Quality Check for Meetings

November 27, 2011

For most of us, meetings are our most significant time-wasting activity. If you have not found yourself frustrated while sitting in a useless meeting with no escape, you must be a hermit.

The interesting thing is that we, the participants, really do have the power to manage these interfaces between people in ways that are productive, impactful, and fun. In this article, I want to focus on a simple quality check as a means to improve meetings.

The way time is used in meetings is a part of the overall culture of a team. Managing meetings well is one activity that will improve team performance, but it should not be done in a vacuum. It should be a part of an overall process to improve trust and accountability within the team. Leaders normally set the pace for what goes on in any team, so they need to take a lead role in managing meetings for better outcomes.

I advocate that teams have a quick evaluation at the end of each meeting. The leader simply states the following. “Our time is precious, and meetings use a lot of time. It is our responsibility to make sure we are making the best use of every minute. How many of you think this meeting was an excellent investment.” The feedback can be in the form of a quick discussion, a questionnaire, or, if trust is high already, just a thumbs up for good, thumbs down for bad. Of course, if a binary vote turns out to be mostly negative, a conversation needs to take place to understand the specific issues. It can take less than a minute, but it gives a quick feedback. The other benefit is that it lets people know the leader is not clueless and is open to suggested improvements for next time.

For this method to be fruitful, the leader must establish an environment of trust. People need to know they will not be punished, in any way, for giving their opinions. If the leader reacts well to comments, even if the input suggests the leader is wasting the group’s time, then trust will be enhanced. Another benefit occurs if the leader includes other people in planning future events to prevent the same problem at the next meeting.

It is critical if the leader does such an evaluation that he or she follows up and actually makes the changes suggested. A subsequent time check should not bring up the same issues. If it does, then stronger action is required before going further. The leader is responsible for the follow up and modification of meeting processes, even though he or she may ask for help from others as well.

This quality check allows everyone to take ownership of the meeting process to ensure it is vital and adding value. If there are problems in the meeting format or content, they can be addressed before the next meeting, so bad habits are not proliferated. I urge you to add this simple check to the end of all your meetings. It will pay big dividends.


The Wimpy Boss

November 20, 2011

I have written about bully bosses a couple of times, but I never addressed the other end of the spectrum – wimpy bosses. While not as obnoxious as a bully boss, the wimpy boss can be exasperating in different ways. Let’s look at some of the characteristics of a wimpy boss and follow up with some tips in case you happen to be paired up with one.

I am reminded of the cartoon character “Wimpy” in the Popeye Cartoon, (I know I am dating myself – and as Groucho used to say, “If you’re dating yourself, you aren’t likely to have many children”). Wimpy was famous for the line, “I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” That characteristic of postponing things is one of the hallmarks of a wimpy boss. Regardless of the issue, there are some bosses who do not want to face making a decision, so they ask for more analysis or more time. Eventually people get the message that there isn’t going to be a firm answer.

Another trait of a wimpy boss is that the person will not stand up for people who work for him or her. If upper layers of management perceive an individual incorrectly, the wimpy boss is going to be a “yes man” and not challenge the misconception.

Wimpy bosses do not hold firm to decisions made on principle. They bend with the breeze coming from on high and waffle when asked to take a stand on issues involving integrity. They are like chameleons and change colors to blend in with the background.

When a person is abusing other employees, the wimpy boss does not step in with strong action to stop the problem. Instead, problems are allowed to fester and well up because the boss has no strength or backbone.

What can you do if you have a wimpy boss? That is a really good question, because you are not likely to change this person. The weak habits are a form of self preservation, laziness, or just plain being gutless. No amount of coaching is likely to reverse a lifetime of bad habits in this area. If you are reporting to a wimpy boss, the best you can do is document your requests carefully and make sure you copy others, such as senior management or HR in on your requests.

Make sure the need for decisions have a date fixed to them and that a large number of people are aware of the delivery date. If needed, send reminders a reasonable time before the due date.
If you see some signs of strength emerging, reinforce the boss enthusiastically for taking action. It will serve to encourage stronger action in the future.

Lastly, training can help a wimpy boss learn how to handle difficult situations and also make more firm decisions. You may not be in a position to nudge the boss directly to get some training, but there could be indirect ways to let it be known that some additional seasoning would be beneficial. Each organization will have a different political hierarchy that includes not only the wimpy boss but also that person’s peers, manager, HR, and the Development Group. As an underling to a wimpy boss, you need to be careful how and when you point out opportunities for improvement.


Joe Paterno’s Trip to Egypt

November 13, 2011

The remarkable sequence of events in the second week of November 2011 will undoubtedly be a preface to a long string of litigation and embarrassment for the Penn State community. In particular, the actions of Joe Paterno leading up to his being dismissed Wednesday by the Board of Trustees made it evident that he had just returned from Egypt where he spent a lot of time in “de-Nile.”

This article may sound like kicking a man when he is down. I have no anger toward the man, and from a legal perspective, have no comment on whether he is guilty of any crime. At this point people should presume he is innocent, although his ouster from the Penn State Athletic Program was made unavoidable by his words and actions.

Personally, I feel sorry for Joe and especially for his family. Here is a man who has given so much to so many for so long that we ought to be willing to cut him some slack. Unfortunately, at this time, I believe the damage he did by his own words this week, regardless of his legal status, is far more deep and lasting than meets the eye. I believe Joe is only starting to recognize the consequences of his statements.

Two statements made by Joe were particularly troubling, in my opinion.

1. Joe said, “If this is true, I am shocked,” but he already knew it was true because he had notified his superiors back in 2002. That is an indisputable fact. I think the shock Joe was referring to was that the whole thing was being made public, not that an assistant was alleged to have acted inappropriately with defenseless children.

2. When he said, on Tuesday, “The Board of Trustees should not waste one minute of time discussing what should happen to me, they have much more important things to discuss,” he revealed a personal denial or lack of appreciation for his own accountability in the matter. He wanted the Board to look elsewhere to find the people responsible. Even when it was revealed he did not follow up on the matter beyond notifying his boss, he did not seem to realize what his part in the scandal cost his own legacy and that of Penn State. His statement, “I wish I had done more,” was the admission of at least some culpability, but then he went on preparing for the Nebraska Game indicating he would retire at the end of this season, as if the whole issue could be compartmentalized like the stain on Monica Lewinski’s blue dress. Utterly amazing.

His unwillingness to accept personal accountability showed a poor example, not only for current athletes, but for the legion of people who have worshiped him over many decades. Each one of those people have to go back and sort out the life lessons they learned from Joe and his philosophy in a very different light now. This will take decades to sort out, and Joe himself will be long gone. The damage done to those he touched is incalculable, but not quite as bad as the damage allegedly done by his assistant to defenseless little boys. Unfortunately, that will be Joe’s true legacy. Yes, I do pity the man and his family.

There are few role models for trust and honor as recognizable as Joe Paterno. This fiasco underscores that the truth ultimately surfaces and that the need for trust and integrity in relationships is vital. We who are witnessing this tragedy need to deepen our resolve that trust is still the objective, even if a major proponent of it has fallen on his own sword.

I am not attempting to put Joe on trial in the media here. I believe the civil and legal cases will stretch on for many years, most likely past Joe’s death. Culpability for actions will be determined over time, and at great expense, by the legal system, not me. I am simply reflecting on two statements he made this past week that reveal an inconsistency between his words and reality that have left me saddened and astonished.


Playing Politics

November 6, 2011

Do you play politics? Is that a good thing to do? Is it morally right? Is it smart? How we deal with political situations has a huge impact on the quality of our lives.

We are surrounded by politics at all times, and we can all identify with the negative aspects of political activities. Webster defines politics in an organizational setting as : “scheming and maneuvering within a group,” immediately giving the word a negative connotation. If we are practicing politics, something bad is happening. We have encountered Machiavellian individuals who would take credit for the work of others or somehow undermine their efforts in order to enhance themselves. You can undoubtedly visualize a highly political individual in your mind as you read this article. What gives rise to political thought?

All of us have a set of wants, needs, and desires. For example, most of us would like to get our hands on more money, thinking it would allow fewer problems in our lives. Most of us wish the world would slow down so we could relax once in a while and enjoy the ride. None of us like to feel we have been taken advantage of in any kind of interchange, whether it be a co-worker goofing off while we toil away, or our boss forgetting the raise we were promised. In short, most of us want more of the “good stuff” in life, and we want to be assured we are not disadvantaged by someone else hogging more than their share.

We all have a vested interest in getting our share in life: what we have worked for and are entitled to receive. There is a constant agenda going on in everyone’s head relative to ensuring this equity; it makes no difference if a person is on death row or the CEO of a multinational organization. It is impossible for the needs of all people to be optimized at once, so this creates tension between individuals and groups. How we deal with this tension is called politics. We all engage in it most of the time. There is nothing wrong with doing this. It is human nature. We live in a sea of politics.

I read a great definition of political dynamics by Tom Rieger in “The Conference Board Review.” Tom wrote, “If your self-interests are in conflict with those of the greater good, it is simply human nature to adjust your view of the greater good to match the context of what is best for you.”

The ethical dilemmas about politics surface when people get greedy. They want more than their fair share of the “good stuff” and work to figure out ways to enhance their portion at the expense of others. We need to be alert for these people and protect our own interests at all times. Sometimes they are easy to spot, like the one-eyed pirate trying to cut off your head with a broad sword. Other times, they are so crafty their damage seems almost painless as if you are being sliced up by a razor-sharp foil.

Conducting yourself in an ethical manner, yet still being politically astute, can do wonders for your sanity and your pocketbook. Let’s look at 14 rules for political survival:

1. Know who butters your bread and act that way. Some people seem to forget their boss’ power to influence the quality of their life. This does not mean you need to be a “yes man” or a “suck up.” Just don’t go around intentionally undermining the boss, even if you think she is wrong.

2. Act in ways consistent with your values and sense of spiritual rightness. You know what is right. Often people rationalize and do wrong things in order to get ahead. These actions tend to backfire by reducing trust.

3. Make 20 positive remarks for every negative one. It is amazing how many people have that ratio exactly backward. They gripe and complain all day long. Then they wonder why nobody likes to be near them. Test this out on yourself. Make a mental note (maybe keep a 3X5″ card and make hash marks) of each positive and negative statement that comes out of your mouth. You may be surprised. If you don’t like your ratio, change it.

4. Do not grandstand. Practice humility and avoid taking cheap shots. Putting people down often feels satisfying at the moment (like they got what was coming to them), but in the long run, saying hurtful things will bring pain back to you in the future.

5. Try to understand the intentions and motivations of others. It isn’t enough to observe their behaviors. You need to dig deeper to reach the true meaning in their actions. Only then can you understand what is happening.

6. Follow up on everything. Try to achieve a reputation for being 100% reliable at doing what you promise. Show initiative and be alert for opportunities to demonstrate your reliability.

7. Do the dirty work cheerfully. Every job has unpleasant or boring aspects. Do these quickly and efficiently without complaint. You are not too good for the menial jobs.

8. Agree to disagree. Arguments at work can persist for months while people dig in further to buttress their position and undermine the other side. Life is too short for this pettiness. After three legitimate attempts to convince one another , it is best to say, “It looks like we are not going to agree on this matter. Rather than arguing about it, let’s agree to disagree. We still respect each other and can work well together. We just have this one area where we see things differently.” It is amazing how much time and acrimony can be eliminated with these few words.

9. Don’t beat dead horses. Forget the discussions that go on and on. Make your point once. If you think it was misunderstood, make it again. After that, move on. Repetition is a rat hole. Sometimes you can observe a group in heated discussion for a full hour. It sounds like an argument, but they are really in violent agreement.

10. Be aggressive, but don’t be a pest. There is a fine line between high initiative and being intrusive. Learn to read the body language all around you and back off before you go too far.

11. Administrative people and other support people have real power. They hold the keys for access to power people. They understand the sidebar conversations about you and the unpublished agendas that define the real ball game. They will be supportive if they like you.

12. Keep an active social life with work associates. This is not mandatory, but the better the relationship outside work, the more information will naturally flow in the conversation. Information is power. The basis for political power is that people do things for people they like.

13. Always be considerate and gracious. Try to avoid snapping at people. It is not always helpful to wear your emotions on your sleeve. The best rule here is the “golden” rule. Put yourself in the other person’s place and ask how you would like to be treated.

14. Try to foster peers as political allies. Never make an enemy if you can avoid it – and you almost always can avoid it.

That is a pretty long list of “dos” and “don’ts,” but most of them are common sense. The point is that your reputation (which is your most precious asset) is on the line in every interaction. Make sure you do everything possible to enhance it. I suggest you print out these tips and review them frequently. Following them can mean be the difference between floundering and thriving.


Leadership Mentors

October 30, 2011

In my work, I consult with management and leader groups at all levels in organizations of all sizes and types. We normally think of each group as being unique. They have their own style, idiosyncrasies, type of work, environment, and goals, yet I have found most groups to have many similar aspects.

In any group, you will find a core of dedicated and cooperative individuals who are there to help and earn a living. They have basically the same hopes and dreams, although each one has his or her unique story to tell. Then you have a few superstars who are really trying to get the most out of every experience. They shine above the others in many ways. Finally you have the slackers and trouble makers. Even though their numbers are less than 10% of the population, these people take up roughly 80% of the time of their managers. They often feel that life has dealt them a rotten hand, when it is really their own attitude that is usually causing their misery.

When I meet with a new management team for the first time, the manager often tells me “we’re different here,” and yet when you consider the entire group, despite any other differences, they are usually similar to the pattern I described above. It takes me less than 5 minutes to scope out the distribution for that particular group. Usually it is very close to a normal distribution, but occasionally I will find a group that is either much better or much worse than the norm. For those outlier situations, there is often a relationship between how people are treated and how they react. If people are treated well by leaders, the group will be better than average. If people are misused by leaders, then you find a group with more problems.

The people in a dysfunctional team can be made more positive if the leader finds ways to improve his or her own skills. The good news is that it takes people only a short time to become more motivated. The transformation can take as little as six months. The leader would have culled out the cancerous elements of the team to allow the healthy cells to shine through and work up to potential. The leader would have set up expectations and gained the respect of everyone. Trust would be in evidence every day.

Reverse the situation and put a less-skilled leader in with a high performing team, and the team will lose its edge quickly. People will start acting as if they are playing games with each other, and trust will be reduced. In that environment, some problem individuals will quickly surface to bring down the average performance of the team.

I have seen the above pattern work in both directions so many times over the past 40 years of observation that I am convinced there is a causal relationship. If you look around and see a need for higher quality leaders in your organization, it is costing you plenty.

I believe there is a shortage of excellent leaders, but I also believe with the proper mentoring and support, a majority of professional people have the innate capabilities to become good, if not great, leaders. So what is missing? The real shortage is a lack of mentors for future leaders. Reason: most highly effective leaders are consumed with trying to optimize things in their current environment, and they neglect the activities that would develop other leaders.

If you are not happy with the number of excellent leaders in your organization, ask why there are not more leadership mentors. Get some help to train all leaders not only to be better at their function, but to step up to the challenge of growing other leaders for the future.


Olympic Story of Trust

October 23, 2011

I was a Division Manager for Eastman Kodak when a strange request came in from the Olympics. Responding to this impossible challenge involved having total trust in the system and team, to allow them to break every rule in the book and put out a new product in less than three days.

On a Tuesday morning in 1992, one of the product planners got a call from a customer in Albertville, France. The Winter Olympics was starting to wind down, and this customer from Sports Illustrated had a challenge for us. He noticed that there were colored Olympic rings embedded in the ice of the figure skating venue. His idea was to climb up into the rafters and take images looking directly down on the skaters in the Woman’s Singles Finals on Saturday night with the rings in the background. He needed some special equipment in a format we did not sell.

The accelerated cycle time to get a new product like that to the market was 9-12 months in order to develop the process, get the hardware approved, establish the specs, create the packaging, etc. The problem was that we had to ship the product on Friday morning to be sure it would get to Albertville in time. That meant we had to get everything done in less than three days rather than a year. Talk about a scramble!

The team assigned the task of getting this product out had a blast breaking all kinds of rules in order to make the impossible deadline. In the end, the customer had what he needed, and the next issue of Sports illustrated had an image of Kristie Yamaguchi winning the Gold Medal while she was literally flying over the Olympic rings embedded in the ice.

The Business Unit was so thrilled that they presented the Department with a framed copy of the image signed by Kristie Yamaguchi. When the business unit came to the factory to deliver a personally signed copy of the image, it was an electric moment for the workers. That framed picture hung in a place of honor to remind the team that the impossible is really possible if trust in the team is there. It is truly amazing what a turned-on team of workers can accomplish.


Addition by Subtraction

October 16, 2011

The title of this article came from a student in one of my online classes on Team Dynamics. He got the phrase from an “extraordinary” Chief Master Sergeant named Jim, currently serving at the Pentagon. I really love the phrase because it is so simple, yet so profound.

We are all familiar with some of the problems that occur when working in teams. In this article, I want to focus on the impact that can be made by a single person who is a misfit in the group and slows down all team progress.

I need to be careful to describe the phenomenon correctly. Normally, I am an advocate of having diversity of opinion and styles within a team. Reason: respectful differences in outlook or opinion are healthy because they usually lead to more creative and robust solutions. If you have a team of clones who all think alike on most issues, you have a mono-culture that may seem to work well, but it will probably lead to myopic solutions. In general, having “different” people on a team is a good thing.

Unfortunately, we have all had the experience of being on a team where one individual simply stops forward progress on a regular basis. The root cause may be a personality deficiency or some kind of chemistry problem between members. The person may become moody or bellicose and derail group processes at every opportunity. In rare cases there is an intent to stop the efforts of a team, sort of like a sport.

I am not writing about a person on the team who fills a Devil’s advocate role from time to time in order to prevent the group from slipping into a dangerous group think. Nor am I referring to the person with a concern or observation who voices it in a polite way. The person I am describing is one who habitually takes a contrarian view and refuses to accept the fact that he or she is derailing conversation rather than fostering a balanced discussion.

I advocate that any team should have a written and agreed-upon set of expected behaviors. These statements indicate our agreement on how we will treat each other along with specific consequences for members who do not comply. If peer pressure and body language fail to convince the person to stop the disruptive behavior, then it is time for the person’s manager to do some private coaching. Sometimes that can make at least a temporary improvement However, some individuals just cannot or will not change. Stronger measures are required. The solution is rather obvious. The person needs to find some other way to get entertainment, and should be excused from the team.

This surgery is really “addition by subtraction.” Reason: once the problem person is removed, the entire team will breathe a sigh of relief, because now decisions and progress can occur more easily. I have had grateful team members come to me with tears of gratitude in their eyes saying, “Oh thank you! Removing Frank from the team took some courage, but we are so grateful to have the ability to navigate without him. Life will be so much better for all of us because of your action.”

Removing a problem person from a team is often a painful process. Egos can get bruised or there may be an ugly scene. My advice is to take the action, but only after you have exhausted all remedial efforts.


New Eyeballs

October 8, 2011

The human brain is a remarkable organ. It has many fascinating properties that can give us insights on how to live a better and more effective life. One of these phenomena occurs at the base of the brain: the Reticular Activating System (RAS). RAS is an incredible filtering system that allows human beings to sort out and pay attention to things that are important to us while disregarding the bombardment of other things that are not critical. It is the mechanism that allows us to focus attention on the vital few and ignore the trivial many.

I will leave how the RAS works to the brain experts, but the impact of it is a wonder to behold. In this article, I want to explore RAS along with some implications it can have in our professional and personal lives. The best way to appreciate the power of RAS is through examples.

Imagine you are in a theater during intermission. The crowded lobby is abuzz with the cacophony of voices, and it is impossible to hear any conversation except the one closest to you.  In the crowd, within earshot, someone mentions your name. All of a sudden you are able to laser focus on that conversation, ignoring all the rest, and actually hear what that person is saying about you. If the person had not uttered your name, there would be no way you would hear what she was saying. That is RAS in action. 

Let’s look at another typical example. You just came out of a car dealership after having ordered a red Ford truck. On the way home, you start to notice red Ford trucks everywhere. Driving into the dealership, you paid no attention and did not notice any trucks at all. Once the RAS is activated, it allows all kinds of miraculous things to happen. Let’s explore how RAS can be useful in helping you be more successful at work.

Marcus Buckingham wrote a famous book entitled Now, Discover Your Strengths: How to Develop Your Talents and Those of the People You Manage. His thesis was that we can make much faster progress at self improvement if we focus energy on our areas of strength rather than trying to improve our weaknesses.  If you doubt that conclusion, pick up a copy of his book. It gives a mountain of data to support the conclusion. The book also contains a link to an online survey you can take to determine your own strength areas.

After reading the book and doing the assessment, I found two dominant strengths I had that were not evident to me before. I found out that I am a “Maximizer” (one who tries to achieve excellence) and that I am particularly strong in “WOO,” (which stands for Winning Others Over). Being a Maximizer allows me to accomplish more in one day than most other people, and WOO allows me to have significant influence when it is important.  Let’s now explore how this knowledge, coupled with RAS, has made the ideas useful to me.

I am a visual communicator and tend to think in terms of images. I have the image of walking around all day with imaginary “arrows of opportunity” flying in the air, just over my head. The arrows represent a constant stream of opportunities to interface with people or do things that help me be more effective. I just need to pick the correct arrows and reach up and grab the right ones as they fly by. The difficult part used to be that there were so many arrows, how was I to select the ones that could help me the most?  Enter RAS.

Now that I know my two greatest strengths, when I view the arrows in my mind, a few of them are in vibrant color. These are the ones that represent a chance to use my skills at Maximizing and WOO.  The rest of the arrows are black.  Using this filtering technique, I am able to “see” the most important opportunities coming at me (even when they are far off) and grab them to flex the strengths within me much more frequently. Voila! My performance improves simply based on the application of my strongest traits.

RAS is a very powerful tool, but we need to be continuously aware of that power if we are to harness it for use in our lives.  Try this little exercise. Try to identify 5-10 times in each day where you are applying the understanding of RAS to improve how you manage your life.  For example, you might be sitting in a cafeteria with hundreds of people. In the distance, you spot an old friend you had been thinking about recently and realize you have not spoken to him in over a year. You resolve to call him that afternoon. Immediately you recognize that RAS helped you find that person and renew the acquaintance. That counts as one of the 10 opportunities to use RAS.

That evening, while scanning the newspaper, out of the corner of your eye you catch a glimpse of an ad for a boat and immediately remember that you had intended to buy a new fishing reel this week. The association was made possible by RAS. That would be number two example. Try to find 5-10 examples a day.

By focusing your energy on understanding how you can use RAS to filter your thinking as opposed to following random thoughts, you will actually be doing a kind of “meta RAS” where the technique is helping you identify opportunities to use its power for you daily.  It sounds complex, but it is really pretty basic.

Do not overlook the power of RAS to improve your life. The more you practice identifying the phenomenon within you and using it, the more creative ways you will find of having it guide you to a better life.

Robert Whipple, MBA, CPLP, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for ProfessionalsUnderstanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, and Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind. Bob has many years as a senior executive with a Fortune 500 Company and with non-profit organizations.  To bring Bob in to speak at your next event, contact him at www.Leadergrow.com, bwhipple@leadergrow.com or 585.392.7763.


Leaders: Are You Popular? Do You Care?

October 4, 2011

This article is from a new guest blogger on my site. His name is Bob Mason. See his contact information at the bottom of this post. Welcome Bob!

Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as saying, “you can’t please all the people all the time.” I don’t know if Lincoln actually said that, but it’s still a good reminder for leaders. Some leaders constantly strive to please their followers, but that need to be liked will damage their effectiveness as leaders. Leaders who strive to be popular will most likely find that, in order to maintain the popularity they crave, they will probably have to compromise their own values or give up authority. Eventually, they’ll be forced to face reality and do something unpopular, causing many of the followers the leader thought were friends to question decisions and even become openly hostile.

Some leaders are not concerned with pleasing anyone, and they don’t care how their followers feel about them. As Lincoln supposedly said in the opening quote, a leader isn’t going to please everyone, but being universally disliked isn’t going to lead to success either. A leader who just doesn’t care will find his followers also don’t care. When things get tough, he’ll lack support from the organization, making the job of leading that much more difficult.

So, what’s a leader to do? There’s an effective middle ground that is actually pretty easy to attain. Rather than worrying about popularity, strive for loyalty. It’s very common for leaders to expect loyalty but less common to give it to their followers. Loyalty is a two-way street, and there are several actions that will help a leader achieve this balance.

1. Always remember that your team is there is for the organization, not for you, and you must support them in order to support the organization.

2. Make sure your organization has a well defined and universally understood mission or purpose. All members of your team should understand how they are important to accomplishing that mission or purpose. They should also know that you appreciate their importance.

3. Communicate. Remember that communication is a two-way activity and that listening is more important that speaking. It is essential that all members of your team know their voices will always be heard and their ideas will be given serious consideration.

4. Be honest. Always. No matter what. It’s much better to say, “I don’t know” or “I just can’t discuss that right now” than to tell your team something you know is untrue. You only have to lie once to lose the trust of your team.

5. Know the people on your team as individuals and strive to meet their needs. That may seem to be at odds with what I said before, but this isn’t about popularity. A leader should have genuine concern for the needs of his or her team because those needs are what motivate them. When your followers know you are genuinely interested in them, they will respond. You cannot fake this! People detect insincerity quickly, and just like lying, it will ruin your credibility.

Leadership is not a popularity contest. Being open and honest with followers, while being genuinely interested in their needs, will make a leader more successful. Try it!

Bob Mason is a speaker, trainer, and author of “Bridging the Generations: A Leader’s Guide to the Complex Multi-Generational, 21st Century Workplace” and “Planning to Excel: Strategic Planning That Works.” After 30 years of leadership experience he founded RLM Planning and Leadership to transform leadership by developing great leaders. Bob works with organizations that want to excel by training managers to lead and creating great strategic plans to keep leaders focused. See what he can do for you at http://www.planleadexcel.com.


Leaders: Be Smart, Act Dumb

October 2, 2011

In his famous program, “Effective Negotiating,” Chester A. Karrass, makes the observation that, in negotiations, often appearing dumb is a great strategy. The idea is that acting naïve causes the other party to fill in some blanks with information that may ultimately be helpful to you in the negotiation. Conversely, acting as if you know everything is usually a bad strategy, because you end up supplying too much information too early in the conversation. This habit gives your opponent in the negotiation a significant advantage.

As I work with leaders in organizations of all sizes, a similar observation could be made about leadership. Being dumb is sometimes smart, and being too smart is often dumb. Let’s examine some examples of why this dichotomy is a helpful concept.

To make enlightened decisions, leaders need good information. It sounds simple, but in the chaos of every day organizational issues, it is sometimes difficult to determine which set of information is true. Rather than blurting out their preconceived notion of what is going on, if leaders would simply act a little confused, like the brilliant detective Colombo, they would elicit far more information from other people. The way to execute this strategy is simple. Refrain from making absolute statements, and ask a lot of open ended questions. This draws out alternate points of view from individuals and allows the leader to hear many nuances before tipping his or her hand.

When leaders display hubris, and expound their perspective on every issue before others have a chance to voice their ideas, it stifles collaboration and creativity. Therefore, being smart is often a dumb strategy. Of course, no rule of thumb works in every situation. Leaders need to know when the time is right to divulge their opinion. Unfortunately, due to over active egos, most leaders like to weigh in on issues far too early. This colors objective conversation and cuts off interesting alternate perspectives.

The same logic holds when making decisions after the information has been gathered. If leaders would say, “I wonder what we should do,” instead of, “Here is what we have to do,” they would draw out the best ideas available. Smart is dumb and dumb is smart in terms of getting a smorgasbord of options from which to choose.

The antidote to this problem is simple. Leaders need to understand this dynamic and catch themselves in the act. By being alert to the dangers of advocating too early, leaders can improve their batting average at allowing everyone to enter the conversation at an appropriate level. Sometimes in a crisis situation, it may be necessary for a leader to be highly directive and quick on the draw. Usually, it is better for the leader to allow conversation around sensitive issues, and then work with people to find the best solution.

If you are a leader, it is important to catch yourself on this issue and begin to train yourself to have more patience and improve your listening skills. It has been said many times that the Lord gave us two ears and one mouth, because we should listen twice as much as we speak. Many leaders do not understand this simple logic, and it works to their detriment. They are dumb because they are too smart.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 160 other followers