by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Aug 11, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Organizational Effectiveness, Uncategorized
Conflict is a natural occurrence. In fact, it’s frequently a really good thing, allowing organizational success by way of diverse thinking. My favorite phrase: When reasonably intelligent, well-intentioned people disagree, the organization is better served.
And I believe that. Of course, I could write a treatise on the reasonably intelligent and well-intentioned qualifiers, but that’s for a different posting…
Instead, I’m just going to provide some tips and tidbits for combatting unhealthy conflict. Not to silent healthy conflict, mind you; I’m referring to the other kind. The simple, three-step model for conflict resolution has always been:
- Get all the facts on the table,
- Understand the others’ positions, and
- Find a win-win solution.
Now, I don’t know about you, but that last step seemed to take a quantum leap of faith after the first two. Here are some specifics that may help to bring that leap of faith back to something closer to a normal acceptance of logic…
- Listen. No, not that kind of listening… really listen. Listen to understand, not refute. Listen to find common ground, not to validate your position. Listen, hard.
- Don’t interrupt. Your parents told you that–you should have listened to them (see guidance above). Keep your blankety-blank trap shut and let someone talk. You can’t listen if you don’t, and the very act of obvious respect may act as a conflict-resolving catalyst. Stranger things have happened. And while we’re discussing interruptions… opening your mouth, shaking your head, and otherwise demonstrating your desire to speak are all interruptions, even if no noise comes out of your pie hole. Don’t do it.
- Use “I” messages. Yes, we learned that ridiculously basic, 3-part feedback technique in Communications 101 (did you take notes?). They are as useful and viable as ever, and even more so when resolving conflict.
- “When you…”
- “I feel…”
- “Because…”
Remember, our goal is to resolve conflict–really change
behavior–not to simply
win.
- Ask. If you really want to know “what it will take” for someone to get over a conflict situation, it may be as simple as simply asking. Give it a shot.
Conflict may be necessary for successful organizations, but unhealthy conflict is never part of that need. As leaders, we must identify it, address it, deal with it.
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 16, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement
It’s finally over. The World Cup, soccer’s Super Bowl, is done.
Germany wins. Now, back to real sports on television (kidding, kidding…).
Though, obvious by my snide comment, soccer isn’t “my
thing,” it clearly has a world following. Mostly because other countries don’t
have baseball, football–the real one :)–or basketball to watch during
off-seasons, but no matter… millions watch soccer.
So, what can we learn from watching those games (assuming
you did watch them)? Well, aside from “don’t bet on the home team” (7-1 Brazil…
seriously??), there are some leadership lessons buried within that
larger-than-a-football-field arena…
- Winning
is not a one-man game. Soccer has stars, to be sure, but the players don’t have
the luxury of quarters or periods. They go flat out for 45 minutes at a time.
At any given time, one or more players are “flat-out,” while others are just
“running hard,” the soccer version of on-field resting. 11 players on the field
for each team, and it takes all 11 to win. The German team wasn’t a collection
of bought-and-paid-for stars (think Miami Heat), but a well-honed team of
players who needed each other (synergy) to succeed.
- Short-term
actions, long-term view. There are 54 total matches played during the World
Cup. Germany eventually won the World Cup by beating Argentina (the long-term
goal), but had to win six matches (games) before that just for the opportunity.
Strategy is necessary, of course, as are long-term goals. But it’s execution of
the tactical that takes us to the end. In short, both are necessary for
success.
- Stopping
the reverse pony-express.Long-term development of talent leads to long-term
business success. A close friend of mine derides organizations for what he
calls the “reverse pony-express syndrome,” whereby we ride a horse until it
nearly drops, swap riders, and start again on the same horse. Germany is a
great example of not doing that. As a true team, they relied on the collective
versus one standout player; so much so that the MVP was actually awarded to a
losing player. We don’t need the best individuals to get the best results, we
need folks who play well together and look out for the common good.
So, I may not be a soccer aficionado, and I may have screwed
up some jargon above due to my ignorance (forgive me, European colleagues and
friends), but the lessons are solid nonetheless, proving that even in the
mind-numbingly boring, we can derive pearls of wisdom.
Did I mention I prefer real football?
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 3, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
(Note: This is the first in a series focusing on Leadership 2020—what leadership will look like in the year 2020 and beyond. Because as Bob Dylan (youngsters can look him up on Wikipedia) was fond of saying, “Times, they are a’changin’.” Leadership better change with the times, or their relevance will suffer a rapid and painful death.)
Feedback’s not getting easier, just more essential.
Tom Peters once described a really unique method of communicating at a client company… he said they talked to each other. Now this was some years ago, so talking may have morphed into various forms today (email, text, etc.), but the concept is still true-personal communications is a necessity, and will be crucial for leadership success in the future.
This is where you slap your head, à la Homer Simpson, with a resounding D’oh!
Our biggest challenge with feedback is usually the definition: it doesn’t mean “talking to someone,” and it certainly doesn’t mean “telling someone what you think.” Both of those may to the untrained observer, look like feedback. Neither actually is. Let’s cut to the chase…
Feedback is information provided to another person to help him or her grow and improve.
Do I need to repeat that?? If you aren’t trying to help someone grow and/or improve, it isn’t feedback. It may be something else (and likely not something good), but feedback?
No.
As my friend and colleague Alan Weiss says, feedback neither requested nor expected is for the sender, not the receiver. Telling me that I’m fat and ugly (a bold-faced lie, by the way) does nothing to help me improve, which should be the cornerstone of any feedback effort.
And saying “well, it’s true” is no defense. Too many people wield the “truth” like some invisible sword and shield. It’s not. And in feedback, it must be balanced with the overarching need to help. So, how will we need to do that in 2020 and beyond?
Make it personal. Feedback needs to be directed to someone specifically to be relevant. All-hands communications are so frequently ignored, they’ve lost all effectiveness for real feedback. Though face-to-face is best, telephone or emails, or even text (decidedly least effective) directed to a specific individual, with specifics on the feedback topic, are necessary. And never forget; we need to communicate in a manner that can be best received by the other person. Decide in advance whether you’re trying to win, or to change behavior. Your communications-style, method, frequency-will then drive how you execute that feedback.
Be timely. Note, I didn’t say immediate. If you are so fired up right now because someone made such an egregious error that you would like to strangle them, “timely” means waiting until you can give feedback in a way that can be best received by that same person (see above). Preferably sans strangulation.
Being timely also means delivering feedback when its relevance can be understood, and acted upon if necessary. This usually (barring the notable “strangulation exception” mentioned earlier) means as soon as practical to the event, behavior, or action driving the feedback subject.
Feedback must be two-way. Here’s the formula: The more we share relevant parts of ourselves—what we like, don’t like, expect, demand—the more others understand and trust us. The more they trust us, the more they share, and the more we share together, the higher the overall level of trust between us. Trust is the very currency of leadership; we simply cannot succeed without it This is one of the few things that will not change in future years. What may evolve, however, is the manner in which trust is created, built, and fostered.
We must accept—actually insist on—regular feedback from those we lead. Find a way that works; you can always start with getting good at providing feedback yourself, and consistently asking for same. Some may still be hesitant, and you’ll need some help. My Start-Stop-Continue worksheet can sometimes lower the resistance.
Feedback—helpful, relevant, and regular—will be essential to building trust in 2020 and beyond, and trust is essential to leadership. Without trust, there can be no discretionary effort; without discretionary effort, we only get what we pay for. Is that really what we want?
I vote no.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 10, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
I recently read a blog posting from someone holding themselves out as a “contrarian” HR professional (consultant, of course).
Now, I consider myself something of a contrarian myself, as many have used words like that (and sometimes even MORE colorful) to describe my rants, thinkings, and positions on various issues, and I’m OK with that.
This particular blog entry, however, brought a couple of things to light… (more…)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Monster.com, the veritable cash-producing employment machine, is laying off about 15% of its workforce. Big deal, eh??
Actually, I believe there’s a teaching moment here…
That monster is laying off, in itself is little news; the part that drives me nuts:
1. Q2 sales increased 25%, almost $60M,
2. Share price is up almost 2%, and
3. Earnings are down almost 28%, caused by a 34% increase in operating costs, driven almost entirely by legal fees associated with their options-backdating investigation.
In this age of Talent Management, these layoffs will be borne almost entirely by human resources & finance staff cuts — seems “centralization” of sorts now makes more sense.
The restructuring should save $150M, less $70M in associated costs, and another $80M they’ll use for additional product upgrades and advertising. In other words, first-year wash.
Creating intentional redundancy (decentralized support staff), then changing course on that (centralized), seems no different to me than poor decision-making in any other event; they merely needed a market-palatable basis for the decision to reduce staff.
Have you ever seen a company, on the eve of layoffs, say, “This reduction will hurt bad in many ways, and make it more difficult for us to accomplish our mission…?” Only with those near-death (then who really cares anyway?)
Short-term vs. long-term focus is obviously difficult. Senior leaders could have some relief from investors if they would merely personally commit to longer-term results. Most can’t (or won’t) do that, principally due to their lack of confidence in talent. A vicious circle, of course…
Too often, we view staffing “planning” as asking managers how many people they’ll need — effectively abrogating our responsibility for effective workforce management to an unskilled manager who believes — rightfully so, for his/her world — that vacancies should be filled, and more hands make for lighter work.
And though we (self included) popularly use words like talent management and such, much of this issue is best handled through good ol’ staffing plans. The issue we have, I think, is becoming an uber-leader and activist for these plans.
For instance, a position left unfilled for 3+ months, with no subsequent business limitations, is a position that should go unfilled/canceled, or at the minimum, intensely scrutinized.
Further, I believe companies like monster — who announces these layoffs about once every other year — are hiding behind them as a subterfuge for inadequate ongoing performance management. In other words, every couple of years, they whack the deadwood that should have been managed earlier. This is far too common…
We all do that to some degree; think of the times we’ve participated in a layoff. Being the intelligent, non-union creatures we are, we use “performance” as the litmus for who stays/who goes. Remember how easy it is/was to select some — if not all — of those being laid off under that criteria. Sure, some are difficult; but many are simple to ascertain, since they’ve been under-performing unscathed for a period of time before.
That’s “our bad.”
If we manage more, we layoff less.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 5, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Uncategorized
The NBA’s Adam Silver is no demonstrably exceptional leader. At least
given the recent example of decision-making without discernment. At best, he
could be a negative example… something to hold up as a “kids, don’t do this”
sort of thing.
Now, before everyone gets all huffy, hear me out; Donald
Sterling is a moronic jerk. I can’t say for certain whether he’s a racist, though I can say
that, assuming the recordings are valid and in context, he’s said some things
that sure sounded racist. He damned sure needed to be punished, no
question. I don’t question Silver’s decision, merely make a case that the decision was virtually faite accompli, and not representative of the type of lofty leadership with which others are giving credit.
Here’s the thing: making a reactionary decision, based
on extraordinary public outcry on behavior that by all accounts was nothing new
(numerous accounts of Sterling saying these things before) is far from an
exhibition in leadership. It shows no vision (the behavior wasn’t new) and it (forcing sale) wasn’t even his decision to make. He simply decided to ask the owners to
make that decision.
He’s being held up as courageous, in part, for making a
decision to ask someone else to make a decision.
Corporate sponsors were bailing out, players (even the
Clippers’) were talking boycott, and the media frenzy was threatening to sully
the entire sport. Donald Sterling didn’t “do” anything special (this time) except say
something to a single person that was recorded. This entire hoopla is not based
on Sterling’s previously well-known racist behaviors (e.g., discriminatory slumlord) or any such atrocity.
This became an issue because dollars started being effected.
In my view, Silver
had no choice, and no-choice decisions–like bankruptcy, financial layoffs,
closures, paying required taxes and making payroll on payday–are not
“leadership,” no matter how necessary. In fact, they frequently represent quite the opposite.
Like all decisions, there are two camps in the aftermath.
Those who believe a given decision was correct hail the decision-maker as smart and
decisive; those who do not, see the decision as a poor one made in the heat of
the moment without benefit of due consideration. I’m not weighing in behind
either camp—I’m simply saying that this particular decision, though potentially
necessary—was no specific indicator of leadership acumen and values.
Sort of like the optimist/pessimist argument: pessimists say
the glass is half empty, optimists say the glass is half full. I’m a
consultant; all I know is that you’ve got too much glass.
Now, to add insult to injury, Dennis Hof has banned Sterling from the Bunny Ranch brothel in Nevada. And he did it proactively, unwilling to jeopardize current clientele who might be present when Sterling paid a visit, using known evidence and incomplete information and without any media or public pressure.
Just something to think about.
But that’s just me…
