search of wise investments, I believe the power of analytics is key to solving today and tomorrow's business challenges ...I find it very interesting that as I post this interview, IBM announces their purchase of SPSS - predictive analytics software.    In my interview, SMD shares their deep expertise in developing human capital strategies based on analytics linking employee data to business outcomes as recently published in their book "Investing in What Matters: Linking Employees to Business Outcomes"

 

 

*What is the main theme of the book and your work?

We provide a structured approach for human resource (HR) professionals to instruct corporations how to use solid analytics to connect employee data to business outcomes. "Investing in what matters" uses a case study approach to help organizations use the data they have to transform their workforce into their biggest asset. 

 

*What experiences compelled you to write this book?

We have worked as internal HR executives, external HR consultants as well as corporate strategy executives and line-of-business leaders. We have seen HR from all angles and have had great success over the past 15 years in these roles applying our methodology to show the value of what we were doing in HR. We wanted to write this book to help HR leaders become true business partners and show the value of the work we have dedicated our careers to...

 

 

*How is your work with HR data unique compared to everything else that has come before it?  What are the differentiators?

To date, the work that is out there is based on assumptions and weak analytical techniques.   The work on HR Scorecards focuses on efficiency metrics and employee engagement—none of which are business outcomes. Efficiency metrics are strictly for functions that are viewed as cost-centers who can only show value by cutting their budgets. This does not have to be a soft science...far from it. Our approach is a simple, practical way to take the vast amounts of HR data that already exist in organizations (training, surveys, competencies, demographics) and link them to actual business outcome data that shows cause-and-effect relationships. This allows HR leaders to show a monetary impact on the business and to also be held accountable for the business reaching its goals. This is what is truly meant by getting a “seat at the table”.

 

*Can you give us an example of a company that followed your advice and has realized gains in their investment?

A large grocery chain was losing $93 million dollars a year in losses called ‘shrink’ (e.g. employee theft, food losses, spoilage). The company had worked on their supply chain and distribution issues with some impact. However, the head of the shrink initiative realized that changes in behavior was the one area that would yield the greatest benefits. We implemented our methodology which pulled in all of the HR data and we discovered specific competencies, attitudes and hiring process issues that were directly driving shrink. The organization implemented initiatives to work on these specific areas and are now already ahead of the total annual plan for the year (and it’s only July).

 

*What are some "a-ha's" from your experience that drive the advice you provide to organizations:

We have ten principles in the book that help frame the next steps:

1. Organizations already spend significant amounts of money on their people….they just don’t spend it on the right things.
2. Organizations make investments in people without any data or with the wrong data.
3. Employee engagement in itself is not a business outcome.
4. People and organizations are complex. The linkages between attitudes and outcomes have to be understood within your organization using your data.
5. The people data and outcome data do exist—you just have to go and get it.
6. The organization’s data exist in silos.
7. There will be obstacles and barriers to obtaining the data (e.g. politics, turf battles).
8. Once a connection/linkage is made with the data—accountability is unavoidable (and that’s a good thing).
9. Don’t assume a link between employee data and business outcomes—define it and understand why or why not.
10. Perceptions alone do not show up on the profit and loss statement.

*Considering everything that businesses are handling at the moment, why is linking employees to business outcomes even more critical right now?

Our work outlines a process that organizations can follow to connect investments in employees to the bottom line. In the current slow economy, as organizations have been looking to cut expenses--our approach allows them to make people investment decisions based on cause-and-effect and ROI analyses. However, this should be done no matter the shape of the economy as HR, to this point, has struggled to show a return on investment.

 

In other words, there is never a better time than the present to invest wisely for the future.

 

For more from Scott and Shane, please see www.strategicmanagementdecisions.com

 

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?