Archives for June 2010

Successful Leaders Turn Conflict and Curiosity Into A Corporate Asset

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInEmail to someone

The famed basketball coach, John Wooden, said, “adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it”. I wonder what coach Wooden would say about the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, when he said “he was deeply sorry about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico”. I think coach Wooden would say we’re seeing the true character of Mr. Hayward.

I believe Mr. Hayward when he says he is deeply sorry. I believe he is sorry he’s having to be grilled at congressional hearings, that his professional life is on the ropes, and that he will be forever remembered as the CEO that presided over the worst oil disaster in history.

I’m deeply sorry too. I’m sorry I can’t find out for myself if he is truly the villain he’s being made out to be. I’m sorry I can’t see first hand how his character shows up in person. I’m deeply sorry I can’t have a conversation with him about his role in the oil spill, and what he’s learned about leadership and about himself.

As a leader, the way you engage others in conversations is important. How you engage people you disagree with in the public domain is especially important. Whether leaders recognize it, they are presented daily with an opportunity to cultivate a culture where learning from a difference in opinion is valued and where the exploration of new ideas is welcomed for the contribution to growth and innovation they provide.

Whenever we have a difference in opinion however, especially with a boss, a board of directors, and especially when the opinion is about a high value project, goal, or cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico, there are two options for how to respond.

Option one is to be “open” to the differing opinion and welcome it as an opportunity to learn, to see things from another perspective, and integrate what can be beneficial and workable. Differing opinions in this sense are seen as a type of creative abrasion and act as the sand that makes pearls possible. Like pearls this takes time.

Or, the second option is to be “protective” of our current understanding and knowledge, dismissing the differing perspective as unworthy of further consideration, and jettisoning any possibility for creating new knowledge and understanding. This second option has a negative consequence for leaders. Employees give up on bringing new ideas to the table and leaders lose access to the ingenuity and creativity of their employees. This option takes less time in the short term and erodes a leaders credibility the longer it is used. Mr. Hayward is a perfect example.

These two options present an interesting paradox. On the one hand we as a society embrace the idea of learning, of personal growth, and purchase shelf loads of self-help and personal development books to aid in our growth. We are also a society accustomed to quick fixes. We are comfortable listening to our doctor explain the risks associated with our elevated cholesterol – along with the benefits of diet and exercise, because we know there is a quick fix answer of prescription medication and that we’ll not have to change our behavior.

In my work as a management consultant, my primary job is to help clients see their work differently and to convince them that there are no quick fixes to character flawed leadership. My role is to help clients see the unrealized leadership opportunities before them and provide practical and tactical ways to capitalize of them.

To that end, I’ve been known to provocatively ask clients to convince me that they truly, deeply, and sincerely care about and want to change the impact their leadership has on employees and customers? Are they willing to risk the success of the past in the hopes of creating something of even greater value in the future?

I would pay very close attention to how Tony Hayward would answer these questions. Would he flinch, avoid the questions, or explain away all the ways he’s too busy and distracted? Would he earnestly say “yes, but I don’t know where to start?”

In interviewing business owners and CEO’s for my upcoming book about how ordinary people achieve extraordinary results, I’ve learned that one of the key elements to achieving the extraordinary is cultivating a sincere curiosity about what works and what doesn’t. Since leadership development is personal development, one place to start is to understand if you are seen as open or protective, and to be deeply curious as to whether your behavior, in times of adversity, harnesses the ingenuity and creativity of your employees.

To that end, here are a few questions to pique your interest.

1. Is the leadership trait “open and receptive to hearing new ideas and learning from them” important to you?
2. Why is this important to you? Not theoretically, but personally.
3. If I were to perform a leadership brand inventory with your direct reports, would “open and receptive to new ideas and learning from them” be on the list of traits or characteristics used to describe you? (Please, no magical thinking here – be brutally honest)
4. If this leadership attribute is important to me, how well am I doing in role modeling this throughout my team/department/organization? (Rate yourself on a 1-10 scale with one as the lowest and ten the highest)
5. Is my score from question number four where I need it to be considering my strategic business initiatives?
6. What evidence do I have that confirms how well I’m doing? (Be behaviorally specific)
7. Is my evidence solely from my perspective or do I have behaviorally specific feedback from unbiased observers?
8. What percent of my direct reports are role modeling this same behavior, and what am I doing daily to have this trait take root throughout my team and organization?
9. Is my leadership philosophy rooted in learning, growth, and behavior change? Or, is my focus more on quick fixes?
10. What behaviors have I exhibited over the last week that confirm my belief or perception as to question number nine?

No matter how entertaining, we are going to have to wait for Tony Hayward to answer these questions. What we don’t have to wait for however are your answers.

I’ll be deeply sorry if you neglect answering these questions.

Discretionary Performance: Moving Beyond Ordinary to Extraordinary

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInEmail to someone

The term discretionary income describes the money you have left over every month after paying your taxes and all of your bills. At work we have something called discretionary performance. This is the performance we have left over after our regular work duties have been taken care of, and can be accessed ONLY if we are truly committed to an idea, team, or organization.

And yet, whenever you bring two or more people together in the workplace to accomplish a task or accomplish a goal, people end up working in one of two ways. One erodes discretionary performance and one cultivates it.

The first is as a workgroup and is best characterized as a collection of people who share a common objective, task or in some cases overhead. With workgroups there isn’t a common or compelling vision or mission and results in ten people producing eight units of productivity. No discretionary performance here.

The second way people can work together is with people working as a team. Teams are a community of individuals with a commitment to something larger than the task at hand. “Comm.”, the preface to words like community, communication, and communion means “to be one with”. When you are one with someone, some ideal, or some value, you create a connection and synergy where the total output is greater than the sum of all of the parts. Wherever you find unification and synergy, you experience ten people producing twelve units of productivity.

Discretionary performance takes root in this fertile soil. Why? It takes root because it’s safe to bring all of our talents, skills, hope’s, and aspirations to the team and to leverage them to achieve the extraordinary. When you think of whether you are more of a team or a workgroup you’ll run into a dilemma though – you can’t sit on the fence and be both – you are either one or the other.

In Jim Collins book, Good To Great, he proposed that there are three traits that all teams need to have in order to move to greatness, and I believe are essential for cultivating discretionary performance. They are:

1. Communication / Dialogue:
This type of communication and dialogue is about a CLEAR purpose that’s larger than all of us. It embraces ideas such as creating extraordinary products or services, continuously growing and learning, embracing what’s possible versus what’s probable, and making a meaningful contribution to the communities you serve.

When our conversations don’t have these aspects as the foundation, we create situations where our own self-interests take precedence and winning for one person makes it difficult for others to win. Our conversations become about WIN / LOSE, not WIN / WIN, and WIN / LOSE is always a losing proposition and is the death knell for discretionary performance.

2. Disagreement:
While disagreement might seem contradictory to communication and dialogue, disagreement is a positive aspect of growth. Not the type of disagreement rooted in being right and or proving someone wrong – that should be eschewed at all cost. The type of disagreement that is healthy and productive balances advocacy with inquiry and has a bias for listening to understand versus listening to respond. Disagreement can lead to a greater sense of shared understanding along with a greater appreciation for the strategically diverse viewpoints each team member brings to the team.

Managers and leaders need to acknowledge that people act in ways that serve their own best interest, and that understanding how team members answer the question “what’s in it for me? is not a selfish question, but rather our human nature and survival instincts showing up in the world of work. Knowing what motivates a team member to act with the best interest of the overall team in mind is essential for achieving discretionary performance – without this context and understanding teams are relegated to ordinary and not extraordinary performance.

If you want to cultivate greater discretionary performance, here are three questions for your next team meeting. They are:

1. What did we achieve last week that we believe was extraordinary?
2. How did we (through our thinking, processes, practices, and or procedures) create or hinder the achievement of the extraordinary?
3. What do we need to keep doing, stop doing, and or start doing in order to achieve the truly extraordinary?

Entrepreneurship #104

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInEmail to someone

Entrepreneurship #104 from Hugh Blane on Vimeo.

Entrepreneurship #103

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInEmail to someone

Untitled from Hugh Blane on Vimeo.

Entrepreneurship #102

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInEmail to someone

Entrepreneurship #102 from Hugh Blane on Vimeo.

Entrepreneurship #101

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInEmail to someone

Entrepreneurship #101 from Hugh Blane on Vimeo.