Teamwork Sucks– I like “Synergistic Leadership” better

by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 8, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics

Teamwork is overrated.

Space… the final frontier…

Teamwork… the over-rated concept…

Teamwork is misaligned, misinterpreted, misused and misunderstood. And “it ain’t all that,” anyway.

Now, before I’m accused of organizational blasphemy, realize I’m speaking of “teamwork” in its most common evolution within companies. It’s been reduced to “playing well together,” “getting along,” “not rocking the boat,’ and other ridiculous euphemisms that interfere with true teamwork.

True teamwork, in the form that really matters and provided value to the organization, is best defined as Synergistic Leadership. There you have it – you’ve witnessed the birth of a new phrase in the consultant-speak lexicon. And you saw it here first, folks.

Now, here’s what Synergistic Leadership means to me…

Synergistic Leadership means three things: Understanding each other, applying intellect, and acknowledging the ‘best’ way.

Specifically:

1. Understanding each other. Now, this isn’t some kumbaya-sounding effort at walking coals, falling backward into your coworkers arms, or a ropes challenge course (don’t get me started…).

   And it’s not about MBTI or ENTJ, or DiSC, or any other consultant-speak acronym.

   Synergistic Leadership means we can listen, derive real meaning, and understand the position of our colleagues, even if/when we disagree. It means we’ll do whatever is possible to make certain we understand, and to develop and use a process for managing through the conflicts we will most assuredly enjoy.

   It simply means we’ll understand each other. Not necessarily like, love, or agree all the time with each other.

2. Applying intellect. Let’s face it – if there’s not some degree of smarts involved, it’s just not going to work. If someone on a leadership team has a couple of bricks missing, we need a replacement.

   In Synergistic Leadership, the assumption is that all members have a semblance of intelligence, and aren’t afraid to use it. And use it wisely.

   Some may think themselves smarter than others in the room – and in fact, they may actually be smarter. But, to borrow from Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does. Unapplied intellect is as useless as stupidity to begin with, and infinitely more dangerous on many fronts.

   In fact, a good argument can be made that unapplied intellect is, in fact, stupid. And as we’ve discussed before, you can’t fix stupid.

   Further, and pay attention here, within leadership teams, intellect without empathy is simply arrogance. To have the “smarts,’ and not be bright enough to realize that there’s others in play here, and I may actually not have the best answer, is tragic. Don’t do that.

3. Acknowledging the “best” way is where Synergistic Leadership really comes together for leadership teams. We understand each other, we take our intelligence and apply it for good over evil, and then, most importantly, we take the best decision and act on it.

   Note clearly here; I did not say we compromise, water down to achieve consensus, nor combine the “best” approach with the “second-best” approach just to appease some ego-driven team member with an inflated sense of self-worth.

   Understand, discuss, and then decide. Choosing the best response or decision among options, and sticking to your guns in doing so, is where Synergistic Leadership trumps teamwork all day, every day.

   And twice on Sunday.

Leading change —- until it hurts

by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 12, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics

“Change agent” is overused. It’s simply a euphemism for leadership today. Organizational change today is a constant, leader-driven process, not a succession of singular events.

We forget that change is an ongoing cumulative process. After we plow through those initial, successful movements toward our change goal, we believe that we can expect the same level or pace of change in the future. We then become disappointed when our next “snapshot” or measurement of change doesn’t measure up to the first.

“What the heck happened?” we ask…

A large healthcare provider was concerned about the costs associated with a particular region of facilities. What became apparent was that the costs associated with clinical employee turnover–both direct, tangible dollars as well as those less obvious indirect costs–were weighing heavily on the organization. Reducing this turnover, then, became the focus of our initial work. Like all such efforts, we made really big strides at the beginning; low hanging fruit was summarily picked, then held as an expectation for future results.

Of course, when the pace of turnover reduction slowed, many began grumbling, and questioned the success–even the need–for these ongoing efforts.

This negative thinking after initial gains is common, and a mistake. A big mistake.

All organizational change efforts are cumulative, and our expectations–and the expectations of those participating in the change–must be adjusted to match those cumulative (realistic) measures.

I can best describe with a visual:

If we define our entire change goal in percentage terms, then you’ll notice in the graphic above that after the first year, we had achieved about 75% of our total objective.

Not too shabby, eh? Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back just yet…

Those initial, big results are not surprising. Actually, once we dig in and really get behind a change process–and defeat the near-omnipotent inertia–the first weeks/months/year(s) tend to show the greatest movement toward our objective.

Think low-hanging fruit mentioned earlier. Think, “united against a common enemy.”

Too frequently, we give up or decrease our efforts and focus after an initial burst of successful change. We overcome the hardest part of any change – inertia – then don’t follow through after we make those initial gains.

Years ago, my son was in middle school and struggling somewhat with a particular subject. He would seldom study much for the tests, and not surprisingly, his grade reflected his effort. Prior to one particularly important test, I clamped down on him, making him diligently study over a couple of days for the upcoming examination. Returning home from school that day, he was visibly upset with me, saying, “I don’t know why you me study so much—the test was easy!”

He couldn’t get his mind around the fact that it was the changed behavior that brought the different results.

We overcome the more obvious obstacles, changing the most egregious (but changeable) offending behaviors. Because, of course, we all knew what/who those were anyway. Making immediate change, then, is more a matter of resolve than effort.

Not so for later efforts to continue that change.

In the visual above, you’ll notice that Year 2 resulted in “only” 10% of our total change effort. Quite a downer from Year 1, right? We usually think so, but we shouldn’t.

If we changed 75% the first year, and only had 25% of the total change remaining, we actually accomplished about 40% of the remaining change in Year 2. Again, not too shabby, but we tend to view it more as the 10% instead of the greater 40%. And that depresses us.

Disappointment, disillusionment, and frequently, lack of continued focus often sets in. Don’t let that happen. Realize again, that:

• organizational change is an ongoing, cumulative process,
• we usually beat up on all the easy stuff first, so it looks like we’ve made big, honkin’ progress at the beginning,
• lasting change comes from long-term efforts, not short-term programs, and
• if we allow ourselves to “backslide,” reclaiming that same ground again is a helluva lot harder than the first time.

Stay the course. Measure efforts “from start,” not from “last measurement.” Remember that, like in golf, the goal is consistent forward progress, not always consecutive home runs.

And my sincerest apologies for mixing my sports metaphors. Just making sure you’re paying attention…

Change Leader or Change Manager, Which are You?

by Triangle Performance Staff | May 6, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics

Research shows that almost 70% of all change efforts FAIL or are only partially implemented (which is a failure in my book)! That is a staggering number, but what is more staggering is that the statistic is not changing. My lead in question to you is: “Are you contributing to that statistic?

Change is nothing new to leaders or those they lead. Today however, business conditions change far faster than at any other time in history because product and service breakthroughs are quickly copied or become outdated. That requires constant innovation which means constant change. Change isn’t optional, it is essential, and the commitment to change must be full commitment and must be handled differently.

If you Google “successful change management” you’ll get nearly a 150,000,000 hits and therein lies the problem, we’re searching for the wrong thing. The failure of most change efforts have little to do with poor change management, they instead are corrupted by poor change leadership. To understand that as more than just semantics, we first need to understand what change is.

Change has three primary components, the objective; the mechanical factor; and the human factor. In the simplest terms, “change management” is focused on the plan (mechanical) and “change leadership” relates to the fuel that makes it and keeps it running (human factor).

We spend inordinate amounts of time planning our change, preparing for what could happen, preparing for what we know will happen and planning what we are going to do about it when it does happen. In other words focusing on the mechanical factor. Those activities are absolutely necessary and represent “change management” at its core. Unfortunately though, that is where most stop. Once the plan is put together we see a tendency by many to manage it just like everything else is managed on a day-to-day basis. The problem with that approach is that managing change is different. We can manage tasks all day long in a normal environment, but successfully managing change has an absolute requirement for that elusive word we spend a great deal of time talking about or trying to apply to what we are doing, leadership, or in this case, addressing the human factor. This idea is supported by ample research. In 2008 IBM did a study that focused on what it takes for change to be successful, rather than what causes change to fail.

The following list and corresponding result supports that it is the soft stuff (human factor), not the hard stuff (mechanical) that carries the most weight for success.

Those six represent both ends of the measurement spectrum. Of the 10 elements noted in the research, six of the 10 relate to the soft stuff (happen to be the top six).

The Human Factor

So what is the problem? Why is change so difficult? Why don’t people accept it and move on? The problem is not actually the change itself. Redesigning or modifying business process can make sense logically, financially or structurally. The problem is not typically the change, but instead what the change does to people who have to deal with the change in process. The change itself is an external effect of change that is an internal. It demands a psychological adjustment to be accomplished before the change can be accepted. People a lot smarter than me refer to this phase as ‘transition;’ it is a three-step process and getting people through it takes time.

Transition, like any other psychological process has its own time frame. It can be optimized like any other process but it cannot be hurried because people are not machines. Each of its three steps is upsetting which is why people can become so emotional about change. Kurt Lewin simplified this three-step process with his “unfreeze, change, freeze” model.

So what exactly is a change leader?

Change leaders are people who have the ability to energize the groups who will be implementing change projects that they may or may not buy into. These leaders fully understand the need for change and demonstrate a significant tolerance for ambiguity and a positive attitude regardless of their discomfort. Change leaders manage change by anticipating, being prepared and responding effectively to barriers. These leaders work to ensure open and receptive environments and ensure that they involve people at all levels in the change initiative. Change leaders also understand cultural dynamics that could come into play and develop practical strategies to achieve the best outcomes for the organization, as well as those working to execute the change.

Change leaders recognize that the change process is not a series of scheduled tasks or activities, but instead a human process that requires a different kind of communication, a different set of activities and a different kind of presence. Change leaders inherently understand that change is tough for many people and act accordingly. They work to quell fear and replace it with hope, understand the value of consistent messaging and complete transparency. Trust is important at all times, but a change leader knows that trust is the ONLY currency that will enlist people during times of significant disruption. What’s more, a change leader is someone who works to ensure that the planned change process is managed through the filter of human impacts. In other words, they set high standards while subsequently caring for their employees. That is the proverbial grease that allows the pieces of the process to work together with minimal squeaking.

Change leaders are part…

Conclusion

There is no magic formula for either leading change or managing change. Every organization, leader and situation are unique. Leading change is more art than science, while managing change is more science than art. Leading change is not simply a matter of the leader’s style or personality, it’s about their philosophy and how they mobilize and inspire others to buy-in and get excited or at least comfortable with a future they can’t necessarily see or understand. Managing change on the other hand is focused on maintaining stability and controlling the negative effects during times of change, the hard stuff.

Seeing what makes a change leader over a change manager, which title do you wear most often? Remember that self-awareness is a cornerstone of being a leader and that starts with self-honesty. Before you can successfully lead yourself through becoming who you want to be, you first have to admit that you need to change. The path and process is fairly simple, just one that few would say is easy.

You are the Reason You’re So Busy!

by Triangle Performance Staff | Apr 6, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics

It never fails that in almost every coaching engagement the client will ask that infamous question “how can I better manage my time?” Interestingly enough my answer has been the same since 1996 when I learned the real secret in one of the best grad school classes that I can remember. That answer is “quit doing work that you should not be doing.”

I obviously was not the only one significantly impacted by William Onken’s seminal work “Managing Management Time” and his introduction of managing monkeys. While the concept of not doing work you should not be doing is relatively simple, what I have learned is that most managers–suffering from a shortage of time but not a shortage of work to consume it–have no idea what they are doing, as they get too wrapped up in simply doing. When we look at managers and their work, we often find three things that seem to pop up over and over again that end up being time stealers or fodder that gets in our way of being successful. Those three things are spelled out below, but before going there I feel it necessary to remind anyone reading this article that while these three things lack complexity, they don’t lack in difficulty. So know that you will only get out of it what you put into it. Good luck!

While the three topics discussed above are relatively simple to understand they are not always easy to do. The key to these three or any other “time management” system is full commitment and execution. Best of luck!