Keeping People In the Loop

March 4, 2010

If you go into any organization and do a survey about what leaders are doing well and poorly, the vast majority of groups will put “communication” at the top of the list of things to improve. This is true even though most leaders are nearly consumed trying to keep people in the loop on a daily basis. Why is there such a disconnect between needs and performance?

There are numerous reasons for the gap. First, the magnitude of information that needs to be shared is growing exponentially. With the global markets and worldwide scope of most operations, the complexity is dozens of times more daunting than it was just a decade ago. The ubiquitous access to all kinds of information and misinformation on the internet means that leaders need to unscramble a plate of informational spaghetti on a daily basis. What used to be cells of gossip and rumors quickly becomes a rats nest of damage control when a horde of titillated bloggers or twitterers swings into action.

Corporate communications can no longer be a matter of having a quarterly Town Hall Meeting. Information needs to be disseminated on a continuous basis, and misinformation needs to be beaten down almost hourly. Is it any wonder key executives get bogged down and withdraw to let the “communications officer” handle the mess. Yet when a CEO unplugs from the communication process, this is how people get the idea he is hiding something or he just does not care about telling them the truth. That creates a significant trust problem.

Whew, is there an antidote to this malaise? I think there is. It is a simple remedy that has been known for centuries. It is called “walking the deck,” or if you are a politician, “pressing the flesh.” The trick is for top executives not only to practice the art of interfacing with people, they need to insist that all middle and lower managers do the same thing. This is particularly true when times are tough.

If there is a crisis or emergency, most managers and leaders like to retreat to the safety of their office and communicate electronically. Unfortunately, spewing out long explanations of current realities may seem like progress, but consider how many of the people are reading or understanding these tomes. My advice to leaders is to at least double their shop floor time when times are tough.

If top leaders insist on a culture of talking with workers directly often and insist that all managers in the chain do this routinely then the crushing load of communication can become more manageable. The side benefit is that the workers will not be besieged with a flood of electronic drivel to digest daily.


Visualizing the Ratchet Effect

February 17, 2010

Trust is similar to a bank account. Between two people, there is a current “balance” of trust that is the result of all their transactions to date. When there is interaction (whether online, in a meeting, or with body language) there is a transaction—either a deposit (increasing trust) or a withdrawal (reducing trust). The magnitude of the transaction is determined by its nature.

It is easy for a leader to make small deposits in the trust account with people. Treating people with respect and being fair are two examples of trust builders. While making small deposits is easy, making a large deposit is hard. As a leader, nothing I say can make a large deposit in trust. It has to be something I do, and it often requires an unusual circumstance, like landing a plane safely in the Hudson River.

Under most circumstances, the trust balance with people is the result of numerous small deposits (like the clicks of a ratchet) made over an extended period. On the withdrawal side, with one slip of the tongue, an ill-advised e-mail, or a wrong facial expression, a leader can make a huge withdrawal. Because of the ratchet effect, a small withdrawal can become big because the pawl is no longer engaged in the ratchet. It can spin backward to zero quickly.

Here is an example of the ratchet effect in a typical conversation: “You know, I have always trusted George. I have worked for him for 15 years, and he has always been straight with me. I have always felt he was on my side when the chips were down, but after what he said in the meeting yesterday, I will never trust him again.” All trust was lost in a single action (and it will take a long time before any new deposits can be made). The trust account went from a positive to a negative balance in a single sentence.

It would be powerful if we could prevent the ratchet from losing all of its progress by reinserting the pawl back into the ratchet during a serious withdrawal so that it only slips one or two teeth. Reinforcing candor inserts the pawl and provides a magic power that has unparalleled ability to build trust. When leaders reinforce people who make candid remarks when they see disconnects between stated intents and daily actions, it goes a long way toward reducing fear and building trust.

All leaders make trust withdrawals. Most people don’t feel safe enough to let the leader know when they have been zapped, and so trust plummets. It may even go to zero or a negative balance before it can be corrected (over much time and incredible effort). Contrast this with a scenario where the individual knows it is safe to let the leader know he or she has made a trust withdrawal. The individual may say, “I don’t think you realize how people interpreted your remarks. They are mad at you.” If this candor is rewarded by the leader, he might say, “I blew it this time, Bill. Thanks for leveling with me.” Such an exchange stops the withdrawal in the mind of the employee, and enables the leader to stop the withdrawal for the population. Here is a fascinating part of the equation. It makes little difference if the leader reverses his or her stance on the issue at hand. All that needs to be done is for the leader make the person feel glad he or she brought up the issue.

As a leader, you try to do the right thing (from your perspective) daily. If an employee asks why you are doing something, you tend to become defensive and push back, which becomes a withdrawal. Reinforcing candor requires you to suppress your ego, recognize the trigger point, and modify your behavior to create the desired reaction. This is difficult to do because you usually justify and defend your action.

It takes great restraint and maturity to listen to the input and not clobber the other person. The more you practice, the easier this gets. You can quickly build a culture of trust and multiply the benefits threefold by focusing on your behavior. Once you learn to reinforce candor rather than punish it, something magical happens: you gain greater power to build trust.


Joke or No Joke

February 12, 2010

When people say things in jest, there is usually an element of truth in them. Jokes are often just distortions of reality; that is what makes them humorous. The problem occurs when we make a joke where the punch line puts down another person. This is so common you probably witness it a dozen times a day or more, and it hardly registers because it is ubiquitous. If you are listening for it, you will hear it often.

Unfortunately, when the joke is documented in online exchanges, there isn’t the opportunity for the writer to let the other person know through body language that the barb is totally in jest. Actually, even in person there is usually a part of the barb that is for real. Online, the danger is magnified for two reasons, 1) the person cannot see the facial expression and emoticons often are misinterpreted as well, and 2) e-mails are permanent, so the person can read and re-read the joke. It becomes more menacing with each iteration.

The antidote for this common problem is to establish five behavioral norms in your work group as follows:

  1.  We will not make jokes in any forum at another person’s expense.
  2.  We will praise in public or online but offer constructive criticism face to face in private.
  3.  When there is a disconnect in communication, we will always assume the best intent and check it out.
  4.  If something in an e-mail seems upsetting, it is up to the person who is upset to meet face to face with the other person as soon as possible.
  5.  We will call each other out politely if we see violations of these rules.

These five rules are not difficult, but it does take some training and resolve to get all people in a population to comply with them. It helps to get firm agreement among the entire group and to post the rules in the team meeting area. If you can get people to actually follow the five rules above, it will change the entire complexion of the work group. This is not rocket science; it is much more important than rocket science.


Cross Training – The Miracle Cure?

January 29, 2010

Don’t you love the advertisements that promise to cure all your problems just by taking a pill? They try to convince you that all ailments are related, and for only $19. 95 plus S&H you can have a full month supply of the cure – “But wait! If you order within the next 20 minutes, we’ll double your order; just pay separate S&H.” It is amazing that there are people who actually believe this drivel.

For organizational ailments, I believe there is a potion that really does attack many issues at the same time, and you can actually get a double dose for a very low price with no S&H (and the offer does not expire in 20 minutes). The tonic I am referring to is cross training. Let’s look at some of the reasons why this is such powerful medicine.

Link Between Training and Satisfaction

Several studies over the past 50 years have established a strong link between training and satisfaction. Organizations that continuously train their people have higher motivated employees and less absenteeism. If you look at the organizations in the Top 100 companies to work for in the United States, you will see that every one of them has a strong training program in place for employees.

Improved Bench Strength

It is not rocket science to discover the benefits of having people cross trained on each other’s job. Every time an employee is out for an illness or vacation, it is a simple matter of moving people around to cover the lost function. Having several back ups for each position generates the flexibility to operate efficiently in today’s frenetic environment. In sports, we know that a team with great bench strength has an easier time winning than one with monolithic superstars.

Better Teamwork

When people train others on their function, a kind of personal bond is struck that is intangible but powerful. It is really a large teambuilding effort to install a cross training program in a company. People actually enjoy it and rightfully feel the additional skills have something to do with job security. Interestingly in organizations that do not cross train, many people are protective of their knowledge thinking that being the only one who knows procedures makes them indispensable. Actually the reverse is true because when large numbers of people feel that way, there is high tension and the organization fails when someone is out. Jobs are not very secure in organizations like that.

Reduction in Turn Over

An organization that focuses on cross training suffers less from employee churn. Why? Because people have more variety of work and higher self esteem. They have more fun at work and tend to stay with the organization. Also, the opportunities to learn new things adds to the equation. Basically, people operate at higher levels on Maslow’s pyramid in organizations that cross train.

Leads to Higher Trust

Trust is directly related to how people feel about their development. In organizations were people have a solid training program for the future, people know management cares about them as individuals. The discussions to develop the plan are trust-building events because the topic is how the individual can improve his or her lot in life. That is refreshing and bodes well for the future.

Not Expensive

Of all the medications an organization can take for their problems, cross training is one of the least expensive. Reason: Training can be inserted during the little slack periods within an operating day or week. Training keeps people occupied in growth activities when there is nothing much else to do. So, the real cost to the organization is much lower than it appears on the surface. When compared to the benefits, the ROI is fantastic.

Keeps the Saw Sharp

We all know the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else. This is because in order to explain what you are doing, you have to understand it very well. A cross training policy forces incumbent workers to have their job processes well documented and easy to communicate. Also, in the process of training someone else, there is the opportunity for the trainee to suggest better ways of approaching a task, so the process is being honed and refined all the time. That is healthy because it prevents stagnation.

If your organization does not have an active and specific cross training process, get one started today. It has so many upsides and really no significant downside. If you have a program, ask yourself if it is fresh and vital. Are you milking this technique well or giving it lip service? If the latter is true, you have a lot to gain be revitalizing your process.


E-Mail Resolution

January 1, 2010

The most significant problem with e-mail in every organization I have ever seen is the sheer volume of notes. So many people find it impossible to keep up with the tidal wave of communication coming at them every day. It is a major source of stress, and it hampers good communication because when people are submerged in notes, they do not read the important ones.

I have worked in numerous organizations helping leaders improve their e-mail habits, which also improves the performance of their entire organization. It is possible to reduce the volume of e-mails in an organization by more then 30% with only 4 hours of training. I know this because I have done it several times. All that is needed is for the group to focus on the issues of e-mail problems they have and create a set of ground rules for their group.

The interesting thing is that the ground rules are really very simple, and most of us would say they are common knowledge. Unfortunately in most organizations they are not common practice, so by creating a set of specific rules that are to be used the majority of the time (and there can be rare exceptions) this easily cuts the volume by at least 30% right off the bat.

I recommend that groups create their own set of rules rather than handing them as set of rules made by me. Reason: When the group figures out how to word a concept and agrees to follow it as a rule, it has much more power than any list I could provide. But, for illustration, here are just a few rules that will cut the volume down quickly. You might adopt these rules or make some of your own up.

• Do not participate in any jokes or cartoons at work. Simply do not forward any of these.

• Never use the “reply all” function unless it is absolutely necessary.

• Do not use a standard distribution list unless it is required by the note.

• If a note requires an answer, put a flag in the subject to that effect.

• Keep all notes to less than one page length.

• Use attachments sparingly.

• Spell out action items clearly – who does what by when.

• Use bullets for lists of items more than three in length.

There are many more possible rules. I recommend any organization brainstorm the possibilities and select 10 or so to use. If you do this, you will be amazed at the productivity improvement that is immediately returned to the organization. I know this because I have been able to help groups do it with only a half day of training. It really does work, and people really love it.


Leaders: To socialize or Not

December 30, 2009

I am often asked by students if it is a good or bad idea for a leader to socialize with subordinates outside of work. There are a lot of tradeoffs, and this is a complex question. I break down the variables in this article.

It is often a quandary for leaders to know whether to socialize with workers at after work events. Here are some tips that may help the decision process:

1. It is always situational. There are times where it is expected for a leader to participate and there are other situations where it would be dead wrong for a leader to socialize. You need to use good judgment and follow some consistent pattern.
2. If you have a corporate policy on this subject, you need to follow that. Often the corporate ban on socializing has an escape clause for certain types of events.
3. The most important consideration is whether the employees and you are all comfortable with your attendance. If several people (including you) have some reservations, it is better to take a rain check.
4. If you decide to attend certain types of functions, like for example birthday parties offsite, you need to do the same for everyone when schedules permit. If you attend the party for one person but not another, you will appear to be playing favorites.
5. It would be a good idea to have an open discussion at work about this subject to get an idea how most people feel about it before establishing your pattern.
6. If alcohol is involved, you need to especially wary of accepting drinks. I remember one supervisor who became totally drunk at an event because the underlings kept buying him cocktails. It was a very bad scene.
7. Unless you have a very friendly group, it is best to avoid any activity that involves physical contact, like dancing for instance. You can quickly get into a compromised position quite innocently.
8. Take notice of the habits of other leaders in your organization that you respect. If they refrain from attending social events, then you want to be especially conservative.
9. Try to avoid parties that start out in public restaurants but migrate to one person’s house.
10. Do not participate in any kind of gambling when out with employees.
11. Do not volunteer to take intoxicated employees home. Get them a Taxi cab.

Those are some general precepts that may help you think about the issue more deeply. Here are a few suggestions of how to limit your risk.

1. Consider making a brief appearance near the start of the event, but not participate in the entire thing. This allows you to show respect for everyone, but avoids a lot of jeopardy. Watch the body language carefully to see if people are offended at your leaving early. If so, stay longer, but leave as soon as you reasonably can.
2. The best place to put limits on your outside socializing is when you are at work. Show by your body language and hesitation if you think you might be getting into a compromising situation.
3. Remember even though you are “off duty,” your relationships with the people who work for you is still very much “on duty.”
4. Whenever there is a doubt, always take the most conservative posture.


Interesting Leadership Assessment – “In Vs. Out” Ratio

December 27, 2009

Know your “In Vs. Out Ratio”

Are people striving to get into your organization or are they trying to find ways to get out? It is pretty easy to assess if people want to get in because you will have a long line of individuals contacting you to ask in what way they can join your group. Some people are very persistent, and it is a good sign when highly talented people ask you to keep looking for a spot for them.

The second measure is harder to assess because when people want to get out of your organization, it is not always obvious. The telltale sign is if individuals are “looking for other opportunities.” Usually a leader does not know what percentage of his or her population is trying to find alternate employment. That is because if lots of people want out, there is likely very little trust in the organization.

With low trust, people will hide the fact they are looking for a different job out of self protection. The best time to find a job is when you already have a job, so people can go years while looking around to find a better position. Likewise in an environment of low trust you might be afraid for your employment if your boss knew you were looking elsewhere.

It is obvious that when people are looking elsewhere, they are not giving 100% of their best to the current organization. If there are several people in this situation it can really sap productivity and morale.

So the yin and yang for a leader is that if trust is high, people will generally be wanting in and that information will be rather transparent due to the long line. If trust is low, the number of people wanting out is a hidden number.

My bottom line for all leaders is to ask if they know the ratio of people wanting to get in versus out. If they have a good idea, then they are good leaders. If they have no clue, it reflects poorly on the quality of their leadership. It is a simple and remarkably accurate barometer.


5 Caveats of the “Open Door” Policy

December 13, 2009

If you are like most professionals, your company has an “open door” policy. This is one of the most commonly employed HR strategies to ensure individuals are not trapped under an ogre of a supervisor with no way to communicate their frustration. Unfortunately, the strategy is often dysfunctional, and it can actually do more harm than good. Let’s put the “open door” policy under the microscope and see what makes it dangerous, then suggest an antidote that can help.

The Open door policy sounds so inherently right, few employees question it until they are embroiled in a problem and have to try to get the intended benefits. It reminds me of an insurance policy. You think you are protected until you have a claim, then you find out what the fine print was all about.

Likewise many managers hide behind the open door as a kind of cure-all for organizational low trust. Both symptoms mask an underlying malaise that must be rooted out and destroyed. On the surface, the open door leads to greater transparency and fairness, but in the real world there are several reasons it does not work that way.

1. The “Open Door” policy can be a sham – If an employee wants to use the open door policy it is usually because of some kind of rift with his or her immediate supervisor. There is something bad going on according to the employee’s interpretation, and the supervisor is unwilling or incapable of dealing with the situation. During these times, trust between the individual and level-one supervision is at an all time low. Since talking it out with level one will only bring additional grief, the employee uses the open door and tries to clear the air by talking to level-two. The level-two manager is not fully familiar with the issue, so the only recourse is to listen politely to the employee and then have a chat with the level-one supervisor. In the process, the level-one supervisor immediately becomes aware that he or she has been “blown in” to the boss. Regardless of how professional both leaders are, this series of discussions usually results in a further reduction of trust between the three levels and the individuals involved. Since trust was compromised to begin with, the poor employee is now under an even more ominous cloud.
2. The “Open Door” leads to games – I recall a discussion with my boss. He wanted to use the open door policy correctly and not jeopardize the employee, who was working for me. So my boss told me one of my employees had complained that I was not treating the person fairly (he was careful to keep the discussion gender neutral to make it harder for me to guess who might have the issue). I had taken over a new area, and the trust in me had not yet been fully established. My boss would not tell me who the individual was, or the specific area involved. He would only tell me that there was someone out there that did not trust me to treat him or her fairly. He would not share the specific area of concern nor give me enough data to have a clue for how to fix it. This discussion served to put me on notice, but it caused me to start second guessing every interface or action attempting to uncover the problem. In the end, I never did figure out who the person was or what the issue was. For months I went around like Sherlock Holmes trying to figure out what incorrect signals this one individual had been getting. Meanwhile, the rest of the population, who were not concerned with my fairness, thought I was acting a little weird.
3. “Open Door” has a bad reputation on the shop floor – In many organizations employees are fully aware that the open door policy is something that makes management feel good and looks good in the employee handbook, but it is a poor vehicle to use if there is an actual issue on the shop floor. If the symptom leading to the need for an open door conversation is low trust, then how can escalating the issue to the next higher level be helpful? There are also folk tails of the poor soul who got so upset with a situation that he actually did use the open door and lived to regret it every day thereafter until he finally quit the organization. Far better to suffer the current injustice than call in the big guns and ensure more pain.
4. “Open Door” failures lead to Ombudsmen – When the open door gets a reputation for causing additional grief and not resolving problems, organizations often resort to a third party grievance resolution mechanism called an Ombudsman. Again, from an HR or legal perspective this practice seems reasonable and fair. It really can resolve some issues, but it is also fraught with cloak and dagger nonsense that usually further undermines trust as the clueless Ombudsman seeks to understand what is really going on without upsetting people. Meanwhile the employee is on tenterhooks hoping the desperate action to call in a third party will not backfire. Once again, since the root cause of the problem can be traced to a lack of trust, the Ombudsman approach is at best a last resort effort to save utter collapse.
5. What if the level-two manager is a jerk too? – If an employee has a problem with the integrity of the level-one supervisor, then the level-two supervisor is often in question as well. From a shop floor perspective, all management is painted with the same brush. Actually, there are situations where there is a bad apple in the middle and employees really do trust the second level more than the first level. More often, all management is suspect if there are weak links. After all, if the big boss tolerates a bully in the supervisory ranks, then that manager is not doing his or her job either. Why would employees feel high trust for that person? They more likely picture the big boss as a well intended but clueless manager who has not idea how miserable things are two levels below.

These are five very real symptoms of problems with the open door policy. I am not saying it is a bad thing to have or that it never works. What I am suggesting is that there is a better way. What if we taught managers at all levels to reinforce candor? Employees would learn that is not a career threatening opportunity to bring an issue to the immediate boss. In fact, when they bring up scary stuff or perceived inequities, they are rewarded in some way. This would be regardless of the level. It would mean that the need for escalation would be significantly reduced in the first place, and for those few situations where a higher level discussion would be useful, then the employee is still reinforced.

Imagine the poor Ombudsman with less work than the Maytag Repairman. Imagine an entire workforce concentrating on the mission of and vision of the organization instead of constantly negotiating their way through minefields of bureaucratic protectionism. Imagine running an organization based on trust instead of fear. It is possible if we simply teach leaders to reinforce candor.

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.


Building Trust in Virtual Teams

August 16, 2009
  •  
    This article is a joint work by Robert Whipple of Leadergrow Inc. and Nancy Settle-Murphy of Guided Insights.

Today’s astonishing economic situation affects virtually every working individual around the globe. As organizations are forced to make drastic cuts and other difficult changes to remain viable, the need for competent, credible, trustworthy leaders has never been greater. At the same time, the very nature of our global economic collapse has bred deep distrust for many business leaders, money managers, politicians and others who contributed or are reacting to the current morass.

Leading an organization through turbulent times requires an uncommon ability to inspire trust. But when teams are geographically dispersed, especially in scary times, they are far more likely to be fearful, suspicious and immobilized in the absence of trust.

Industry studies show that in the best of times high-trust teams are between 200-300% more productive than low-trust teams. In tough times, that delta is likely to be even greater. That’s why organizations that operate virtual teams need leaders who know how to earn and cultivate trust among teams that feel increasing pressure to perform.

  1. Verify a vision and goals eye-to-eye. Without a shared vision and focus, conflict and distrust become frequent and harder to resolve. Virtual teams have few opportunities to test for shared meaning, validate assumptions and spot disconnects before they become problems. Arguably, this alignment might be achieved through a series of superbly-executed team calls and online conferences; but in reality, the surest and easiest way to galvanize a team is to bring people together face-to-face. Once coalesced, the team can then modify goals and verify buy-in from afar on a regular basis. All team members need a palpable connection with the root vision. Without it, the best intentions of team leaders are likely to fall short.
  2. Agree on a shared set of team principles, behaviors and norms. To build trust, all team members need to hold each other accountable to some standards of behavior. If these principles are nothing more than vague intentions or fuzzy “feel good” rules, they won’t provide the specificity members need to call each other out in case of a transgression. When leaders permit some members to violate agreed-upon norms, they risk their credibility with team members who expect them to enforce the rules. An example of team behavior that can help enforce desired behavior: “We will eliminate ’silent no’s’ from our conference calls.” (A “silent no” is when a member of the call does not agree with the conclusions but does not voice objections and instead works to undermine the decision, destroying solidarity and trust in the process.)
  3. Reinforce candor. To foster a culture of trust, the leader needs to ensure people are not worried about being punished for voicing their reservations or concerns. The ability of a leader to encourage and reinforce candor lies at the heart of the trust-building process. When people are naturally paranoid about their longevity in an organization, they will stifle any misgivings unless the leader is explicit about the safety of voicing concerns. Trust cannot grow in an environment where people are scared to speak their truth.
  4. Anticipate and address stress points. When people feel pressured to perform, unattractive behaviors such as finger-pointing and defensiveness can emerge. When team members can’t have face-to-face conversations to smooth ruffled feathers, such behavior can quickly derail even the most well-aligned team. By creating a culture of mutual support and respect, team members can minimize the fall-out after a misstep. Establishing ground rules related to giving and taking responsibility, solving problems and escalating issues can help. Creating norms around communications during times of conflict or dissension are essential. The leader’s behavior sets the stage for all members. If lapses should occur, the leader needs to acknowledge them as such, lest team members assume they can follow suit and violate other norms.
  5. When in doubt, reveal more rather than less. Team leaders are often privy to inside information to which others don’t have access. Err on the side of being more transparent rather than less, providing you don’t violate any policies. Even in the best of times, remote team members may feel left out of the communication loop. But when futures seem uncertain, remote team members may feel even more discomfited and disconnected. Team leaders might open each call by asking members what rumors they’ve been hearing, and then address each point with the latest, most accurate information they have. If team members seem reticent, open an anonymous virtual conference area where team members can pose questions or express concerns, to which team leaders can respond to the team as a whole.
  6. Celebrate the small wins. Especially in these difficult times, it’s important to highlight the good things that happen in small ways on a daily basis. In addition to recognizing achievements and milestones, team leaders might also acknowledge instances of cross-pollination, collaboration or creative use of resources. Leaders might establish a program where members can recommend other team members for a reward based on behaviors or actions that contribute to the success of the whole team. For example, members might earn rewards doing more than their share to keep the project on track or finding “free” resources. Rewards can include a gift certificate for an online store or a local coffee shop. When setting formal team goals, make sure that the team has many opportunities to celebrate milestones and that the goals always have the appropriate amount of reach.
  7. Encourage creativity and reasonable risk taking. Surviving in today’s tough climate requires courage, creativity and a certain amount of fearlessness. Team leaders need to be clear about the type of risks that are encouraged, versus those the organization cannot afford to take. Once ground rules are in place, team leaders can find ways to move creative ideas into action. For example, brainstorming sessions can be set up via phone or virtual conference area where all team members can easily contribute a volley of ideas, which can then be vetted and acted upon. Even when new ideas don’t pan out as planned, team leaders should congratulate team members for their creativity, helping to cultivate an innovative, energized environment that’s so important in difficult times.
  8. Keep an eye out for the small problems. In some remote teams, members may have never even met each other or may have only a superficial relationship. As a result, it can take a long time to cultivate trust, especially when in-person interactions are limited. When team members don’t feel entirely comfortable having candid conversations, little annoyances can lead to big problems. Team leaders need to be vigilant about addressing small rifts and immediately bring team members back to the sense of purpose. In some cases, this requires an open conversation with the whole team, and in others, a private phone conversation may be more appropriate. If turf battles become too much of a distraction, it may be time to bring all or some team members together in one room to settle differences and repair relationships .
  9. When draconian actions are required, let people grieve. Nearly all businesses will need to make increasingly difficult decisions to remain viable. Layoffs, salary freezes, pay cuts, forced furloughs, divestitures, and mergers all take a huge emotional toll on the workers who remain. Leaders should encourage team members to discuss their sense of loss and talk about their grief rather than giving members a cheerful pep talk or ignoring the pervasive sense of loss. In the wake of each such change, leaders can start team calls by asking people how they are feeling. Remember that individuals need to go through the stages of the grieving process (anticipation, ending, transition, and beginning) in their own way and time. Doing so allows people to become fully functioning players in the new order rather than continually mourning for what was lost. When individuals are part of the rebuilding process, they’ll be more emotionally committed to the success of the team.
    Keeping a team motivated, energized and productive during times like these will test the mettle of even the most successful leader. But when team members work remotely, team leaders must take extraordinary measures to cultivate mutual trust and a truly level playing field among everyone on the team.

12 Do’s and Don’ts for effective online communication

August 13, 2009

We communicate more online now than verbally. In many situations, people send signals that are not consistent with their intentions. Unfortunately, while the rules of excellent e-mail communication are common sense, they are not common practice. These simple 12 rules will allow you to prevent most problems when communicating online.

Overarching consideration – use the right mode of communication. Often e-mail is not the right one.

  1. Do Not treat e-mail like a conversation
  2. Keep messages short
  3. Establish the right Tone upfront
  4. Remember the permanent nature of e-mails
  5. Keep your objective in mind
  6. Do not write notes when you are not yourself
  7. Avoid “e-mail grenade” battles
  8. Be careful with use of pronouns in e-mail
  9. Avoid using absolutes
  10. Avoid sarcasm
  11. Learn techniques to keep your inbox cleaned out
  12. Understand the rules for writing those challenging notes

Read details and tips in white paper – http://www.leadergrow.com/12DosandDontsofEmailCommunication.pdf