Maybe this leadership tip is in a book somewhere, but I have not run into it yet. There is a mistake that I have seen most leaders make multiple times and not realize the damage they are doing to their credibility. It has to do with the delicate time when a leader is assigned a new position and moves into a new area interfacing with different people. The first few days are critical and set the stage for how smoothly or not the transition goes. All signals sent during the first days and weeks are important as both the leader and the new constituents learn how to work together.  Here is the common mistake many leaders make.

Harping on what I did in my previous job

For illustration, let’s say our leader has just been promoted from the Printing Department into the Assembly Department. The new job is in a new physical area and has a different set of people involved. The old leader has retired and left the scene, and our new leader has just brought in the first few boxes of possessions to set up his office. He is cordial to everyone and believes he is off to a great start. This is an important job for the new leader, and he wants to carry on the fine team enthusiasm he was able to accomplish in the Printing Department.

During the first couple days, he attends the normal production meetings. He frequently mentions how delighted he is to now be working in the Assembly Department. When a manager is discussing a safety issue, the new leader offers something like this, “We had the same problem over in the Printing Department, and what we did was set up a sub-team to come up with some excellent recommendations. That saved a lot of time because it could be done off line by a small group rather than have a bunch of meetings with everyone present.” People in the meeting listened intently and nodded appreciatively that there was a fresh idea.

The next day, the leader was discussing the financial closing information and seemed a little uncomfortable. He said, “In the Printing Department we always just showed the data in chart form so everyone could grasp the information easily.” Two hours later he was saying “In the Painting area we had special monitors to ensure the place was cleaned up well before we went home.” You get the idea.

All of the ideas and policies our new leader brought up during the first two weeks were logical and helpful. Nobody in the organization would dare question why they should do these things that the leader brought from the Printing Department. However, by the end of two weeks, this new leader was so far behind the eight ball emotionally with people that it would take nearly a year to get people to really respect and trust him. Why? He was just too forthright with his innocent suggestions for improvements based on his experience in the prior job.
There is an antidote to this common problem. When I would promote or move a manager, I would ask him or her to refer to the prior job only one time in public. Once that chit was played, I suggested the new leader refrain from other references for at least 2 months. This gave the new leader the opportunity to appreciate the good things that were being done in the new area before giving a lot of suggestions for them to be more like his old area. The people never knew the difference; they just seemed to like the new guy quite a lot.

My Leadership model for building trust has a central element entitled “Reinforce Candor.” This is the ability to make people glad they expressed a concern with a leader’s inconsistency. Usually, people are punished for expressing a concern with the leader’s actions. When high trust and transparency are present, the leader can set aside his or her ego and reinforce the person who challenges an action. Doing so creates a large trust deposit and allows for future trust-building exchanges. When candor is not reinforced, people hide their true feelings and do not challenge the leader, so trust is hard to maintain. Leaders who consistently reinforce candor build a culture where trust grows and deepens.

I was doing a presentation recently and a bright student cornered me on a break and asked why my phrase of reinforcing candor was not just the same thing as speaking truth to power. The question was not easy to answer with everyone buzzing around and the need to take a bathroom break myself, but the question played on my mind.

Later, I went back over the thought process and my notes for how I ended up with the wording of “Reinforce Candor” as the best phrase. I had forgotten how much time and effort I had spent trying to get exactly the right combination of words. The reason I thought “Speak truth to power” was too narrow was that the phrase implies that it is a one way trust building thing. In fact, I believe great leaders try to get everyone in the organization to reinforce candor, so it means not just speaking truth to power but being free to speak truth to everyone without punishment. The boss needs to feel reinforced for being candid with the employee as well as the other way around. We don’t often think about the reverse effect because we have such huge problems getting leaders to understand and do the direct effect.

The second aspect I found lacking in “Speak truth to power” is that it leaves out the magic ingredient, which is reinforcement. Lots of leaders will allow people to speak their truth, but not many have the ability to make people glad when they say something in opposition to what the leader thinks is right. That is why it takes a lot of work and energy to get leaders to understand this magic ingredient – it goes against human nature until the leader becomes convinced of the wisdom in it. Once a leader experiences the incredible trust building impact of reinforcing candor, he or she is inclined to do it more often because the small price to pay for suppressing one’s ego is completely overshadowed as the organization becomes a more real place where people are not playing games with each other.

While my model is focused on the behaviors of leaders (because it is a leadership model and leaders are where the problem resides 99% of the time) the model really needs to be spread to the whole population once a leader fully understands its power.

The preceding information was adapted from the book Leading with Trust is like Sailing Downwind, by Robert Whipple. It is available on www.leadergrow.com.

Robert Whipple is also the author of The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals and, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online. Bob consults and speaks on these and other leadership topics. He is CEO of Leadergrow Inc. a company dedicated to growing leaders. Contact Bob at bwhipple@leadergrow.com or
585-392-7763.

Many teams in the working world have various symptoms of dysfunction. You can observe all kinds of back biting, laziness, sabotage, lack of support, passive aggressive behavior, grandstanding, and numerous other maladies if you study the inner workings of teams. Yet some teams are able to rise above the petty problems and reach a level of performance that is consistently admirable.

I have studied working teams for decades and have concluded that there are four common denominators successful teams share. If your team has these four elements, you are likely enjoying the benefits of a high performance team. If you do not see these things, then chances are you are frustrated with your team experience.

A common goal – This is the glue that keeps people on the team pulling in the same direction. If people have disparate goals, their efforts will not be aligned, and organizational stress will result. If people on your team are fighting or showing other signs of stress, the first thing to check is if the goal is really totally shared by everyone. Often people give the official goal lip service but have a hidden different agenda. Eventually this discontinuity will come out in bad behaviors.

Trust – When there is high trust between team members, the environment is real. Where trust is low, people end up playing games to further their own agendas. Achieving high trust is not simple, nor is it the main topic of this paper. I have written extensively on the creation of trust elsewhere since it is the heart of my business. One caveat is that trust is a dynamic commodity within a team. You need to keep checking the trust level and bolster it when it slips. Constant vigilance is required.

Good Leadership – A team without a leader is like a ship without a rudder. But the leader does not have to be the anointed formal leader. Often a kind of distributed leadership or informal leadership structure can make teams highly effective. But beware if there is a poor leader who is formally in charge of a team. This is like the kiss of death. No team can perform consistently at a high level if the official leader is blocking progress at every turn. The best that can be achieved is an effective work-around strategy.

A Solid Charter – I have coached hundreds of teams and discovered that the ones with an agreed-upon team charter always out perform ones that have wishy-washy ground rules. A good charter will consider what each member brings to the team so the diversity of talents can be used. Second, it will contain the specific goals that are tangible and measurable. Third, it will have a set of agreed upon behaviors so people know what to expect of each other and can hold each other accountable. Fourth, the team needs a set of ground rules for how to operate. Ground rules can be detailed or general, it really does not matter, but some ground rules are required. Finally, and this is the real key, there need to be specific agreed-upon consequences for members of the team who do not abide by the charter.

The most common problem encountered within any team is a phenomenon called “social loafing.” This is where one or more members step back from the work and let the others do it. This inequity always leads to trouble, but it is nearly always avoidable if the consequences for social loafing are stated clearly and agreed upon by all team members at the outset. People will not knowing slack off if they have already agreed to the negative impact on themselves, or if they do it once and feel the pain they will not do it again. This last element of successful teams is the most important ingredient. When it is missing, you are headed for trouble eventually.

There are numerous other elements that can help teams succeed, but if you have the above four elements, chances are your team is doing very well. All high performance teams have these four elements in play everyday. Make sure your team has these as well.

We are bombarded with advertising in every media segment of our lives. This article will focus on television advertising. It will describe some of the annoying things that are on the air every day that we sometimes fail to recognize. There should be a direct relationship between advertisements and trust in the product being promoted. Unfortunately, in many cases the correlation is negative.

Even though I watch less than 2 hours of TV a day (mostly news), there is still way too much advertising garbage parading before my eyes and ears. I have to use some of the peptic-soothing preparations they espouse – maybe that’s their ploy. The advertisements make you sick, then they suggest a remedy. Here are just a few of the ridiculous things I observed today.

1. “I am a non-attorney spokesperson.” What idiot thought up this opening remark? If the purpose of an advertisement is to encourage us to purchase the product or service being touted, does it make any sense to start out any commercial with these words? Can the advertising morons not see that doing this will reduce our trust in the service, thus making us much less likely for us to buy?
2. The fine print. If an advertisement has those familiar bands of fine print that are impossible to read, how does that reflect on our perception of the product being sold? Are we actually supposed to read the material in the 3 seconds provided? Of course not! Then why have it there at all? It only serves to reduce our trust in the product. The not-too-subconscious message is “what are they hiding”?
3. Stupid claims. One of my favorites is for an automobile insurance coverage. The idiot on the screen seems surprised when the announcer says, “…and we will not drop you after an accident.” He says, “Seriously, you won’t drop me”? Like Wow! Isn’t that terrific? If that statement convinces you that things will be the same after an accident, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Yes, they will not drop you, they will just triple your premiums and soak you till you are forced to drop them.
4. Disgusting content. When the Phlegm Man is expelled out of the lungs after taking some decongestant, it is pretty disgusting. So why do they have to show that commercial during the lunch or dinner hour. Some of us are eating here! The same goes for Digger the Dermatophyte who peels back the nail of your big toe to crawl under it. That one always gives me the creeps.
5. Totally misleading. When the life insurance man says “…and your rate will never go up due to age,” doesn’t that automatically imply that it will go up for some other reason, like maybe they needed more profit that year.
6. Free oil changes for life. Wow, is that ever a bonanza? No! Those of us who fell for that line ended up spending huge sums of money for maintenance that was not needed in the end. My daughter was nearly killed when they pumped up the pressure in her tires to such a high level that she had a blowout just a few weeks before they would have had to replace her worn-out tires for free. Because the tire blew, I had to pay for the replacement and, of course, had to buy two since it is never recommended to buy just one tire. I know most people who have tried the free oil changes have found that they are the opposite of free.
7. Call this number right now and we will send you your very own free information kit. Come on folks, it is called an advertisement! Who falls for this stuff?
8. “But wait… if you order in the next 10 minutes we will throw in a second ceramic knife for free – just pay shipping and handling.” Is there a person on earth who believes there are operators standing by with stop watches?

These were just the examples from the ads during my lunch break today. How can I have much respect for the Madison Avenue simpletons? Advertisements should bring about an increase in the level of trust we have in a product or service, not the opposite.

Some companies have a kind of pep talk on a daily basis followed by a cheer before employees are allowed to work. There are two ways of looking at this practice. In most groups, these pep rallies have only a short-term positive impact on morale. In fact, many groups eventually stop the practice altogether because of the incredible negative impact on morale.

The boss is uncomfortable because she knows people hate the “morning meeting,” and the discipline of the company cheer before going to work has become a joke. People feel the activity is a waste of time, because their morale comes from sources other than pep talks. It does not matter what the boss says at the start of each shift. What matters are the signals sent a thousand times all day outside of the rallies. The ritual of a morning meeting only serves to underscore the hypocrisy, and therefore, has the reverse impact of what was intended.

In some groups, the pep rally concept actually does produce higher morale and is a sustainable positive force in the company.  What factors allow this to happen?

1. The Meeting Itself – There is some actual benefit if the meeting contains useful information or some kind of social support that people find helpful. Often the meetings are a time to remind employees of new policies or drill on the location of recently moved articles. By enhancing basic communication, these meetings help managers perform a basic function that would be hard to achieve in an e-mail or other form of announcement. It also gives employees a chance to question the information for sanity or just to verify understanding. So if WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) has enough positive power, then a morning meeting might actually work.
2. The centering thoughts – rather like an exercise in yoga, some meetings help people compartmentalize their lives so they can display the right persona for customers. They can filter out the chaos or distractions going on elsewhere in their lives and focus on the tasks at hand. This would be the equivalent of a team “suiting up” before a public sporting event.
3.  A pre-existing environment of trust – if the leader has achieved a culture of trust where people see congruence of words and actions, the leader will have more credibility. This is the equivalent of a coach in sports. In this case, a rallying cry for team spirit may actually inspire some people to put forth more effort. At least the company cheer has the potential to generate some fraternal feelings that are directionally helpful. Without the element of trust, these cheers have little chance to produce a positive impact.
4.  Employee ownership – if the meeting is sponsored and designed by the employees for their own benefit, then they have a much better chance than if it is a management-driven event. This shows the link between empowerment and morale. When the workers are respected for being mature enough to design and conduct a meeting, with perhaps some guest appearances from management, the dynamic can be a liberating influence. The flip side of this is if certain cliques within the worker ranks own the process to the exclusion of others, the chosen ones will alienate the rest of the group and eclipse the benefits.

In a trusting environment, daily meetings can be helpful for the above reasons. Communication is enhanced, which helps transparency, and it gives managers the opportunity to model reinforcing candor.

In general, the early shift meetings should be avoided if there are trust issues among people in the organization. Some people would argue that is precisely the reason to invoke the technique in an attempt to remedy a low trust situation. I think where low trust is a pre-existing condition, the dangers outweigh the benefits. Since most organizations have extremely low trust, it is a good idea to proceed with great caution when considering trying to enforce morale through daily meetings. The old adage feels all too real for many employees, “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Most organizations obtain only a tiny fraction of the effort that is possible from the people they employ. A key measure is what percentage of discretionary does your culture elicit (and there is no known way to measure this variable accurately). No organization can get a sustained 100% of the potential effort of people. That’s because it would require a continual flow of adrenalin that would be fatal. But if my estimate is accurate, most organizations can double the effort of most people by using the Leadergrow Trust Model and still have them operating at a comfortable 50% level from their peak. The key enabler to this leap in productivity is the existence of real trust within the organization.