Leadership Barometer 95 Clarify Values

June 2, 2021

A fundamental function of leaders is to clarify the values of the organization.

The starting point is to understand your own bedrock beliefs and have your actions flow from them. Congruity is a central issue to good leadership. People will quickly notice every hypocritical action or statement.

For example, if you claim “people are our most important asset” as a value, be prepared to defend all actions in light of that strong statement. Most leaders cannot pass this test. When sales go soft, they lay off people.

Mahatma Gandhi was a perfect example of congruity. His strength was derived from understanding his values and giving up all the trappings of conventional power. His objective was not to fix everyone else; it was simply to live a life consistent with his beliefs and stubbornly refuse to back away from that commitment, whatever the cost.

Gandhi ended up one of the most powerful leaders in history, having incredible influence on his nation and the world. He taught, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” Transform yourself before attempting to influence others.

Start by creating a list of your deeply held values. These must be real beliefs and not just nice things to say, as they will be tested thousands of times. This first step is so critical, it is worth taking the time to do right.

Get away from distractions while attempting to extract your core beliefs. The key is to examine yourself very carefully. You may want to work with a facilitator or group of friends on this, but start the process alone. Bring in others once you have a first draft to share.

Brainstorming is a helpful tool for this. Sit alone in a comfortable chair with eyes closed and some non-intrusive background music playing, and let your mind wander on the subject of your core beliefs. Write down anything that comes to mind, exactly as you think it, without trying to make it politically correct. Just capture the thoughts. This may be difficult to do honestly. This exercise can take from two to eight hours, and more than one try might be necessary. Once you are comfortable with the process, ideas will flow rapidly.

When it feels complete, put the list away and do not analyze it until later. Resist the temptation to charge ahead to the next step. Allow your subconscious mind time to work on the list. Additional items will flow naturally over the next week or so, when you are in a meeting, in the shower, driving, or even sleeping. This extremely valuable information must be captured. Keep a pad handy to jot down thoughts as they arise.

After a couple weeks, you should have captured 40-50 items, and the list will feel more complete. Start the winnowing process by doing an analysis of similar items. Write each item on a card, and arrange them into piles with common themes. Consolidate the piles down to a handful of key values.

Four to six piles would be optimal, although you could have more. One pile might focus on your beliefs about what drives people, like: “I believe all people are basically good and want to do well” or “I believe people do their best work when they feel trusted.” Whatever your cards say will dictate the piles. Next, give each pile a name. In our previous example, the name would be “what motivates people.” Another pile might be “how to make our business prosper” or “what I want out of life.” Let the data speak for itself.

Distill the input in each pile down to its essence and express it in a single phrase or sentence. This may be challenging or frustrating but it is an essential part of the process. Keep working the cards until you get to a handful of key concepts central to your beliefs as a leader. If there are private beliefs not helpful to share in a work setting, you can cull these out before sharing, but understand these are also keys to what drives you.

It is insightful to compare your values to those of the parent organization. They may not be exactly the same, but they must be compatible. If you have been dissatisfied or uncomfortable in your job, this exercise may help you understand why. You may be better off leaving to find a more compatible environment if the organization’s values are not congruent with your own.

Now that you have clarified your values, let others reflect on them and do a similar process. Working with your team, repeat the same steps to construct a set of values for your group. Having done your personal homework ahead of time will make the process faster and easier.

The process of “wordsmithing” these lists can be frustrating. It is possible to have groups spend hours arguing over exact words for a values statement or a vision and get stuck on it every time it comes up. A professional facilitator can help streamline the process and avoid lengthy debate sessions.

If you are unanimous in spirit but hung up on words, get it roughly right and move forward. Use the 80/20 rule for this. (The 80/20 rule is derived from the “Pareto Principle,” which states that in any grouping of items, 80% of the value will be contained in 20% of the items.) Focus energy on the 20% of items that contain 80% of the value and table the others. It is not the words that are important, but the spirit and understanding.

The final result should be a set of values fully supported by your key leaders that grew out of discussions of everyone’s personal values. Putting this information on charts for the wall is helpful, but it is much more important to have it implanted in the minds and hearts of everyone. Only when internalized will it do any good.

If you are not in a formal leadership position, documenting your personal values is still important. Use them to chart your personal course. Sharing them with others in your group or with your boss shows maturity and facilitates communication.

One caution: this should be done with care and only when a proper rapport between people has developed. Sharing your personal values in the wrong way at the wrong time can backfire. It is better to weave the ideas into natural conversation than to force them on people. For example, you might say, “Let’s allow Sally to provide her own wording for the proposal. I believe people become more engaged in the work if they have the personal freedom to choose how it is done. In fact that is one of my core values.”


The preceding information was adapted from the book The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, by Robert Whipple. It is available on http://www.leadergrow.com.

Robert Whipple is also the author of Leading with Trust is like Sailing Downwind 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.
.


Leadership Barometer 94 Two Organizational States

May 26, 2021

With exceptional leadership, it is nearly impossible for an organization to fail. Eventually the unit will rise to stardom.

The rationale is simple: outstanding leadership is rare and, when present, the sheer power unleashed by this person in the organization will allow it to easily out-flank competition by creating a sustainable competitive advantage.

Unfortunately, the converse is also true; an organization reporting to a poor leader is almost certain to fail. Only incredible luck or windfall can prevent it.

The reason is the damage unwittingly done by this person to the soul of the organization. The lack of clear direction and poor morale mean no amount of cheerleading or other management techniques can bring this organization out of the mire.

The stock exchange floor is littered with horror stories of how the actions of poor leaders have brought companies, and even whole industries, to their knees.

Most leaders are somewhere in between these extremes. Imagine if you could improve your own leadership skills, along with the skills of those around you. The result would be incredible forward momentum in your organization.

This change would reinforce the good leadership and allow the recruitment and training of other outstanding leaders. All of a sudden, you would find yourself working in a more successful and rewarding organization.

The highest calling for a leader is to help groups move from one state of affairs to a better one. To illustrate, imagine two extremes.

State A is an awful condition found in many institutions today. There is little trust and even a decent dialog is lacking. Workers are convinced Management is only there for personal gain. Management tries to convince workers they want to help the organization survive in the competitive jungle. They explain that draconian actions such as downsizing or wage freezes are honestly in the best long-term interest of everyone.

The workers do not buy this at all, and Management continues to self-destruct. Most attempts to make things better backfire, as the emotions of people spiral into further decline.

When things get desperate, Management calls in the consultants with an improvement program, and the whole situation becomes fodder for another chapter in the Dilbert series. State A is common in work environments, and those who benefit from it most are the cartoonists.

I witnessed a vivid example of State A when soliciting a United Way pledge at a small manufacturing firm. I was in the office of a VP and overheard a public address announcement by the CEO. “Starting today nobody is allowed to work over the lunch break.” I asked the VP what that was all about. He rolled his eyes and said, “Don’t ask – you really don’t want to know. It has to do with some people working extra and wanting us to pay for it.” Continuing with the solicitation, we heard the CEO back on the bullhorn a couple minutes later. “Anybody who has trouble understanding my last message can come and see me in my office. I’ll explain it to you.”

My blood ran cold. How could such an atmosphere exist in today’s culture? Needless to say, I got no United Way contribution and left as soon as possible. That organization is in the process of going out of business. They have little chance to survive without a change in leadership because they are too far down the slide of morale decline.

The degradation of State A increases over time. As rapport diminishes, attempts to set things right with quick fixes and new improvement programs only speed the downward momentum. It takes a complete catharsis to reverse the damage. That process can take years and usually involves changing the leadership and the entire environment. Often groups do not have the patience for this radical surgery, nor the courage to attempt it.

The real heartbreak of State A is its expense to the organization. Nothing works correctly, and much of the energy is spent on damage control. How can a business hope to be competitive in that state?

It is also expensive in human terms, as people stoop to unimaginable levels. Ordinarily honorable hardworking people intentionally harpoon a process because they cannot bear the hypocrisy they perceive in Management. In other situations, these people may be pillars of the community, church leaders, or loyal volunteers, but at work they undermine initiatives put forth by the current administration due to the atmosphere. The management process is perfectly designed to get the awful results being obtained. What a tragedy!

State B is stimulating to describe because it is more fun for everyone. It is that wonderful state where people are excited about their jobs. They respect their leaders and feel fully engaged in the success of the business as owners. They will sacrifice personal comfort, and even security, for the good of the entity.

In State B, you see people coming to work early and doing activities to help the venture in their time off. Any time there is a nasty assignment, there will be many volunteers to get it done. There is a state of joy and fun at work, as these energized people delight in beating the competition. Their focus is on the customer and competition, not each other or the administration.

Management is different in State B. They are mostly there in an advisory role, to support, reinforce, and mentor. Their most significant function is helping people get more of what they want through the success of the organization. They take on the teaching or coaching role as described by Wellins, Byham, and Wilson in “Empowered Teams”:

“At no time does the leader take on the problem personally. Instead by coaching individuals through the possible steps for handling the problem effectively, the leader offers help without taking responsibility for action. This is the soul of empowerment because it creates a sense of ownership.”

There is little need for the leader to discipline people in State B because most situations are resolved at the lowest level. Occasionally, a problem employee needs to be weeded out, but that has the full support of the others, since they are tired of carrying the troublemaker.

There is a sense of vision in these groups. They know where they are and where they are going. They set aggressive goals and often exceed them. They are also guided by a set of values that are more than a chart on the wall. Values have been instilled into the workforce through the actions (not words) of their leader.

It is a kind of family atmosphere, but the kind of family that really supports and loves each other. Yes, in a State B environment the word “love” is often heard – in fact, that is one of the hallmarks of State B. It is hard to find words to express how deeply these people care about each other and what they are doing together.

It was the same result Lou Holtz achieved several times as a collegiate football coach. He inherited six teams, all with losing records. Each of those teams went on to a bowl game by the second season at the latest. In his famous videotape on leadership, “Do Right,” Holtz says, “The team came back, not because of a coach. They came back because the attitude was there.” What he modestly fails to point out is that the attitude came from his philosophies and leadership. Without intervention of excellent leadership, the teams that experienced dramatic improvements under Lou Holtz would likely have gone on losing.

States A and B are two extremes. Most groups are somewhere in between. Unfortunately the average tends toward State A. If State A gets exponentially worse, State B is more linear, but it requires constant tending to avoid atrophy.

This is the highest calling of the leader – to keep a finger on the pulse of the environment, to make small corrective actions whenever changes occur, and to relentlessly move groups toward State B. If this is the leader’s prime focus, all other parameters of measurable success, profits, quality, morale, etc., will take care of themselves.

Fortunately, there is an automatic correction mechanism. It provides constant insight and a kind of servo control, a mechanism that works like the cruise control of a car, to keep things moving toward the ideal state. This automatic correction means you must have an ideal state: a vision. Any time you are moving off the path, away from the vision, the control takes over, moving things back toward the ideal state.


The preceding information was adapted from the book The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, by Robert Whipple. It is available on http://www.leadergrow.com.

Robert Whipple is also the author of Leading with Trust is like Sailing Downwind 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.




Leadership Barometer 91 Ten Hallmarks of High Trust Organizations

May 5, 2021

The advantages of working in a high trust environment are evident to everyone from the CEO to the shop floor, from suppliers to customers, and even the competition.

Building and maintaining trust within any organization pays off with many benefits. Unfortunately, not many organizations have been able to create an environment of high trust. The few that do have high trust enjoy an incredible sustainable advantage.

To understand why, we can contrast high trust environments with lower trust areas along many dimensions.

Solving Problems


In organizations of high trust, problems are dealt with easily and efficiently. In low trust organizations, problems become huge obstacles as leaders work to unscramble the mess to find out who said what or who caused the problem to spiral out of control. Often feelings are hurt or long-term damage in relationships occurs. While problems exist in any environment, they take many times longer to resolve if there is low trust. That is wasted time.

Focused Energy


People in organizations with high trust do not need to be defensive. They focus energy on accomplishing the Vision and Mission of the organization. Their energy is directed toward the customer and against the competition.

In low trust organizations, people waste energy due to infighting and politics. Their focus is on internal squabbles and destructive turf battles.

Bad blood between people creates a litany of issues that distract supervision from the pursuit of excellence. Instead, they play referee all day.

Efficient Communication


When trust is high, the communication process is efficient as leaders freely share valuable insights about business conditions and strategy.

In low trust organizations, rumors and gossip zap around the organization like laser beams in a hall of mirrors. Before long, leaders are blinded with problems coming from every direction.

Trying to control the zapping information takes energy away from the mission and strategy.

High trust organizations rely on solid, believable communication, while the atmosphere in low trust groups is usually one of damage control and minimizing employee unrest. Since people’s reality is what they believe rather than what is objectively happening, the need for damage control in low trust groups is often a huge burden.

Retaining Customers


Workers in high trust organizations have a passion for their work that is obvious to customers.

When trust is lacking, workers often display apathy toward the company that is transparent to customers. This condition undermines top line growth as customers turn to more upbeat groups for their services.

All it takes is the roll of eyes or some shoddy body language to send valuable customers looking for alternative places to do their business.

A “Real” Environment


People who work in high trust environments describe the atmosphere as being “real.” They are not playing games with one another in a futile attempt to outdo or embarrass the other person. Rather, they are aligned under a common goal that permeates all activities.

When something is real, people know it and respond positively. When trust is high, people might not always like each other, but they have great respect for each other. That means, they work to support and reinforce the good deeds done by fellow workers rather than try to find sarcastic or belittling remarks to make about them.

The reduction of infighting creates hours of extra time spent achieving business goals.

Saving Time and Reducing Costs


High trust organizations get things done more quickly because there are fewer distractions. There is no need to double check everything because people generally do things right.

In areas of low trust, there is a constant need to spin things to be acceptable and then to explain what the spin means. This takes time, which drives costs up.

Perfection not Required


A culture of high trust relieves leaders from the need to be perfect. Where trust is high, people will understand the intent of a communication even if the words were phrased poorly.

In low trust groups, the leader must be perfect because people are poised to spring on every misstep to prove the leader is not trustworthy. Without trust, speaking to groups of people is like walking on egg shells.

More Development and Growth


In low trust organizations, people stagnate because there is little emphasis placed on growth. All of the energy is spent jousting between individuals and groups.

High trust groups emphasize development, so there is a constant focus on personal and organizational growth.

Better Reinforcement


When trust is high, positive reinforcement works because it is sincere and well executed.

In low trust organizations, reinforcement is often considered phony, manipulative, or duplicitous which lowers morale.

Without trust, attempts to improve motivation through reinforcement programs often backfire.

A Positive Atmosphere


The atmosphere in high trust organizations is refreshing and light. People enjoy coming to work because they have fun and enjoy their coworkers. They are also more than twice as productive as their counterparts in lower trust areas.

In groups with low trust, the atmosphere is oppressive. People describe their work as a hopeless string of sapping activities foisted upon them by the clueless morons who run the place.

These are just ten contrasts describing the difference between high trust and low trust organizations. There are many more distinctions, some of them very subtle. No list of contrasts could be complete.

If you have an organization where trust is low, you are operating under such a huge disadvantage to your counterpart with high trust you cannot hope to survive.

Most top leaders understand all of the above. The conundrum is, they sincerely want to build an environment of high trust, but they consistently do things that take them in the wrong direction.

Many leaders end up hiring expensive consultants to help create a better environment within their organization. This rarely works because the leader does not realize the problem cannot be fixed by an outsider.

To fix the problem of low trust the leader needs to say, “The atmosphere around here stinks, and it must be my fault because I am the one in charge. How can I change my own behavior in order to turn the tide toward an environment of higher trust”?

With that attitude, there is a real possibility an outside coach or consultant can help the organization. Unfortunately, most leaders have a blind spot on their own contribution to low trust, so in those groups there is little hope of a lasting change.

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

Robert Whipple is also the author of The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, and Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change. Bob consults and speaks on these and other leadership topics. He is CEO of Leadergrow Inc., a company dedicated to growing leaders.




Leadership Barometer 89 Wag More Bark Less

April 22, 2021

I confess, this title was not made up by me. My wife saw a bumper sticker with this sentiment and shared it with me.

I think the basic wisdom in the phrase is genius and wish there was a way to get some leaders to understand the simple logic here.

Why is it that some leaders feel compelled to bark when wagging is a much more expedient way to bring out the best in people?

Barking

The barking dog is simply doing its job. The dog only knows that to defend his territory, he needs to sound off at anything that might encroach. The frequency of barking is an interesting aspect.

Why does the dog bark at intervals less than about 10 seconds? Is it because he has a short memory and can’t remember that he just barked? Is it because the potential invaders of his territory need to be reminded every few seconds that he is still around? Is it because he simply enjoys keeping the neighbors up all night? Is he showing off his prowess or having some kind of dog-world conversation with the mutt down the street?

I think all of these things could be factors in the frequency of barking, but I suspect the primary reason is a show of persistence. The message we get from the barking dog is “I am here, I am formidable, I am not going anywhere, so keep your distance.”

In the workplace, if a leader sends a signal, “I am here, I am formidable, I am not going anywhere, so keep your distance,” the workforce is going to get the message and comply. Unfortunately, group performance and morale are going to be awful, but the decibel level will at least keep everyone awake.

Wagging

When a dog wags its tail, that is a genuine sign of happiness and affection. You can observe the rate of wagging and determine the extent of the dog’s glee. Sometimes the wag is slow, which indicates everything is okay, and life is good.

When you come home at night and the dog is all excited to see you, most likely the wag is more of a blur, and it seems to come from way up in the spine area. The wag indicates, “I love you, I am glad you are here, you are a good person to me, and will you take me for a walk?”

Dogs are incredibly loyal, even beyond human reason. For example, I am reminded of the picture of a Labrador Retriever lying next to the coffin of his master who was killed in Afghanistan. The dog refused to leave the area.

Even when a dog is not treated well, it does not become critical or judgmental. The wag is not withheld because the dog had a bad day. The dog looks for the good and appreciates it. The dog is ever hopeful, ever optimistic, ever grateful. The wag is still there unless the dog is seriously sick. It is amazing.

A leader who wags more and barks less gets more cooperation. Life is better for people working for this leader, and they simply perform better. Showing appreciation through good reinforcement is the more enlightened way to lead, yet we still see many leaders barking as their main communication with people. Look for the good in people, and appreciate it. Try to modify your bark to wag ratio and see if you get better results over time.


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 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 Kodak and with non-profit organizations. To bring Bob in to speak at your next event, contact him at http://www.Leadergrow.com, bwhipple@leadergrow.com or 585.392.7763



Leadership Barometer 61 Your in Versus Out Ratio

August 10, 2020

There are hundreds of leadership assessments for leaders. The content and quality of these assessments vary greatly. You can spend a lot of time and money taking surveys to tell you the quality of your leadership. There are a few leading indicators that can be used to give a pretty good picture of the overall quality of your leadership. These are not good for diagnosing problems or specifying corrective action, but they can tell you where you stand quickly. Here is one of my favorite measures.

Know your “In Versus 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.

Bob Whipple is CEO of Leadergrow Inc., a company dedicated to growing leaders. He speaks and conducts seminars on building trust in organizations. He can be reached at bwhipple@leadergrow.com or 585-392-7763.


Leadership Barometer 1 Your In vs Out Ratio

June 4, 2019

This is the first in a series of brief articles on how you can tell the caliber of leaders in your organization.  These ideas do not replace the need for more thorough assessments, but they are really handy gut checks on how leaders are doing.

There are hundreds of leadership assessments for leaders. The content and quality of these assessments vary greatly. You can spend a lot of time and money taking surveys to tell you the quality of your leadership. There are a few leading indicators that can be used to give a pretty good picture of the overall quality of your leadership. These are not good for diagnosing problems or specifying corrective action, but they can tell you where you stand quickly. Here is one of my favorite measures.

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.

Bob Whipple is CEO of Leadergrow, Inc. an organization dedicated to growing leaders. He can be reached at bwhipple@leadergrow.com 585-392-7763. Website http://www.leadergrow.com BLOG http://www.thetrustambassador.com 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