In my upcoming At C-Level, I make mention of a survey I recently completed, in which many of you participated. The full results should be available shortly, but I did want to give you a sneak preview.
From a long-range perspective, with only senior executives (more than 20% were CEO/COOs) participating, here are the top 3 issues you identified:
1. Finding, hiring, developing and retaining talent,
2. Organizational changes, outsourcing, merger/acquisition assimilation, and
3. Compliance, poilitical change, legislation.
We’ve got work to do. Changing our focus to these initiatives — on a long-term basis — takes proactive thought and some simple change management methodologies. Change is simple; just close your eyes, hold your breath, and wait. It happens. Effective change management, on the other hand, takes some skill. From my view of the world, 3 things are necessary for senior executives to successfully drive positive change:
1. Belief and commitment. You gotta believe — really believe — that what you are doing is right and appropriate, using a variety of litmus tests. Mid-management and line employees will quickly detect if your commitment is anything but resolute. Change management isn’t for the weak at heart, so strap in, point the way, and hold the course (I always wanted to use that line).
2. Provide direction. Even if people can believe in your resolve, and even if they understand the basic need, they need real direction, from YOU, to know where to head. Don’t expect overnight adjustment and buy-in to your newfound commitment for change; until that real buy-in occurs, they need a really good map — a compass is probably a better word — to help them start off in the right direction.
3. Unqualified support for the cause. Pay attention here, this one’s really, really important. Not only can you not afford to lose your focus (see “commitment” above), but you must insist others join in the quest. You must insist. Help them work through their issues, convince — as best as possible — for the need to change. At the end, though, the change must occur, and you must be prepared to make all those decisions necessary, some good, some tough, to make it happen. Naysayers can be a fatal distraction. Disbelievers can poison an effective team. Misdirected managers can ruin the entire effort. Make sure you stay aware, and be prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure the focus is maintained by all.
2007 is upon us; we have work to do, and some unique challenges facing us.
First, that phrase for this post — “I’m just sayin’,” drives me nuts. I hate it. Now that I feel better for sharing…
A diversity consulting firm called The Novations Group, apparently surveyed a couple thousand managers, and concluded that senior managers were poor communicators. For this, they seem to want acclaim…
Survey respondents blamed senior management for (in order of survey popularity):
1. Relying too much on e-mail.
2. Assuming a single message is enough.
3. Having no feedback loop in place.
4. Messages lacking clarity.
To this, I say “hmmmm…”
Nonetheless, there is some truth here.
We all rely too much on email. Email is great for simple information/data sharing. It breaks down when we try to have conversations, include emotion, or the worst: we try to manage by email.
Walk down the hall or pick up the damned phone. Email is the worst medium on the planet for any communication requiring acknowledged understanding, purposeful dialog, or meaning other than the simple written word. There is no defined ‘subtlety’ in emails. And managers shouldn’t use it as a proxy.
Another pox on communication occurred while we were gutting mid-management from organizations. In flattening org charts, we forgot that most on-the-ground communications with employees was done with middle managers. Today, they are either extinct or a bit harried from the evolution of their jobs.
Further, much of what we as senior leaders do has at least a modicum of confidentiality. Next thing you know, we’re acting like everything we say and do is some state secret.
It ain’t.
The problem, of course, is in the absence of communication, our employees fill in all the details, blanks, and relevant information themselves. From spotty knowledge, connecting rumor dots, or simply making it up as they go. None bodes well for us while trying to lead an organization in this age.
Next week, I’ll post some tips and techniques for communications that, though maybe not necessarily “easy,” they probably won’t leave visible scars.
In this and 2 remaining blog entries, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
This third law is a reminder that development is essential for employee growth, and for your own well-being. In other words, it’s both selfish and generous; making someone else smarter while you do less work. This is a good thing, eh?
Law #3. If you always answer employee’s every question, you’ll forever be answering employees’ every question.
Questions are teaching moments — don’t rob employees of the opportunity.
Sounds trite, and I don’t mean it to (ok, maybe I mean it to be a little trite). If an employee is asking because they’re stupid, get rid of the employee. If they are a decent employee asking because they do not know, then teach them.
Next time, they’ll know how to do it — or at least the thought process behind it — and you won’t have to. How’s that for planned efficiency??
Now, you have time to go do something important. And to answer in advance: No, answering every employee’s every question is not something important you should be doing. If you’re doing that, you may as well just do it yourself…
There’s been a lot of clamor lately about companies wasting their leadership development dollars. Many do, but that doesn’t mean leadership development is a waste of money. The simple truth is: if you’re not getting the bang for your buck, it’s because you’re doing it wrong.
I’ve got the stick for a minute.
You’re wasting your money if it’s a canned training program not integrated with your company’s mission. And developing leaders doesn’t end with an end-of-course survey.
I don’t deny you might be able to learn the what of leadership from a book or a once-and-done training program, but you can’t learn how to be a leader without practice – over time, in real life situations. Let your people try and fail. Let them articulate a vision and try to get people to follow. Encourage them to be vulnerable and more open to feedback. Hold them accountable for doing what they said they’d do.
Let them learn to lead.
You’re wasting your money if your whole senior leadership team isn’t involved. Leaders develop leaders. That’s a critical part of your job.
You should be having regular discussions about leadership with the people going through the program. Not the “how’s it going” type, but real conversations that reinforce what they’re learning and help them see from a different perspective how their actions affect their teams. Coaches can help, but it doesn’t get you out of participating.
Mentoring is key… I’ve never talked to a real leader that didn’t give credit to the person(s) who saw something developable (or salvageable) in them and set them on the leadership path. God knows I needed more than one (I’m forever thankful to Mike, Scott, and Steve for giving me the rope to hang myself but faithfully talking me off the ledge), and your senior leaders probably did, too.
You’re wasting your money and your effort if you’re not evaluating your leaders with regards to how well they’re… well… leading. You can’t know if your program is making an impact if you don’t know if your leaders are leading.
We tend to make people managers and then call them leaders, as if the two are interchangeable. We watch them manage their team, and at the end of the year we evaluate them based on how well they managed stuff. But rarely, as in almost never, do we evaluate their leadership. By the way, their teams don’t want to be managed; they want to be led.
Our government is (in)famous for this. In a recent conversation with a good friend and senior government executive, I asked how he could hold his direct reports accountable for leading their teams if there was nothing in their job descriptions about leading. You know, specific and measurable…
His answer was, sadly, he couldn’t. And didn’t.
Is your company any different?
If you support the idea that leaders can be developed and leadership outcomes can be observed, you should be able to evaluate whether the leaders you’re developing are making a difference in your organization. It’s time to own the return you get on your leadership development dollars.
Ask yourself if there’s a difference in the team’s performance. What evidence do you have? Is there a renewed sense of vision and purpose? How’s the team’s motivation? Has cohesiveness and collaboration improved? Is the leader developing and empowering the team in new ways? Do you see a difference in their interpersonal skills? What about trustworthiness and accountability?
It doesn’t have to be rocket surgery, especially since you already compare leaders using some sort of scale – everyone does (even if it’s a scale known only to them). Start there and have a conversation with your peers, your boss, and your direct reports. Decide how you’re going to evaluate leadership effectiveness and make it part of every feedback discussion you have.
So if you don’t think you’re getting your money’s worth out of your leadership development program, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater; change how you’re doing it! Make sure your program’s integrated with the company’s priorities; get – and keep – your whole leadership team in on the effort; and evaluate how well your leaders are leading.
Human Resources needs to get past this, “Do it for one, must do it for all” mentality. It’s just not true, and a lousy way to help a business succeed.
I regularly tell people this about precedents: “Yes, I’ll likely do the same thing, given the exact same circumstances, in the future.”
For example, if I allow an extra week of protected FMLA for a stellar employee in production with 6 years with the company, I may very well agree to do that same thing for the next “stellar employee in production with 6 years with the company.” Change a single parameter and the precedent doesn’t exist.
But even that isn’t the right answer, since decisions need to be made based on current business needs. I’m not trying to create a social system at work whereby all receive identical treatment. They won’t. I’ll do those things necessary, including making nondiscriminatory employment-related decisions, as the business needs dictate.
There’s all this talk about HR’s “seat at the table.” Want to get “kicked off the table” in a hurry? Adopt the inflexible, “Do for one, do for all” mindset. It has no place in business, in my opinion.
In this and 3 subsequent blog entries, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
The second law focuses on open communications; too often, usually in the misplaced interest of correctness or conflict-avoidance, we tap-dance around topics, subjects, and even direction. We assume — often incorrectly — that someone “knows what we mean,” though we didn’t come out and say it.
Law #2. If you want something specific done, say so specifically, using clear, plain language. Employees, generally, have some difficulty doing their basic jobs; adding “mind-reading” to their description is just plain unfair.
No hints, implications, or innuendos. Say what you want, and use English! Directness counts.
I was recently doing some coaching with a client executive who was lamenting the poor “listening skills” of his Operations VP. Seems he had told the VP that one of his director-level staffers was not fully competent, and that the VP should “do something about that person.”
3 days later, that VP fired that director. My client executive was shocked — he told me, “I told him to do something with her, you know, like coach, train, or develop. Maybe even warn her of her performance.” He said, “I didn’t tell him to fire her…”
The VP, of course, simply said, “The boss said ‘do something with her, so I did.”
“Problem fixed.”
Not really… I don’t need to tell those of you reading this the difficulty in replacing an experienced mid-level manager in a specific industry. Especially without even making an effort to change her performance or behavior in some way.
Of course, the senior executive felt his comments were sufficient… obviously, they were not. English would have prevented this misunderstanding… simply telling the VP that he should “improve her performance or behavior” would have been sufficient; perhaps even simply asking the VP what he’s done to work with the director would have jogged a reasonable conversation.
Instead, a miscommunication — caused solely by incomplete/indirect language — has created yet another “situation” at the company.
As if we didn’t already have enough to do, we go out creating challenges to deal with.
So, like the doctor when the patient says, “Doc, it hurts when I do ‘this,’ and the Doc says simply, “Stop doing that.”
