Tag Archives: management

Communications, Government Relations, public relations

Know When To Fold Them

10 Comments

So it’s one thing to reflect on communications from the comfort of your office, but what happens when you do all of the right things and then because of the personality quirks of the person you’re meeting with, things get weird anyway?

A colleague of mine once took a client to meet with a member of parliament (MP) in the ante-room of the House of Commons.  The MP was on her cell phone when they arrived for their meeting and waved to them to join her.  As they approached she paused in her phone call to tell the client to start speaking. As soon as he did, she resumed her call.  The client quite naturally paused again and the member of parliament stopped her telephone call long enough to tell him to continue.  When he did, she did too. Eventually, my colleague signalled to the client to stop and they said goodbye to the MP  without delivering their message.

You might think that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that this is rude behaviour, but sometimes powerful people get so used to being catered to by their staff that they can lose sight of what is appropriate.  They are by no stretch the norm, but they are also not as rare as we might like.  In situations where your audience is being confrontational or just plain rude, it is best to cut your losses.

Quick Tips:

  • Try to refocus the meeting on the agenda topics.
  • Terminate unpleasant or unproductive meetings at the first feasible opportunity.
  • Do not take the opportunity to yell or make a scene, it may feel good momentarily, but it will most likely hurt you and in the long run gain you nothing.
  • If you are really annoyed about how you have been treated then share your story if possible. If you can’t, chalk it up to experience. We can learn from good meetings and bad ones.
Share
Management

How Do You Know You’re Not Producing Crap?

26 Comments

how do you know you are not producingWhat would you do if you found out that your best practices had become your worst practices? Would you stop doing them? Most of us would probably say yes, but its not that easy is it? If we could stop when we recognized that something was a bad idea, then we would have far fewer smokers, alcoholics, gamblers and other addictive behaviors. 

Ok, what if we removed addictive behaviours from the conversation and simply looked at those behaviours that are just bad practice, we would stop right?  Well, actually, not really or not easiliy.  Often what people do instead of changing their behavior is to work harder at their old models.  They don’t do it out of stupidity or spite, they do it because they are absolutely convinced  that if they apply themselves, if the tools are right, if everyone would do their part, if any array of things were different  then  the old models would be effective and they in turn would be proven correct. On a regular basis new and better ways of doing things are revealed and ignored.

Psychology Today shared results from recent psychological research that revealed that the five worst learning practices are the ones we are most likely to use in schools.  Think about that. We teach our young with methods that are most likely to ensure they don’t learn.  Do we hate our kids?  Unlikely.  Are we committed to seeing them learn and develop new ideas? Yes.  So why aren’t we using the five best learning practices? 

Think about the corporate world’s persistent use of brainstorming sessions as a way to generate new ideas.  Research has shown that we actually generate more ideas when we are alone, than when we are in group settings.  The reasons are many, ranging from a reluctance to share because we might be ridiculed, to feeling too much pressure to perform.  Regardless of the reasons for low output, we know that we are less innovative in group settings, yet we not only persist in brainstorming sessions, but we work hard to make them work better.

What makes the sessions so very appealing is that we like how we feel when we participate.  We feel that we have produced more.  They generate trust and generally make us feel more connected to our colleagues.  Not bad for a bad practice and if we had feeling good as our objective, then that would be great, but that is not the outcome we are looking for from the activity, so why persist? The answer is simple and really complex, we don’t like change.

Change is hard and it can seem frightening or futile. We will work hard to avoid change. If we can understand what motivates us to do the things we do, then we are in a better position to manage performance, manage outcomes and manage expectations.  As leaders we need to understand that what we are comfortable doing isn’t always what we should be doing. Some of the most destructive words in any workplace, community or culture can be,  “That’s how we have always done it.”

This s not to say that traditions are wrong or old way erroneous. We just need to  be aware of why we cling to activities and ways of doing things.  We should also constantly be looking for the ways to improve.  We may determine that the old ways are still the best ways, but being blind to possibility, or closed to opportunity is not only a way to fail ourselves, but when managing people it can be disastrous for an organization.

One of the most interesting aspects of social media is that it behaves like a continuous improvement process.  It never stops assessing and adjusting, it asks participants to continuously adapt, it regularly produces metrics that you can measure performance by and it never stops changing. Not bad practices for the rest of our lives. Not surprisingly, it also happens to be one of the few places where brainstorming actually produces a quantity of innovative ideas.

Applying some of the adaptability that we use to navigate the social media world in the real world would be a great start to ensuring we are not producing crap. What do you do to stay effective? How do you ensure that your practices are still best practices? Share your ideas with me in the comment section.

[polldaddy poll=7328037]

 

Share
Management

Do The Job You’re Capable of Doing

Leave a comment

What makes people stay in positions they find unsatisfying while others will find new challenges?  What makes people climb the corporate ladder while others strike out on their own and start independent businesses? Daniel H. Pink, author of the book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, might say that those who leave have met their basic needs and now seek that upper tier of the needs pyramid. They are trying to self-actualize.

An economist might argue that we are not so much reaching for spiritual satisfaction, as we are the more basic needs of food and shelter.  In economies where jobs are scarce people are often forced to start their own businesses out of necessity rather than desire. The truth probably lies somewhere between. Still, it makes me wonder why some bright capable people are increasingly finding their way to independence while other people who would be better off on their own remain inside organizations.

Middle Management Mindset

It would appear that there is an interesting phenomenon that happens at the middle management level. Some leaders discover that they have found their niche and stay in place. Others realize that they are out of their depth, and struggle to avoid sliding backwards. Then there are those who are not up to the job but still look for more responsibility.  Surprisingly, they have often rewarded for their efforts. This happens because most managers would rather promote than fire.

The employee quite naturally assumes that they are great at what they do, so they keep doing it. Their confidence grows and thrives and they take on ever increasing challenges. In Lean In, Sheryl Sandberg notes that studies show that a woman will chase a job if they feel they have an overwhelming number of the skills required to do the job.  While men will chase a position even if they have about half the skills, perhaps even less.  The implication is that women should give themselves an ego boost and go after the big jobs. Frankly, I find that idea disturbing.  While I do think women tend to under estimate their abilities, I don’t believe that misplaced self-confidence is the road to success, at least not for the employees left reporting to incompetent bosses or the organizations that stumble under the weight of poor leadership.

How About Something Completely Different?

I’m all for women having more confidence and tackling the big jobs, but I like their approach to work.  That hesitation in the face of opportunity means that when they do leap, they are ready for the role. I wish more men behaved like women. Just for a change, why not have people go after jobs they actually had the skills to perform? I’m not saying that everyone should have one hundred percent of the skills needed before applying, that would be a waste of talent. It would be more productive however to have employees and leaders who knew what they were doing. We have incapable leaders because we often hire with too much emphasis on self-confidence and not enough core skills.

What do you think? Lean in or lean back?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share
Management, public relations

Does Being A Lefty Or A Righty Make You A Better Boss?

Leave a comment
Cover of "A Whole New Mind: Moving from t...
Cover via Amazon

Are you a right brain thinker or do you use your left brain? Which do you think makes you a better leader? My book club is currently reading Daniel H. Pink’s book, “A Whole New Mind”.  The book explores the strengths and skills of leadership from the perspective of left and right brain skills. It looks at what was needed in the past to be a successful leader and what is needed now.  To date, our leaders have leaned towards left-brain thinkers.  MBAs and lawyers who could crunch numbers and construct contracts, but he argues that the time is right for new kind of leader. Those of a more creative bend, those capable of recognizing patterns, telling stories and a generally more inventive frame of mind.

Pink suggests that in times of abundance humans begin to look for more meaningful ways of defining success. The basic premise is that that if you are living in a time of abundance (which many of us are in North America and Europe) then you start to wonder about different things. You start to aspire to achieve more emotionally complex goals. In essence, you move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to focus on self-actualization and start to think about other, more emotionally charged means of reaching satisfaction, success or happiness…depends on your personal target.

2000px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needs-svgI might have scoffed at that thinking a little, but I just spent the last two weeks reading a variety of blogs about finding happiness, managing emotional vampires and getting past the “aaaarrgggghhh” moments in our lives.  It seems Daniel Pink might have a point about where we are in our economic and emotional development. Our definition of what defines success seems to have become more complex.  Simply having a job or even achieving monetary success is no longer enough.  We need to have a deep-rooted satisfaction with the work we do.  The blossoming blogosphere, the emergence of countless freelancers, our praise of entrepreneurial spirit, our insistence on visionary leadership and an emerging interest in working from home all speak to a desire to lead more independent and satisfying lives.  We’re looking for control and to be part of something better.

Could Daniel Pink be right about which side of the brain will make for a more effective leader in today’s environment? Do we need bosses who know how to be responsive to our more complex emotional demands? Leaders, who can think outside of the box, be holistic and intuitive because not only is it what workers are looking for, but may also be what the work we do increasingly requires.

The use of automation and less costly workers means that jobs in the first world are more complex and require a different level of thinking.  Couple that with our preoccupation with self-actualization and it makes sense that we need a different kind of leader…or does it?

In discussion with Jen Hunter, a management expert and facilitator she responded in this way when asked what her thoughts were, “Would you go to the gym and only exercise one side of your body? Unlikely, so why would you want leaders who only used one side of their brain? It doesn’t matter which half, it matters that they only use half.”

That assessment makes sense to me, but beyond that comes the big elephant in the room, the brain function itself.  While we often hear about the two sides of the brain as having distinctly different functions, they are not quite that easily defined. Much more research is still required.  So for the sake of this conversation lets simply consider that the skills we have traditionally seen as strengths for our leaders may be changing.

What do you think?  Do you think we need more right brain leadership?  Do left-brain thinkers still make for better leaders? Is the whole conversation of what drives us even relevant? Are we solving more complex problems in our jobs? Are we aspiring to more complex goals?

Want to test which side you use? Follow the 3rd link to, “Instant Personality Test”, it’s quick though I can’t speak to its accuracy.

Related articles
Share
Internal Communications, Management, public relations

Rather Have a Conversation or a Meeting?

47 Comments

Ever had a project introduced in a meeting and thought, “What are these guys smoking? That will never work.” Did you stay silent and subsequently watch the same project move forward with disastrous results? Did you ever have a great idea but thought no one would listen so stayed quiet?  Did you later learn that your idea was tried somewhere else to great success? What about attending a meeting where nothing useful happens or following a process where nothing of value is accomplished? These kinds of scenarios are played out all the time in organizations and sadly, we’ve come to take them for granted. We often accept them as part of the cost of doing business, but what if we changed the dynamic, what if we stopped having meetings and started having real conversations?  It’s not as difficult as it sounds and it doesn’t require special training. Getting into that right groove is a question of trial and error and will reflect the will and makeup of the group but there are some basic interpersonal communication skills that can help.

  • Know Your Audience: As a speaker take the time to consider the audience, their state of mind and experience. Have you prepared them for the presentation? Ask yourself if what you are presenting is truly engaging. Would it capture your attention? Look at their body language, are you reaching them? If it’s two in the afternoon, do they need to stand and stretch for a minute?
  •  Actively Listen: As an audience member you have a role to play and sitting passively isn’t it. Think about the last really fantastic conversation you had. An exchange of ideas where you felt heard and where you could really connect with what was being said. What did it feel like? What was happening was that you were actively listening.  You were hearing what the person meant without contemplating blame, accusation or what you were going to say next. You listened without prejudice and the same was being done for you.  Try it the next time you’re in a meeting. Do not distract yourself with e-mail or other things that will take away from your ability to listen. Do not multitask.
  •  Say It If You Mean It: Speak with honesty and from your personal perspective. Speak because you have something of value to contribute. Do not speak defensively or to blame, speak about how something makes you feel. In business settings, we are often told to suspend emotion and speak “professionally”. While screaming fits and temper tantrums are not helpful, you can only have an emotionless workplace if it’s devoid of humans.
  •  Don’t let dogma distract you: We all have ideas or beliefs we hold to be true, things we are “certain” of. Those ideas shape and inform how we see, hear and understand people and ideas. These paradigms help us to navigate the world around us so they are very important, but they can also act like blinders, blocking our ability to see facts.  It’s important to step back periodically and try to see the world through different eyes.  This doesn’t mean live in perpetual self-doubt, but stay open to new concepts. The same principle holds true when talking to colleagues. Suspend your beliefs, listen with an open mind to what they are saying, you might be surprised by what you learn. Notably, you may gain a better understanding of yourself and why you have the beliefs you do.
  •  Accept Conflict: If you work with people who care about what they do then inevitably there will be moments of conflict. This does not have to be a bad thing. In fact, the absence of dissenting voices can be disastrous for an organization. It could mean that you’re all stuck in the same paradigm.  This means you all see the same way and are also all blind to the same things. Anticipate that you will not always have the same perceptions as those around you and embrace the differences.  Take the time to listen to alternative ideas. Give yourself a chance to learn something new or see something old in a new way.
  •  Slow Down and Smell the Coffee: Sometimes after someone delivers a presentation or proposes an idea we ask, any questions? Generally, we give listeners an entire ten seconds to form their thoughts. Imagine, talking to a group for anywhere from ten to thirty minutes about an idea or project and then giving them ten seconds to digest, integrate and develop questions. Is it any wonder so many meetings and teleconference calls are packed with awkward silence? The real question is, is that silence really awkward? Consider slowing the conversation and giving people the opportunity to ask and engage during presentations.  Consider having a conversation rather than a presentation. Pause and ask people what they think. Ask specific people to feedback what they heard. Let people get back to you later. Allow ideas to percolate.

What was the last great conversation you had at home or at work?  What made it great for you?

Suggested Readings

Updated in July 2017

Share
Communications, Internal Communications, Management

Silence is Deadly

Leave a comment
Challenger Explosion: Image from NASA,/Wikipedia Commons
Challenger Explosion: Image from NASA/Wikipedia Commons

In 1986 the Challenger Space Shuttle lifted off the ground with millions of onlookers from the world over watching in awe. When it exploded 73 seconds later, those same viewers stared in shocked disbelief. Those who witnessed this horrifying incident can still recall where they were as they watched  it unfold.

What followed were 32 months of investigation and millions of questions. Why, how, when did things start to go wrong and what had caused the explosion were prevalent among them. Perhaps even more amazing were the answers that followed. Every engineer on the project had felt the flight should not happen.  They all had misgivings, hesitations, reasons why they thought it should be rescheduled, yet it was scheduled anyway. When asked why they had remained silent, they said, they felt pressured not to speak up. So they coached their concern in the language of hints and abstractions.  They wrote messages that were lengthy, used convoluted language that so distilled the essence of what needed to be said plainly that the style of writing effectively obscured the message.

Their management, under tremendous pressure to produce results or lose funding was reluctant to acknowledge failure, so reluctant that they eventually evolved and encouraged an atmosphere of false optimism. This structure discouraged anyone who expressed hesitation or doubt about the mission’s success from speaking up. They built a structure of silence and it ended up costing lives.

Over the years numerous people have cited the explosion of the Challenger as a sign post to warn us against the danger of silencing employees.  Plain language specialists use it to demonstrate how organizations can not only lose money but lives by not speaking in simple terms and short sentences. Organizational facilitators use it to illustrate the costs of not having a culture that supports open dialogue.  Any organization, collective or group that is focused on outcomes needs to consider the lesson. Ineffective communications is not just inconvenient, slow or frustrating; it can be disastrous.

The stories associated with the cost of miscommunication are almost countless.  The thing is, we don’t need to add to their ranks. Miscommunications isn’t inevitable, unavoidable or inescapable, it’s a choice. We can choose to communicate effectively by making an effort to understand and pursue clarity in our exchanges. We can take the time to ensure that messages are delivered accurately or we can pretend that we don’t have time to communicate and then spend much more time later correcting our miscommunication.  That is, we can spend more time later if we are lucky.

In our personal relationships, we can address miscommunications by taking the time to know what inspires the people around us and then listening with care.  By understanding what motivates a person we create a window into understanding why they say and do the things they do. By eliminating distractions and focusing on what they are saying, we are more likely to have meaningful exchanges. Coincidentally, the same is true of our work relationships.

Share
Communications, Internal Communications, Management

Does Working From Home or the Office Really Matter?

Leave a comment

Winter TrafficThere have been a few articles, to say the least, on Yahoo C.E.O. Marissa Mayer’s decision to ban all working from home for all Yahoo employees.  Following her earth shattering announcement was a series of, “She had to do it” articles that explained about the shiftless, mindless, non producing consequences that followed from allowing employees to work from home. Or the list of missed opportunities that it represented.

Not long after that came an article in the New Yorker that mockingly explained something that I had been thinking all along. I don’t need to be at home to be non-productive. Statistics have shown for years that the majority of employees are not engaged.  One study indicates that 60% of employees in Canada are disengaged; another 15% are actively disengaged leaving just 25% who care about their work.  By actively disengaged I mean that they are not only not interested in their work, but they spend most of their time at work trying to ensure that others are not interested in their work. As someone who has to manage and motivate, I’d prefer if those actively disengaged employees were at home…permanently, but that’s another discussion.

The problem with employees who work from home and don’t produce isn’t location, among other things its culture and approach.  The work culture, the management approach, the tools provided to employees to do their work, the incentives given and of course, how accountability is reinforced. Working in the office is not going to be a magic wand that solves a lack of engagement, commitment and dare I say it, poor work ethics.

I would be a poor communicator indeed, if I didn’t add that what’s also missing is communications. It would be challenging for even the most dedicated of employees to get their focus right without clear direction and ongoing communications, no matter where they work.  In a world where teams are increasingly spread across continents, never mind cities, the whole debate of home or not home seems a bit moot. We have to learn to adapt our management approach to accommodate the concept that we won’t always be able to see our employees.

We have the technology required to do it. We have webcast, podcast, teleconference calls, videoconferencing, email and that ancient technology called faxes among other things. Yes, people still use fax machines. We can Jostle or Jive our employees into better engagement, we can even use Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Plus or any other interactive medium to inform and take a pulse. We just have to figure out how to use that technology to help us effectively manage and motivate staff.

I’m in Ottawa, Ontario and I have someone who reports to me from Halifax, Nova Scotia.  She is easily one of the most dedicated employees I’ve ever had the pleasure of working with. I don’t worry about what she’s doing.  I don’t debate the merits of having someone reporting to me that I can’t lay eyes on every day. I know what she’s doing based on weekly reports, calls and daily emails. I also get a clue from the products she produces and the services she delivers to our internal clients. We brainstorm on the phone and I have made fun of her by email.

I should also add that I work for an organization that has 5000 employees, the vast majority of whom work independently taking care of clients in their homes.  These incredible employees spend their days on their own and rarely take time for lunch, never mind making their way into an office.  They epitomize dedication, commitment and have a work ethic second to none. As it happens, the majority of the home and community care sector operates this way. So I think before jumping into the, “You need to be in an office to be productive” line, the more critical question is, what kind of culture have you created for employees to be productive in?

For the record, I’ve stared into space from my office desk and worked 12 hours without pause from home. I have also had great impromptu conversations that produced useful insights while I’m in the office and have been known to put a load of laundry on while at home.  There is no magic related to location. The only real impact that working from home has on productivity, is lower traffic volumes.

Share