It’s a Conversation, Not an Event!

by Triangle Performance Staff | Jul 1, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics

Consultants, trainers, human resource managers and the like have harped on giving feedback and coaching employees for as long as I can remember, but the fact that they still harp on it (plus my own personal experience) tells me that the message for some reason rarely takes a complete hold. I am quite sure there are tons of theories as to why, but, in my opinion, the reason is not that the message is not heard, instead it is because it is the wrong message.

We all know the importance of giving feedback because intrinsically we know the personal value of getting it (or at least some of us do). The value proposition for getting feedback is not only to know how well we are doing, but also to tell us what we need to start doing, keep doing, or stop doing. Most “how to” books and training programs do a decent job of articulating the value proposition, but few make it personal which is where we get the real understanding. We best understand the value proposition when we consider the concept of feedback in terms of us receiving it. Close your eyes and imagine working for someone who hires you, points you to your office, and says “get to work.” They never says another word outside of a periodic “you screwed up” or an annual review that gives you no information and a three percent raise. Some people might consider that situation a blessing but, for most, the lack of feedback creates an internal disruption that either drives us to worry and work harder while getting more frustrated or work less until we receive more information. Everyone needs feedback of some kind. Some jobs offer external feedback (objective scorecards, etc.), some individuals are able to come up with their own systems, but regardless of what a job offers or an individual is able to come up with on their own, manager feedback is still essential.

There are a significant number of resources available to help you learn techniques for giving good feedback, but few, if any, address “how” to give feedback in terms of fitting it in an already packed calendar. So let’s start with that notion in mind. Let’s start by changing how we view feedback. In most of our worlds, giving feedback is treated as an “event.” Something for which we must carve out separate and distinct time and then make sure we have all of our documentation, etc. so to “follow the process.” Stop and think for a moment about the purpose of feedback, it’s either to help someone to change something or to make sure they repeat something (good work). The process that we get hung up with and that leads us to this “event” mindset is one which is meant to force change – “either change or get out.” While feedback is definitely involved in that process, we can often avoid the conflict rich feedback process generally associated with trying to force change through progressive discipline processes if we choose to look at feedback differently much earlier in the employment relationship.

Does that make sense? If so, then you’re probably asking “if not an event, then what?”

The “Then What”

Feedback is about a conversation! Think about how many times a day you interact with your employees. Email, phone calls, drop by visits (even the little ones), or even bumping into them in the hallway. Most of us encounter our employees with some amount of regularity during the week. The “then what” is to make the most out of what you are already doing, not doing more. Feedback does not always have to be formal, scheduled, structured, or planned. Ongoing feedback can be something as simple as a “great job on getting that new client” or “let’s watch our attention to detail, little errors can sometimes add up.” Either of those lines can be given at the beginning or end of any conversation. Simply consider them as slight course corrections caused by providing a little more wind in an already expanded sail. What’s interesting is that the “then what” occurs even if we don’t include it in our regular interactions. In the absence of feedback (data), employees fill in the gap by trying to read your non-verbal cues, mood, lack of communication, etc. While sometimes they are correct, in most cases, they are not and that is what causes employee discomfort and ambiguity. So the next time you send your employee a quick email to check on a project’s status, add a line to thank them for their effort – that is feedback. Then the next time you have a one-on-one (an event) you can give them even more information and tell them why you thanked them.

Receiving Feedback

Another integral step in giving good feedback is in learning to receive feedback. Too much focus is given to direct feedback in terms of coaching and counseling so let me start by saying when I talk about “receiving feedback” I am NOT talking solely about direct feedback in those terms. We get feedback all of the time. It comes to us in what we sometimes see as obvious messaging and then often times in messaging that we completely miss or ignore. Either way, there are keys to remember when receiving any kind of feedback:

• Don’t take it personally
• Accept it, work to understand it – don’t judge it
• Be thankful

If we assume all feedback is well intentioned and we do each of those three things, the outcomes we’ll see in both our own actions and other’s perceptions. Even if the feedback is ill-intentioned, doing those three things will still promote positive change!

The more important aspect to talk about, however, is where we get our feedback. We can ask for direct feedback and sometimes get it, but getting good dire feedback from our employees can often times be difficult. With that in mind we have to look for our feedback in other places. The first place to look is in the results that we generate through others. While employees have to own their results, we have to honestly assess if we have any ownership that should be shared. Secondly, we get feedback in the non-verbal cues our employees demonstrate. It is up to us to be attentive. That is not to say that we simply need to watch body language. Though that is important, the more important aspects of non-verbal cues are in a person’s paralanguage – the rate of speech, inflection used, confidence demonstrated, etc. These cues are all around us and if we demonstrate good attentiveness we can capture the feedback and adjust accordingly while still in stride. The key for receiving any feedback, direct or indirect, is that we have to want it.

Conclusion

Once we understand what feedback is and its true purpose, we can make significant changes in our work environment and subsequently in the results we generate. The point we should remember with regard to giving feedback is that we give it regardless of our intent so we have to maintain a heightened level of awareness. Similarly, if we want feedback we need only pay attention as it is there for us to see and hear. In either case, we have to remember that – like our employees – we have many ways to give and receive feedback. Good leaders learn to use them all.

So which ones are you working on today?

Teamwork – It’s not kumbaya, it’s WORK!

by Triangle Performance Staff | Jun 10, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics

Since I was a kid, it seems that the holy grail of working with others has always been the elusive “team” work. Thousands upon thousands of books have been written on the topic. Many of those books provide magical theories or models for developing teams and subsequently team work. Having read many of those books I can say that most offer great ideas and very logical models that help us understand the certain aspects of successful teams. Few however address what I believe to be the root of effective teams. While I can’t and won’t say that any other author is incorrect in their premise or approach, I can and will say that the reality of successful teams is much simpler than most would have you believe. I suggest however that you not confuse simple with easy because for most of us, teamwork goes against our basic nature and it simply ain’t easy.

While by no means rocket science, if we dig into each of those four we might find some nuggets to work with.

Let me go on record before we go any farther and say that great teams almost always have great leaders. The leader sets the tone, establishes the expectations and provides the example for others to follow. So if anyone tries to tell you that good teams don’t need a leader, they are misinformed or worse yet, have deluded themselves into believing what is a near impossibility. While some teams may not have a defacto leader, all will have a leader or by definition it would not be a team. Without a leader, these four attributes are, in most cases, not possible.

So let’s break these attributes down.

• A Shared Goal – while most would say this goes without saying, few actually demonstrate that belief beyond words. I don’t want to confuse things, but I use the word “shared” on purpose. Many teams have “common” goals which means everyone has the same individual goal, but establishing a “shared” goal means establishing a finish line that can only be crossed by all or by none. Each member of a senior executive team controls levers that can impact organizational goals in a positive or negative way. A shared goal requires those levers be pulled in concert, not isolation, for individual benefit or achievement.

  Setting a shared goal seems to make sense, so why then do so many fail to set one? The answer goes back to what I said at the outset, it requires work. It takes real effort by the leader and open collaboration of the team members. Unfortunately, collaboration tends to be much like having a shared goal, everyone talks about it but few actually practice it.

• Selflessness / Ego less Behaviors – to successfully collaborate, both parties have to demonstrate a certain level of selflessness which is why setting that shared goal can be so difficult. Even after a team establishes the shared goal, the selflessness requirement continues on. I mentioned above that each member of a team typically has levers that they control which can impact the shared goal. As a team member we have to remember that it’s not about me, it’s not about what it costs me versus another, it is about the team and the team’s goal. In that same vein, the team members have to leave their egos outside the team. That does not mean that they give up their ego, it means they keep it in check and grasp the fact that no one on the team is any more or any less important than anyone else on the team. In a sense, they have to see the team as a jigsaw puzzle that is incomplete without the proper pieces.
• Familiarity – this attribute is the one that tends to get the most attention by organizations when they talk about “building teams.” While important, familiarity is something that occurs naturally in the teaming process. Using simple techniques to better understand each other, how we think, our tendencies, etc. is a great practice, but focusing solely on this attribute only leads us to our kumbaya ideal. Familiarity is about knowing teammates and accepting them as they are and having them accept you in the same manner. Familiarity also allows for team members to not judge other team members. Familiarity leads to understanding and to knowing when things are personal and when they are not.
• Individual Competence – this goes without saying, however, I unfortunately run into numerous cases where competence is overlooked. The rea son being that leaders misunderstand or err in how they define the word. Competence relates to far more than someone’s ability to generate results from within their professional domain. Competence in this sense relates to the person’s ability to generate results working with, around and thru others and being good at it.

To draw in an example that I think most can relate to I offer you what many other coaches would offer, a sports team story. Normally I hate it when consultants or others in the business world start talking about team sports and teamwork. I hate it because people tend to get too wrapped up in the motivational aspect of the stories, the Cinderella teams, etc., or in stories of teams that conquered all odds. While there is value in those stories, I think too many focus on the wrong aspect. So to avoid doing what I disdain I am not going to use an inspirational sports story. Instead I am going to use an instructional situation!

In the April 2011 edition of Fast Co., Chuck Salter penned one of the most descriptive articles on what it takes to be a successful team that I have ever come across. He used the Miami Heat to teach the world about real teamwork. The Heat have been a dominant force since that year, not because they had the most talent – there are plenty of teams in the NBA that are loaded with talent. No, they are dominant for the same reason that the Spurs and several others are perennial power houses and consistently return to the playoffs, because they play as a team.

Salter’s article speaks to three buddies (Wade, James and Bosh) that all entered the league in 2003, each becoming “the” dominant force and leader for his respective team. Each possesses incredible talent and the ability to lead his teammates. When they came together they did so with a shared goal already in mind – a championship. To come together, however, they each had to make sacrifices in terms of money, scoring opportunities and leading. Each player also had to check his ego within the confines of the team and give what was needed for the team to succeed; which meant giving the ball to others and trusting in their skills. Each player knew the other players intimately (familiarity) and each worked to be the best he could be and to helped his teammates to be their best as well (competence). That team has prospered and continues to prosper today because they get better at teamwork each season.

There will always be detractors to my example that prefer to talk about talent and structure (rules, models & gimmicks) as means to the end. Those detractors may be able to get short-term results from such an approach, however, I don’t know many successful organizations that turnover their senior staff every year (like a lot of basketball teams do)! The best teams historically (not flash in the pan winners), in sports and in business, all share those four attributes. So if it is a team that you want, lose the kumbaya thinking – step up and be the leader that establishes what it will take to be part of your team and then practice what you preach.

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.