Reducing Conflict 47 Other People’s Pain

June 27, 2022

Empathy is critical if we want to help other people who are experiencing pain.  There ought to be a course somewhere in the education system on EMP-101.  This article brings up some cautions about how we express our empathy when people are in crisis.

You will hear the phrase “I know how you feel” perhaps thousands of times in your lifetime. The truth is that other people can never fully feel your pain.  They may be able to approximate it based on their own experiences. They may be able to deduce how you feel by extrapolating the situation and how you look or sound. They can never fully experience what you are going through.

Far better to say something like, “I am sorry you are going through this. Is there any way I can help?” You cannot put yourself fully in the other person’s shoes. Why utter banal phrases that make it seem like you can? 

I will direct this article mostly to a term called “Professional Hurt.” I learned the term from Dr. Ruby Brown from Jamaica, who coined the phrase. I met Ruby while speaking at the Caribbean Leadership Program in Trinidad. She wrote her dissertation on the topic of Professional Hurt.  It is when a person in a professional setting is abused somehow by managers or circumstances beyond control.

Professional Hurt also occurs when a person gets demoted or fired. It may be the result of being passed over for a promotion or being marginalized in some way. 

When someone else is hurting, spend more time listening to the person.  Avoid the temptation to say, “Oh that is just like how I felt last year when they withheld a promised raise.”  That is not going to make the other person feel any better.  Listening to stories of people who are worse off or have had the same problem does not relieve the person’s pain today. Rather, ask thoughtful questions if the person wants to talk. Just be present if the person is in shock or unable to verbalize the pain. 

Body language is particularly important when dealing with another person who is in a crisis. You can show that you care more with your facial expression than you can with a constant stream of babble. Just listening and nodding may be the best thing you can do for the other person at that moment. 

Logic is not a good approach. You may be tempted to cheer the person up by saying, “These things don’t last forever; you’ll be feeling better soon.”  That kind of approach often backfires. It can belittle the person who is suffering to imply that time alone will heal things. 

Try to avoid hackneyed expressions that are commonly used in the working world. If your friend has just been fired, don’t tell him, “Whenever one door is closed, another will open.”  Do not try to cheer him up with “Nobody likes working for that jerk anyway.” Shut your trap and take your cues from the person who is hurting. 

Let your presence and body language do the talking for you.  If it seems the other person needs input, try “you’re strong enough to overcome this.” Another phrase is “what would you like to happen now,” but the laconic approach is usually superior.

Do not recount how your neighbor had the same situation and ended up with a big promotion.  All those kinds of phrases may make you feel like you are helping. In reality, little real comfort is coming through the overused phrases or comparisons.

Above all, recognize that you do not know how the other person is feeling and the best thing you can do is admit that. Show your love and feeling by avoiding the typical mistakes made by well-intended people.

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change, The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding 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. 


Building Higher Trust 77 Leading Older People

June 24, 2022

Regardless of how you got to your management position, eventually, you will find yourself managing people older than you. I met one manager last week who is the youngest person in her department. That situation is pretty common these days. It is a scary one for many leaders, especially those who are not well seasoned. 

Here are ten tips to be successful at gaining the necessary trust to lead senior people effectively.

  1. The first few hours matter most

The first few hours or minutes are incredibly important. That is when you plant the seeds of confidence or doubt in your abilities.  Be authentic and do not play head games with people. Show immediate interest in and respect for the people who will be working for you. Get to know them personally as quickly as you can.  Every small gesture of interest in them and their thoughts will transform into credibility for you.

  1. Be observant before you try to change things

Many young leaders figure they need to impress people with their power or brilliance to get respect.  That approach usually backfires. Before seeking to influence the future, appreciate how things were done in the past. Do not spout out theories you learned in school in an attempt to snow people into respecting your knowledge.

  1. Ask questions

Many new leaders make a lot of statements and expect the workers to listen or take notes.  Instead, ask a lot of questions. The best approach is not knowing the right answers; it is knowing the right questions and using them wisely. 

  1. Put the age issue out to pasture quickly

People really do not care if their leader is older or younger than them. What they want is competence, compassion, and integrity.  Show those three things and respect people for their knowledge. They will quickly forget that you are 20-30 years younger than they are.

  1. Be genuine

Head games are for losers.  Be genuine and real.  Try to figure out what matters and pay attention to those things.  Do not make the mistake of trying to be popular all the time, but also don’t be a jerk.  Think about the behaviors that you respect in a leader and emulate those.  Respect people older than you for the experiences they have lived through, and listen to their stories with interest.  Avoid doing a “one-up” on an experience that one of your reports conveys to you.

  1. Begin to work on the culture

It is the culture of the work group that governs the quality of work-life most of all. Work to figure out what is already working well and support that.  Where things need improvement, ask for advice about what people think would work.  You do not need to do everything suggested, but you need to let people have a voice.

Work to build higher trust by making it safe for people to tell you what they really feel. In most areas that have morale problems, it is because people are afraid or feel disrespected.  Be approachable and be willing to listen deeply to the opinions of others.  Make up your own mind what to do, but only after you have internalized and considered the ideas of others.

  1. Be sincere, but not overly lavish, with your praise

People can smell a phony a mile away. They will have no respect if you just try to butter them up in an effort to gain control.  Make sure that 100% of your reinforcement comes from your heart. People will know by the look in your eyes if you mean it or you are just saying it.  Mean it!

  1. Create a positive culture of motivation

Motivation comes from within a person. If you try to manipulate the situation by providing perks to motivate the workers, you will fail. “Motivate” is not something you can do to another person; rather it is something a person does alone. Work to create the kind of environment where the workers decide this is a better place to work than before. They will motivate themselves in short order. 

  1. Be humble

People do not warm up to a braggart. Trying to impress them with your Harvard MBA will set you back in terms of your ability to lead.  People relate to someone who is genuine and willing to learn from them.  That attitude is far more effective than trying to win them over with your own prestigious background.

  1. Care

There is a saying that “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” That is really the secret to effective leadership of people who are older than you.

Conclusion

Once you have built confidence in yourself as a leader, the issue of age goes away quickly. You have overcome a stumbling block that trips many bright young leaders.  I grant that it is possible to muscle in and force compliance with an older population. The problem is that compliance is another word for mediocrity.  What you need from people is brilliant engagement. That is what you will get if you follow the ten tips above.

 

 

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, 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 Professionals, Understanding 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.  For more information, or to bring Bob in to speak at your next event, contact him at www.Leadergrow.com, bwhipple@leadergrow.com or 585.392.7763.

 


Leadership Barometer 151 Self Assessments

June 21, 2022

When I get involved with the topic of Emotional Intelligence it usually begins with a self-assessment. I have done this many times, and I always have a strange feeling while doing it for several reasons.

Reasons for feeling strange

  1. What I am really doing is reacting to a bunch of questions created by researchers. They ask me to respond to a set of standard scenarios with some kind of “typical reaction for me.”  The problem is that these scenarios are never set up the exact way I have been exposed to them.  I am simply guessing what I would do. I have no idea, and my reactions would be highly situation dependent.
  2. Daniel Goleman pointed out that people who have low Emotional Intelligence often have the most significant blind spots. The phenomenon we are attempting to assess has a significant component that varies with the level we are trying to measure. I may believe my Emotional Intelligence is generally high, but others may not see it. There is a kind of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle involved here. The simple act of trying to measure the situation actually impacts the phenomenon we are trying to measure.
  3. Emotional Intelligence has to do with how I react to stimuli. Do I have the skill of considering my response from the left side of my brain before I react? I am not a good judge of how efficient my neural responses really are. My responses are automatic and often I do not consciously control them.
  4. There is a fair amount of gaming involved in the assessment. I believe I know how a person should react under a certain set of conditions. I may be tempted to answer based on what I think the “right” answer is.

Problems with other assessments

I have the same problem with taking personality tests like the DiSC Assessment or the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. What these evaluations measure is how I perceive my own preferences as opposed to objectively how I show up in the world. There may be a gap between these two sets of information. The gap may be wide, particularly if my own behaviors are inconsistent.  

Paired comparisons 

The personality indicators do have an advantage because they simply ask me to choose which I prefer given a paired comparison.  That is easier to do than to try to predict how I will react emotionally to a stimulus.

On the flip side, I know what is going on within myself better than other people do. They can only infer by my behaviors how I am reacting to various things. 

I shouldn’t try to pinpoint my EI skills without a full understanding of how I translate the external stimuli into behaviors. There are obvious clues, but there is a big missing piece: whether I believe my actions are justified

An example 

There was a critical moment near the end of a basketball game between Syracuse and Duke. The referee made a call that the Syracuse coach, Jim Boeheim, called “the worst call of the season.”  The score was 58-60 in favor of Duke with only 10 seconds left in the ballgame. A basket by Syracuse player C.J. Fair was waived-off for what the referee called a charging violation.

Boeheim obviously did not agree with the call. He totally lost his wits and charged the ref yelling over and over that the call was “Bullsh*#”. He stuck his finger right between the eyes of the ref.  video clip of the call and Boeheim’s reaction to it.

As a seasoned coach, Jim was well aware of the consequences of his actions before he did them. SU got a technical foul, and Boeheim was ejected from the game. Duke went on to win the game easily.

Even though Boeheim knew the consequences, he was unable to control his rage and reacted in a way that was not at all helpful to his objectives. That shows low EI, right? Not so fast.

Hijack behavior

This is a prime example of “hijack behavior,” where the emotional reaction simply overpowers the ability to perform logic.  Does this mean Boeheim has low Emotional Intelligence?  I think not, and if you had him do a self-evaluation of his EI, he would probably score pretty high. In that instance, in front of thousands of witnesses, he displayed amazingly low EI. Reason: In his mind the reaction was justified. That was based on the importance of the game, the nature of the call, and all of the other emotions within him.

If his reaction was not justified to him, he would not have done it. If there was a better course of action, he would have done that. Instead, he threw away any chance to win and looked like a raving idiot to thousands of fans.

Problematic practice 

My point is that doing self-evaluations on psychological topics is problematic. It may be helpful for some kinds of insight, but the accuracy of the result may be suspect for the reasons given above.

If you would say “I am an ENFP,” you would be stretching the point.  Rather you should say, “according to my opinion of myself at the moment, my best MBTI match is ENFP.” That is a far more accurate statement than the first one.  

Conclusion

I say, “I measure high in Emotional Intelligence.” If that assessment was done by me, we should discount the statement.  A far more accurate phrase might be, “I did the survey and it showed me to be high in Emotional Intelligence. I need to beware that I am not blind to the reality of the situation.”

Do not misunderstand; I believe there is good value and insight in doing a self Emotional Intelligence Survey. I just caution that the accuracy of the information may be questionable. Take the test and learn what you can, then observe your own behaviors based on what you have learned.

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, 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 Professionals, Understanding 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.  For more information, or to bring Bob in to speak at your next event, contact him at www.Leadergrow.com, bwhipple@leadergrow.com or 585.392.7763.

 

 


Reducing Conflict 46 Perception Problems

June 19, 2022

This article is about perception problems in everyday life.  No two people will see a phenomenon the same way. As our fingerprints are all unique, so is our perception of what is going on around us.

Hold up a Quarter

To demonstrate perception, I can hold a quarter out in front of me while I am facing you. I will describe a round metal object with an embossed head on it.  You will describe a round metal object with an embossed picture of an eagle sitting on a branch.  We are both describing the exact same object, yet we see it differently.

The phenomenon is generally true

The same phenomenon happens when two people see any kind of situation at work or at home. They see the same thing, but it has a different appearance depending on their personal vantage point.

This difference means they will draw different conclusions about what just happened and the significance of it.  Taking the next step requires each individual to react to the stimulus in an appropriate way.  Each person is free to react however he or she feels is appropriate for the situation.  This is true even if both people perceived exactly the same thing. What would seem appropriate to one person might be the wrong thing to do for the other. All this discrepancy leads to squabbles about actions taken.

Example of an attendance problem

For example, let’s suppose a manager is discussing an employee with a severe attendance problem with her supervisor. The manager and supervisor may have different opinions about the problem itself. Perhaps the supervisor knows the lady has a child who has special needs. This situation calls for many trips to the child’s doctor. The supervisor wants to be lenient based on this knowledge.

From the manager’s perception, this employee needs to have the same set of rules as everyone else. Special treatment will lead to poor discipline in the unit. The manager sees an untenable situation that needs progressive counseling, while the supervisor sees the need for flexibility.

Differences of opinion create a great deal of conflict in any workplace.  From my perspective, I will be pretty sure my way is right.  The trouble is that another person will be just as sure his perception and remedy are right. 

The opposite of right is wrong

If I know that I am right, and you see things differently, then by definition, you must be wrong.  In most instances, my reaction to this dichotomy is to try to educate you on why your perception is incorrect.  You will try to get me to realize the error of my thinking.  We are off to the races in conflict.

This genesis of conflict is going on in small and large ways each and every day. Is it any wonder there is so much acrimony in the workplace and at home?  This problem is ubiquitous. What are some antidotes so we can reduce the conflicts between people?

  1. Seek to understand assumptions – What is behind the perception?
  2. Try reversing the roles – Force yourself to see a different perspective.
  3. Use Reflective Listening – Make sure you are hearing the other person.
  4. Watch the language – Ask more questions and avoid edgy statements.
  5. Agree to Disagree – You can still be friends.
  6. Don’t blow things out of proportion – Keep differences small.
  7. Get a good mediator – A third person can be helpful.
  8. Give in – Letting the other person win is often a great strategy.
  9. Discuss calmly – A calm rational discussion can often clear up the difference.
  10. Show love – Keeping things positive helps a lot.

Humans have a remarkable ability to drive each other crazy. This tendency is worse when people are in close proximity. It is the reason why you can appreciate and love members of your family until they come to visit for a week.  At a distance, it is easy to manage disagreements most of the time. When people are underfoot every day, the little things tend to become so irritating, that the conflict begins to snowball.

We all see things through a slightly different lens. We process assumptions about what is happening through our parochial brain. Conflict is going to happen. Take some of the evasive steps like the ones above to keep the volume down on interpersonal differences.  Life is too short to be habitually annoyed by fellow workers or family members. 

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change, The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding 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. 


Building Higher Trust 76 Trust But Verify

June 17, 2022

The phrase “Trust but verify” was made famous by Ronald Reagan. He used it in December 1987 after the signing of the INF Treaty with Mikhail Gorbachev. The Russian leader quipped, “You repeat that at every meeting,” to which Reagan replied, “I like it.” The origin of the phrase is actually from a Russian proverb, “doveryai no proveryai” (Trust but verify ). 

Last year, I read the notion by one trust expert, “If you have to verify, it isn’t trust.”  I got into a similar discussion last week with a local friend. I wanted to give my opinion on the matter because the conundrum is interesting.

The phrase is an oxymoron

The concept of “trust but verify” being an oxymoron makes sense because the word “but” is often an eraser word.  When used in a comparative context, the conjunction “but” renders whatever comes before it as moot. If I say, “I liked your book, but it was too long,” what is the meaning? Normally what you interpret is that I did not like the book.

Don’t apply blind trust

The need to verify implies that complete trust in the other party is lacking.  I am troubled by that because it implies that in order to be real trust, it must be blind. The concept of blind trust is covered in Smart Trust by Stephen M.R. Covey. He says that blind trust is not the best strategy to employ in a low-trust world. Sure, we can point to exceptions, and yet the general rule is wise. Try asking the former clients of Bernie Madoff. Most of them would have achieved a better result if they had verified.

“Though we’ve become very good at recognizing the cost of trusting too much, we’re not nearly as good at recognizing the cost of not trusting enough.”  Stephen M.R. Covey.

The point is that when we extend more trust to others, we will normally receive more trust in return. I call that “The first law of trust.”

A Better phrase to use

Consider changing the phrase from “Trust but verify” to “Trust and confirm.” That might make the phrase less of a dichotomy and make it more operational.  The reason we must confirm is that there is a finite chance that the person did not understand.

When we confirm that our expectations were met, we reduce the chance of being disappointed in the result. The reason I like the second phrase better is that the more inclusive conjunction “and” replaces the exclusive conjunction “but.” 

The confirmation process is the due diligence that recognizes the fact that activities do not happen in a vacuum. We often act as the agents for others as we trust someone to perform a task.  Confirming that things are correct is just being prudent and being true to the trust others have in us. If people know we are responsible by confirmation, they will be more likely to perform to a high standard.

“Trust and confirm” does not sound like an oxymoron to me. The concept of “trust and confirm” leaves the concept of trust more intact than “trust but verify.”  It is not just a matter of semantics.

Conclusion

The words we choose make a difference in how people interpret meaning. You will have a better result if you avoid using the phrase “trust but verify.” By using “trust and confirm” you will send an unambiguous message that avoids blind trust.

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, 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 Professionals, Understanding 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.  For more information, or to bring Bob in to speak at your next event, contact him at www.Leadergrow.com, bwhipple@leadergrow.com or 585.392.7763.


Leadership Barometer 150 Scope Creep

June 15, 2022

One of the most insidious problems in any kind of project work is scope creep. Scope creep occurs when the deliverables of a project change while it is underway. The impact of scope creep is often a dissatisfied customer or a loss of profit for the vendor. Either way, the situation has caused the result to be less satisfying than expected.

How scope creep happens 

It is very easy to understand how scope creep happens. Nobody can anticipate every minute detail of a project before doing the work. There are always going to be surprises that come up along the way. Here are some examples of surprises:

  • unexpected delays,
  • schemes that did not work as expected,
  • resources being unavailable,
  • new features requested by the customer,
  • material shortages requiring workarounds.

These kinds of problems are common on most projects.

Recognize the changes 

There is no 100% guarantee that any project is going to completion without some change in scope. The trick to managing scope creep effectively is to recognize when a change occurs. It is very easy to accommodate small or subtle changes in the specification for the project. The sum of many small changes can mean a huge difference in the success of the project.

Make sure to discuss all changes to the specification openly. That transparency will protect you at least partially. It will notify the customer of a change from the original design. You can then renegotiate the price or the delivery time in order to accommodate the change in scope. 

How the customer reacts

If you are the customer, recognize that the vendor was not able to envision all of the things that might happen. In reality, changes in scope will be happening for both the vendor and the customer on every project.  Life happens, and both parties are going to have to roll with the vicissitudes they are facing daily.

12 tips that can help reduce the stress of scope creep: 

  1. Ensure there is enough communication with the customer when creating the specifications.
  2. Do not start a project with preconceived notions of what the customer really wants.
  3. Have detailed and specific specifications. Any vague deliverables are going to be areas of contention down the road.
  4. Factor in the potential for scope creep by building contingencies or safety factors into the bidding process.
  5. Keep a ledger of requested changes on both sides. It is not necessary to renegotiate the entire deal for each change. It is important to have all changes documented.
  6. Plan the job in phases with sign-off gates at specific milestones. A scope change can be confined to one phase of the project and not infect the entire effort.
  7. Look for win-win solutions to problems. Often a creative solution is available that will delight both the vendor and the customer.
  8. Avoid rigidity about the job. Make sure the entire project is constantly moving in the direction of a successful conclusion. If things get significantly off the track, call for a meeting to clarify the issues and brainstorm solutions together.
  9. Keep the customer well informed about the progress of the project.
  10. Express gratitude when the other party is willing to make a concession. Goodwill is important in every project because life is a series of projects. A poor reputation can severely hamper future income.
  11. Have a formal closing to the project where each party expresses gratitude for a job well done. If there were any specific lessons learned during this job, document them. Both parties can benefit from these lessons in the future.
  12. Plan an appropriate celebration at the end of a challenging project to let people feel good about what they have done and reduce the pressure.

Conclusion

The best defense for stress caused by scope creep is to bring all changes out in the open. Changes can occur on either side of the equation. Make the impact on the total delivery visible. The key objective is to avoid disappointing surprises that result from a lack of communication between various stakeholders throughout the process.

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change, The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding 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. 

 

 


Reducing Conflict 45 Adopt Problem People

June 12, 2022

Managing problem people is an art that can be very complicated and frustrating. Most managers recognize that they are spending an inordinate amount of time with a few problem employees. The Pareto principle applies in this instance: usually, 20% of the people will require 80% of a manager’s attention.

Problem people are a distraction

When you have problem people on the team it is a great distraction. It prevents you from spending time on the strategy or on reinforcing people who are doing good work. I found a technique that helped me convert some of the more difficult workers into superstars.

Adopt the difficult cases

The idea is to select one or two of the most difficult cases and “adopt” them. Don’t tell them you are doing this; just start operating in a different way. The first thing to do is decide which of the problem people are worth saving. You will not be successful at saving them all, but by using this technique you can convert around 50% of the difficult cases. That progress can be a huge benefit to your effectiveness.

Real example

Ruth was a caustic employee in one of the departments reporting to me. She once told her manager, “You’ve got no right to be in business.”  Ruth was an informal leader of the people on her shift because she was witty and quick.  People listened to her, which was bad news for the manager because she was spreading negativity. I saw great potential in Ruth if she could change her attitude.  I genuinely liked her despite the rough exterior and acid tongue. She had strengths, but there were too many rough edges.

I started getting to know Ruth a lot better. I found out about her unique set of needs and opinions. After a while, I started to understand what made her tick. I made it a point to drop into the break room almost daily before the start of her shift. I would sit with her group and just listen.  At first, it was awkward, but they tolerated me and soon they actually welcomed me to their table.

The root cause of the problem

It turns out that the reason Ruth was acting out was severe racial abuse by her prior manager. The scars left her skeptical of all people in management.

I started improving the relationship with Ruth by asking her opinion. I encouraged her manager to listen openly to her ideas. Look for the insight they might provide instead of rejecting anything that came out of her mouth. Ruth started to turn and soften the rhetoric because she felt more respected.

Recognizing the opportunity

We were now in a position to take the next step. We asked Ruth to head up a planning group for a new packaging line.  Her natural leadership showed in this effort. She was able to quickly get the cooperation of the operators and maintenance people. The job turned out to be a big success. We brought in top management and let Ruth tell how the job finished early and under budget.  Top managers were impressed and said so. 

Building on success

Having a success to build on, we took a further risk and appointed Ruth to a supervisory position.  We also sent her for some excellent leadership training. She was excited to see these moves because there was real upward momentum in her career. It was something she never dreamed would happen. She was making more money and having greater influence in the business.  At the same time, the negativity was melting away.  Gone was the caustic sarcasm that was her trademark for years before. She was a strong advocate for the management side of contemplated actions.

Ruth ended up retiring as a very successful supervisor. If she had stayed on, I was considering making her a department manager, she was that strong and effective. The best part is that she felt better about herself and what she had accomplished in her career.

Conclusion

Recognize that you cannot save all individuals who are problem employees. You can, however, change some of them. They can go from a drain or negative influence on the environment to a very positive, even stellar, performer. Imagine the power of taking people who are a drag on performance and making them into your superstars. That is well worth the effort.

 

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change, The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding 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. 

 


Building Higher Trust 75 Team Behaviors

June 10, 2022

Each group of leaders should establish a list of team behaviors they intend to follow as a group. Vaporware and wishy-washy concepts are inadequate. They make it impossible for the team to hold each other accountable for abiding by the rules. 

Avoid a long shopping list of 20-30 rules because it becomes too complicated to remember them all.  I think 5-7 behavioral rules work well for a management team. One rule I wish every group would adopt is the “Keep it real” rule.

Keeping it Real

The idea is that we are all on the same team here. We are not here to play games with each other. Trying to impress the other team members is a common tactic of low-performing management groups.  Disruptive team members bring down the effectiveness of the entire group by orders of magnitude. I have seen it happen numerous times.

Example of a Team Behavior

If a team adopts a “Keep it real” rule, then stick to it. One technique is to have a signal to be used when someone forgets to follow the rule.  Perhaps it might be a raised index finger or some other recognizable sign that the team has agreed to. The team needs to agree there will be no negative repercussions for anyone giving the sign. This is especially important when it is the boss who is causing the problem.

Having a pre-selected safe signal allows the whole team to police the behaviors. That permission quickly extinguishes the wrong behavior. 

 Example of Team Behavior in Action

I was once with a team that was world-class at making jokes at the expense of each other. The jokes were digs intended to be in jest and were taken that way on the surface. Unfortunately, there was damage done under the surface when people picked on each other. 

They invented a signal to use when someone made a joke at the expense of another person. This was the third item on their list of rules. They elected to use three extended fingers to indicate someone had violated the rule.

Result of the Policy

The results were simply amazing. In less than an hour, the behavior that was ingrained in the team’s makeup was totally extinguished. It only took a couple of times of one member giving the sign to another for people to catch on.

The results in this group were transformational. The little barbs stopped, and from that point on, the tone of the group was much more supportive. They still had fun and made jokes; they just did not do it at the expense of others.

Conclusion

Take the time with your team to invent some behavioral rules. Also, invent some kind of signal to give if people ignore the rules. You will find that it can make a big difference in the culture of the entire team.

 

 

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, 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 Professionals, Understanding 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. 


Leadership Barometer 149 Smart Pills

June 8, 2022

One of my leadership students shared an observation that led to the concept of “smart” pills for leaders. She said that some of the decisions the leaders in her organization make are not smart. These decisions reflect a misunderstanding of their impact. The leaders end up doing things that are at cross purposes to what they want to accomplish.

I told the student to buy some “smart” pills for the leaders to take. The pills will let them know when they do things that take them in the wrong direction.  Then I realized that I already had discovered the “smart” pill several years ago.  I have taught leaders how to administer this magic potion for quite a while. 

Determine the impact ahead of time 

Allow leaders to determine the impact of their decisions on the organization at the time they make those decisions. This knowledge will reduce the number of wrong-headed actions.

Picture a leader of 90 individuals. There are 90 people who can tell her the truth about the impact of poor decisions while they are under discussion. They would gladly do this if the leader had created the right environment. People need to know it is safe to challenge an idea generated in the leader’s mind. How would a leader go about creating such an environment?

Create a safe environment

A smart leader makes people glad when they tell her things she was really not eager to hear. Then those people will eventually learn it is safe to do it. They have the freedom to level with the leader when she is contemplating something they feel is really dumb.

It does not mean that all dumb things the leader wants to do need to get squashed. It simply means that if the leader establishes a safe culture, she will be told. She will know in advance that a specific decision might not be smart. 

It depends on perspective

Sometimes, due to a leader’s perspective, what may seem dumb to underlings may be the smart thing to do. In this case, the leader needs to educate the doubting underling on why the decision does make sense.

Here is an eight-step formula that constitutes a “smart” pill.

  1. Let people know in advance the decisions you are contemplating, and state your likely action.
  2. Invite dialog, either public or private. People should feel free to express their opinions about the outcomes.
  3. Treat people like adults, and listen to them carefully when they express concerns.
  4. Factor their thoughts into your final decision process. This does not mean you always reverse your decision but do consciously consider the input.
  5. Make your final decision about the issue and announce it.
  6. State that there were several opinions considered when making your decision.
  7. Thank people for sharing their thoughts in a mature way.
  8. Ask for everyone’s help to implement your decision whether or not they fully agree with it.

Of course, it is important for people to share their concerns with the leader in a proper way at the proper time.  Calling her a jerk in a staff meeting would not qualify as helpful information and would be a problem. 

Encourage people to speak up, but coach them on how and when to do it effectively. Often this means encouraging people to give their concerns in private. Have a helpful intent for the organization rather than an effort to embarrass the boss.

The leader will still make some dumb decisions, but they will be fewer, and be made recognizing the risks. Also, realize that history may reveal some decisions thought to be dumb at the time to be actually brilliant.

Understanding the risks allows some mitigating actions to remove much of the sting of making risky decisions.  The action here is incumbent on the leader.  Praise people when they speak truth, even if it flies in the face of what the leader wants to do. People become open and more willing to confront the leader when her judgment seems wrong.

Look for consistency but not perfection

A leader needs to be consistent with this philosophy, although no one can be 100%. That would be impossible. Once in a while, any leader will push back on some unwanted “reality” statements.

Most leaders are capable of making people who challenge them happy about it only a tiny fraction of the time. Figure about 5%. If we increase the odds to something like 80%, people will be more comfortable pointing out a potential blooper.  That is enough momentum to change the culture.

Recognize that making people glad they brought up a concern does not always mean a leader must acquiesce. All that is required is for the leader to treat the individual as someone with important information. Listen to the person carefully, and consider the veracity of the input. Honestly take the concern into account in deciding what to do.

Sometimes the leader will go ahead with the original action, but she will now understand the potential ramifications better. By sincerely thanking the person, the leader makes that individual happy she brought it up.  Other people will take the risk in the future. That action changes everything, and the leader now has an effective “smart” pill.

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 MBA CPTD 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.

 


Reducing Conflict 44 Consolidation Mistakes

June 6, 2022

During a major consolidation, such as a merger or acquisition, trust goes down for many different reasons. In this article, I will discuss a phenomenon that really hurts people. Managers ask some individuals to do their previous job plus the work of another person. It happens when leaders fail to plan the transition well.

I tell a story below as one form of the disastrous consequence of clueless leadership. There are a host of other consequences that can occur as well.

A common story in reorganizations

In the planning phase, top management has a gag rule on information. Sometimes it is because of legal restrictions. Other times it is out of fear. They are afraid people would panic if they knew what was going to happen. They try to avoid sabotage and other problems. It seems best to keep things under wraps until the merger is ready.

Secret meetings lead to rumors

Rumors start as a result of all the secret meetings. Workers expect some layoffs because one primary objective of a merger is the consolidation of staff positions. People are aware of this and hope they will be one of the survivors. In reality, some people are smart enough to hope they do not survive.

Managers keep people in a vacuum before the announcement of a merger.  Then some people find out they are expected to do the impossible. Many managers handle the situation with zero sensitivity, and they pay a heavy price.

Top brass announces the merger, but it is really not a shock to the people in the organization. They are just glad to have the news out in the open. Living with the rumors is a most uncomfortable feeling. Now, at least people will find out if they will be “impacted” or not.

The announcement day

The dreaded day approaches and finally arrives. The boss calls the impacted people in one by one to tell them the bad news. A remaining employee, let’s say, Mary, breathes a sigh of relief until the boss calls her into the office. He says, “As you know, we have let Jake go, so you will now cover his responsibilities.”

Mary says, “But I already have a full workload of customers, and I don’t know anything about Jake’s job.”

The Boss says, “Just do the best you can. Remember, as one of our most talented people, you are lucky to still have a job here.” (This last sentence should never be uttered by a leader who has a clue.)

In a daze, Mary wanders into Jake’s empty office. She looks around and shakes her head. “Well, I might as well dig in here and see what Jake’s job entails.” She looks halfheartedly into Jake’s file drawers and starts trying to make sense of the mess. 

Think about this scene. Have you ever tried to decipher someone else’s files with no crossover? It is impossible.

Reality hits

The sound of the phone ringing in her office wakes Mary up. She runs down the hall and grabs the phone in time. It is the familiar voice of one of her own customers. Thankfully, she is able to answer the question and satisfy the concern. She does a double-take and realizes that there are 18 messages on her answering machine from the past two hours. She starts clearing out her backlog and becomes totally engaged in her old job. She knows that job and can handle the issues.

Trying to train herself

Every day for the next several weeks, Mary goes to Jake’s office for a couple of hours (usually including her lunchtime). This is a feeble attempt to keep the most vocal customers in Jake’s area from blowing up.

There is little understanding or history to back up her actions, so she is not very effective. It is impossible to keep up with Jake’s workload in a couple of hours a day. Mary focuses most of her attention on the job she understands: her old job. She works many long days trying to manage the load.

Unhappy customers

Customers eventually write nasty e-mails to the top manager who jumps all over the area manager. Customers are taking their business elsewhere because there is no service. The boss rushes into Mary’s office and says, “Mary, you are not performing like your usual self. We have customers that are your responsibility who are defecting. I know you are super busy, but you simply cannot afford to ignore customers who are in need.”

 

 Bye-bye now

Mary says, “You are right, Bill. I cannot. Another thing I cannot afford is to work here for you any longer. My family and my doctor tell me I am heading for a heart attack. I am simply unable to perform what is expected. Therefore, I am handing in my two-weeks notice.”

Note the simple but inevitable consequence of an action by management to do a poor job of transition planning.

The company lost valuable customers and one of its most valuable employees. In addition, this situation is going on multiple times in the work unit.  Mary was not the only one whose workload doubled with no training. There is no way to make up for this damage. It is a major blow to the business; in many cases it is fatal.

What caused the failure?

The fault here is not the merger itself; it is the rush to jettison redundant staff too soon. That is silly because they could have planned for a few months of crossover time in the process.

I am not saying that mergers are a picnic if managers give people more time to plan. Many of the problems will occur no matter how the managers announce the merger. If we contrast the above scenario with a slightly modified one, the result has the potential of a brighter outcome.

 A better way to handle the transition

The area manager calls all employees together on day one. He says, “As a result of the merger, we are probably going to need to reduce staff in the next few months. None of us are happy about this, but it will likely happen. The best thing you can do now is focus on your job. As we plan for how many people will need to leave, I will keep you informed.”

During the next couple of weeks, the need for a layoff becomes clear. The boss calls Jake into the office and says, “Jake, as you know we are projecting a layoff. It looks like you are impacted. We will either let you go or have you assume a different role. I will work with you to find the best option.

You should begin networking now, both inside the company and outside. In the meantime, please work with Mary to introduce her to your customer base. I will tell her that we are combining her job with yours, but we will reduce her other responsibilities to allow her time to accomplish the combined area.”

 

The discussion with Mary

In the discussion with Mary, the boss stresses that she is a highly valued employee. She is being called on to stretch her influence with the customer base.  A reduction in her other responsibilities will provide some relief in order to allow more face time with customers. She will also receive a modest bump in pay as a result of the increased load. She will inherit Jake’s accounts and should get up to speed on them over the next few weeks. Jake will help train her.

Advanced planning and preparation can help adjust the numbers needed for adequate customer service.

I grant that this second scenario is far from easy or painless for all parties, but the consequences are far less debilitating for the business. Treat all employees like adults from the start and level with them.

Conclusion

All consolidations are problematic. Regardless of the particular situation, managers need to be particularly attentive to the needs of people. Clueless decisions usually lead to much greater disruptions.  The best course of action is to be as transparent as possible in the concept phase.  In the planning phase, leaders need to think carefully about the consequences of their decisions.

 

Bob Whipple is CEO of Leadergrow, Inc. an organization dedicated to growing leaders. He is author of the following books: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, and Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind