Motivation, Rewards, and Leadership

The good news is that the world really is all about you.  

Therefore, the world is what you make it. 

_____________________________________________

Here are a few thoughts-for-the-day with which you may, or may not, agree.  Regardless of how you feel, I hope you find a moment to stop and think about your beliefs and the basis upon which those beliefs have been built.

1.  Employees do not need to be motivated - In organizational life managers are often charged with the productivity and well being of the staff.  It is management's job to make sure the staff is focusing on the task at hand, and that everyone is sufficiently motivated.

But, is it really management's job to motivate you?  Is the manager the one responsible for each person's motivation?

If we assume that it is management's job to motivate us, we assume that we are not inherently motivated.  The cause of motivation is outside of us - a gift to be received from someone else.  If we don't receive the gift every day, we will not feel motivated.  This belief places the responsibility for the level of motivation squarely on management's shoulders, giving us someone to blame when motivation falls below required levels.

I suggest that this model is flawed.

Yes, management has a role to play in creating an environment that does not squash motivation like an unwelcome bug.  "It is right and human for managers to care about the motivation and morale of their people, it's just that they are not the cause of it." (Koestenbaum and Block - Freedom and Accountability At Work)

We are also responsible for our own morale.  If we come to work depressed, it is not only management's responsibility to pull us out of our depression.  If we feel unmotivated by our work, it is not only management's job to detect our lack of motivation and give us a rousing pep talk.  We are all responsible for our own morale and motivation.

We have freedom; we have a choice.

(See: Motivation, Vision and Motivation in this blog)

2.  Rewards do not explain and drive behavior -  The holy grail of compensation has long been "What gets rewarded gets done."  If you want something done, put a reward on the result.  If you want to encourage a certain behavior, put a reward on it.  The reverse has also been true - if you want to discourage a behavior or result, take away a reward (usually money) every time it happens.

Yes, compensation systems are important.  Yes, compensation systems are often designed based on a desire to encourage certain behaviors.  No, compensation systems are not successful in creating long-term motivation, and achieving desired results.  Short-term results, maybe.  But, long-term results, no.

By focusing on money, organizations have found a simple and quick way to push individual performance to great heights for short periods of time.  However, it is often easy for self-serving employees to take advantage of these money-based incentives, increasing their compensation at the expense of the organization's long term health.

For the long-term it's not what gets rewarded that gets done.  It's what is rewarding gets done. (Katzenbach - Why Pride Matters More Than Money)

As an alternative, treat employees as you would anyone who is actively contributing to the wealth of the organization.  They are the ones who are creating the products and services that make the organization successful.  Compensation is important, but not because it will change behavior.

(See: Money and Motivation in this blog)

3. Leadership is abundant, not rare - Many organizations are leader-focused.  The person at the top of the hierarchy is the fearless leader, and those in the rest of the organization are the followers.  Leadership is reserved for those with titles and offices, for those who attend the board or leadership team meetings.  Employees are trained to do their jobs, or put through employee development programs to help them become better employees, supervisors, and managers, but they are not considered leaders.

Yes, it is very important for the top leaders to offer a clear vision, set the tone for the corporate ethics and values, keep the organizational culture connected to the realities of the market, and to display the courage to take action.  This is a seat of great power that comes with great responsibilities.  It is important that these top leaders use their power with care and grace, for they are creating a tone that will color the behavior of others.

But these leadership behaviors are not reserved to only the nose-bleed seats.

Organizations will find that, given the opportunity to take on the challenge, leaders exist at all levels.  What is required is for managers and supervisors to create the space for others to take action.  

No, not everyone wants to be a leader.  

But, people rise to a challenge.  If you want to encourage leaders at all levels, you need to start by making room in your organization for people of good character to understand the vision and share it with others, express their ethics and values, touch the realities that define their market, and both see the courage of the leaders at the top, and show their own courage by making choices and taking risks.  

(See: A Leader's Power, Ownership, 100% Responsibility, Changing Minds - The Importance Of Character in this blog)

___________________________________________


Thanks for taking the time to read through this blog entry.  Hope it sparked some thoughts or feelings about leadership. 

If you are interested in more thought provoking reading, the preceding is largely based on the work of Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block in Freedom and Accountability At Work.

My thanks go to Dr. Koestenbaum for his long dedication to improving both government and business organizations.

Have A Nice Conflict

You are running a little late, and show up to the early morning project team meeting a few minutes after it started.  But already things have taken their usual course.  Tom is raising his voice and pressing for action on his latest proposal, Helen is telling Tom that he doesn't have enough information to move forward - more data is required.  Joe is leaning back in his chair looking uncomfortable, wishing the problem would just go away.  All three faces turn to you, the team leader, as you walk into the room.  Once again, your team is in conflict, and the day is just beginning.  Everything is normal.

Conflict is part of our daily lives.  Families experience conflict. Business and government organizations live in a sea of conflict.  International relations are fraught with conflict.  The news is filled with conflict.

The question that comes to mind is: if conflict is so prevalent in our lives, why aren't we better at dealing with it?  Perhaps one answer is that we are never given the proper tools.  As we grow up we learn how to get along, or how to take control of a situation.  We learn how to press our point, or to compete.  But, we may never be taught how to:

• Anticipate conflict
• Prevent conflict
• Identify conflict
• Manage conflict
• Resolve conflict

The time has come to change all of that.  Being a better leader or manager, or just being a better person, starts with self awareness and self management.  These competencies are rooted in self knowledge - knowing yourself, what motivates you, what you value, and how you translate those motivations and values into behaviors.  As you extend your knowledge beyond yourself, you gain an understanding of others, and how their motivations and values drive their behaviors.  You also begin to gain an understanding of what causes conflict.  (See the footnote below for information on tools to help you gain deeper self and social awareness)

 [C]onflict [is] the feeling that occurs when another person or set of circumstances becomes an obstacle that inhibits one's ability to live out their motivational values.  (Have a Nice Conflict, p 95)  People go into conflict about things that are important to them - values that are tied to their sense of self-worth.  (Have a Nice Conflict, p. 130) 

If you want to deal with conflict, your challenge is to learn how to identify motivations and values in yourself and others, and how to communicate with the people involved in a conflict.  Then, the key is to use that knowledge to build a path back to self-worth for all parties. Luckily, you are not alone.  Help is on the way.

Tim Scudder, Michael Patterson, and Kent Mitchell have recently published a book titled Have a Nice Conflict that will, in a few hours, give you valuable insights into how to translate your self and social awareness into actions, behaviors, and language that will help you anticipate, prevent, identify, manage, and resolve conflict.  Their book is based on work done by Elias H. Porter, as well as decades of study, and experience using the Strengths Deployment Inventory, or SDI.

One of the things that Scudder, Patterson and Mitchell points out is that behavior in conflict follows patterns.  Although it is true that human beings are not 100% predictable, it is interesting to note that certain discernible patterns of behavior do exist.  Knowing that patterns exist, and having some tools to help you identify the patterns when you see them, gives you a huge head start on managing conflicts.

The authors have created a fable, or parable, that lets you follow the journey of "John" as he learns about these patterns of behavior within himself and those around him, both when things are going well, and when things go into conflict. 

As Have A Nice Conflict points out, one of the biggest challenges is to learn how to manage a conflict when you are already firmly entrenched in it. If we enter into conflict at a purely reactionary level, if we just follow our emotions, we tend to let the conflict manage us rather than managing the conflict.  But by managing ourselves, and learning how to communicate with each of the individuals involved in the conflict, we can be more effective when we find ourselves in the fray.  Also, conflicts become shorter, and are often avoided.

A well-chosen behavior on your part can prevent conflict with another person. But you need to prevent conflict in yourself... too.  (Have a Nice Conflict, p. 142)  Managing conflict is about creating the conditions that empower others to manage themselves out of their emotional state of conflict.  It's also about managing yourself out.  (Have a Nice Conflict, p. 162)

We all need to follow the advice of every airline flight attendant: place your own oxygen mask on first, then help the person next to you with theirs.  You need to gain control of yourself before you can be any help to the other parties to a conflict.  (See the earlier blog post The View From The Balcony)

Preventing conflict within yourself, and creating conditions that allow others to manage themselves requires conscious thought.  Conscious thought is much easier when you know what to listen for, what to look for, and how to respond to people who hold differing motivational values.

Have a Nice Conflict gives you some interesting insight into language and behaviors that you can use when you find yourself in a conflict with another person.  And, it shows you how to modify your language to fit the person, or people, in the conflict.

The first and best thing you can do is to dedicate some time to learning about yourself.  The footnote below gives links to some very valuable tools for gaining an understanding of what it means to be you.  Every tool has its supporters and critics.  There is no "single best tool".

Take a look at Have a Nice Conflict.  I think it will be well worth your time.  You will come away with some interesting insights into the people you live and work with.  You may also learn a thing or two about yourself in the process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote:   

There are many tools that help you learn about yourself: Myers Briggs, Thomas Kllman, DiSC for example.  But the best tool I have found to increase both your self awareness, and your social awareness is the Strengths Deployment Inventory, or SDI.  The SDI is the one instrument that I have found that takes on the question of how to deal effectively with conflict.

I have a personal bias toward the SDI instrument, and have used it successfully both as a tool for gaining self-knowledge, and for creating a team environment of mutual understanding, better working relationships, and reducing conflicts.  Have a Nice Conflict and the SID go hand in hand with developing your self and social awareness.  The SDI will give you insight into why you and others behave in certain ways.  It creates a bond between team members, and establishes a common language about behavior that can be used within the team when things get a little tense.

The DiSC Instrument is also a great team-based tool for looking at styles and behaviors.  In my experience, the DiSC has been useful for helping teams identify attributes of the team members.  It becomes more powerful when used with the SDI to help the team members understand what to do when those attributes, or behaviors get in the way.

The Thomas Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument is great for helping you think through critical situations where conflict might exist, and selecting a behavior or strategy that may be appropriate.

And, finally, the Myers Briggs instrument is always a great tool for improving your self-knowledge.

Each of these tools should be done with the assistance of a coach. (See the previous blog entry Every Leader Needs A Coach)  To gain the full understanding of what the tools have to say, having a few hours with a qualified coach will be most valuable.

Great Leadership In Troubled Times

When one reads the headlines of the day it is clear that we live in troubled times.  The Middle East and Africa are ablaze, pirates sail the seven seas, Central America is mired in drug wars, and here at home our national, state and local politicians struggle to balance fragile budgets teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Today, it becomes easy to believe that "desperate times call for desperate measures."  And, perhaps this is true.  The problem is that when leaders become desperate they often loose sight of what it is to be a leader, and what great leadership might look like.

Leaders are human, and subject to the same pressures that affect us all.  Public opinion is a powerful force.  It is tempting to take popular positions because by doing so leaders can feel supported, loved, and admired.  They may also believe that they have chosen a wise course of action. 

However, as the plaque posted in the Council Chamber of at least one Southern California city states:

What is right is not always popular.  What is popular is not always right.

Great leadership requires more than saying or doing things that make a large number of people happy.   Great leadership requires vision, a connection to reality, strong ethics, and sometimes, exceptional courage (Peter Koestenbaum) (One of the first blog posts in this series provides a quick overview of these attributes.)

Great leaders are those who will take the time to define "what we are trying to create as a result of our effort." (Peter Block)  Great leaders are those who understand that it is usually not the first answer that comes to mind that is the best answer.  Great leaders are those who will go deeper, beyond the obvious answers like "We are trying to balance our budget.", "We are against raising taxes.", "We are against cutting programs."  Great leaders are the ones who see, and can help other see, the connections between our vision for the future and our current reality, understand our ethical challenges, and expose their courage to act in a visible and transparent way.

If you are a leader, take time to reflect: 

• What is your vision?  Does it go far enough to answer the question "what are we trying to create as a result of our efforts?" (Click here for more on the importance of vision.)
• Are you connected to reality, and not just a point of view? (Click here... and here for more on Reality.)
• Do you understand the ethics of the situation?  Remember, ethics is more than following the law. (Click here for more on Ethics) (Also, this article - Ethics and the Prince - may be of interest.)
• Do you have the courage to do what is right?  What is right may actually be what is popular.  But it also may require opposing popular opinion.  Do you have the courage to act? (Click here and here for more on Courage and Free Will.)
• Talk about each of these points with the people you trust and value.  Don't exclude those who disagree with you.  They may be the ones who can be of the most help in clarifying your thinking.

Finally, one of the biggest challenges of the world we live in is that great leaders are often not recognized until the danger has passed.  It is likely that your efforts won't be recognized until the smoke has cleared and history is being written by the survivors.

Leave your ego at the door.  Do your best.  Invite others in to help.  And, we will all get through these troubled times.

Freedom and Accountability

Every act we perform is, in its foundation, a free one (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 49)

___________________________________
The western world is in love with the concept of freedom.  It is the most precious aspect of society.  Whether it is the freedom of religion or speech, the freedom to choose our political leaders, or to pursue the life we choose without fear of interference from individuals or governments, freedom is essential and paramount in all things.

However, when we move from our societal craving for freedom to our personal lives, or the workplace, we seem ready to give up our freedom and are willing to put our happiness and our level of motivation in the hands of someone else.  In the workplace we call this someone else "management".  It becomes management's job to give us rewarding work, to motivate us, to make us into high-performing individuals and teams.  We tell ourselves that our mechanical systems of rewards and punishments, measurements, strategies, or command and control structures get the behaviors that we want from our organizations.  In short, we create these devices to help eliminate the need for the exercise of free will.

Koestenbaum and Block suggest that this "escape from freedom," as Erich Fromm called it, is in large part due to the fact that "...with freedom comes accountability, and with accountability comes guilt, and with guilt comes anxiety.  Since our freedom leads to anxiety, it is easier to repress it than to bear it proudly." (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 30)  Both in our lives and in our work it is often easier to deny our freedom and allow others to choose than to make difficult choices ourselves.

But this creates an interesting paradox.  By allowing others to choose I have made a choice.  I have chosen to give others the power to choose for me, which in itself is an exercise of my free will.  Therefore, I am still accountable, at least to myself, for the results of my decision.

Arguments are sure to be put forward showing how, at least in certain circumstances, I had no choice in the matter:  "I hate this job, but if I don't come to work I will be fired.  I have no choice but to come to work."  Or, "The law says I have to pay my taxes.  I have no choice.  If I don't pay my taxes I will go to jail."

When these statements are examined more closely we see that there is an element of choice in each.  I choose to continue to go work at a job that I hate because I am unwilling to deal with the consequences of walking away from the job.  Instead of choosing to look for another job, I choose to continue working at the one I have.  I am accountable for my choice to continue in an unpleasant job instead of changing my situation.  I choose to pay my taxes because I am not willing to be accountable for the consequences related to not paying my taxes.  Regardless of why I made the choice to pay my taxes, it is still my choice to make the payment.

We are not always in control of the alternatives among which we may choose.  Having free will does not imply that life will always be perfect, or that the choice of another option would have provided us with great happiness.  But through the exercise of our free will we are able to embrace our humanity, and to take on the succession of risks that life has to offer.

Recognizing that we are free gives us the ability to exercise control over our existence, and lets us shift from blaming others for how things are to being accountable for our life.  "Once the inevitability [that we are accountable] is recognized, we will be inclined to place the full blame [or credit] on ourselves rather than on others or on objective situations beyond our control."  (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 79)

The good news is that you have free will, and that opens up a world of opportunity.  The bad news is that you have free will, and that opens up a world of accountability.  Good luck with both.

Self As Instrument

No matter where you go, there you are. 
(Source: possibly Confucius, biblical, or Star Trek)
____________________________________

Many people go through life taking the events of each day as they happen, happily addressing each challenge, and then heading home with the sense that they did the best that they could, given the circumstances.  Tomorrow is another day, not to be worried about until the morning comes.

But for those who find themselves in situations that require change, where their vision of the future is different from the realities of today, and where they have made the choice to play an active part in achieving that vision, such a laissez-faire approach does not work.  If change is to occur, some sort of intervention is required.  And the only tool that any individual has to bring about change is themselves - their actions, behaviors, dialog, questions, and choices.  They must choose to use their skills and abilities in deliberate and thoughtful ways to influence others.  In short, they must use themselves as the instrument of change, a concept often referred to as self as instrument.

As with any instrument, before one becomes a virtuoso there is learning, practice, and performance.  A musician does not decide to become a pianist and immediately leap onto the stage at Carnegie Hall.  Practice and preparation is necessary before the performance.  Nor does a leader decide to become an instrument of change and immediately charge forward to success without introspection and learning.

Katherine Curran, Charles Seashore, and Michael Welp summarized the concept of self as instrument best in their November 1995 presentation to the ODN National Conference:

Perhaps the most powerful instrument we have in helping our clients navigate change is ourselves. Our ability to use ourselves potently relies in large part on the level of awareness we have about the impact we make, and our ability to make choices to direct and modify that impact.

Awareness is the key.  Developing the mind so it is aware of self, others, situations, and patterns is the beginning of being able to use yourself as an instrument of change.  Self-awareness and self-management become the first requirements.

In Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman lists these as the first two dimensions of what he has termed emotional intelligence.  True self-awareness requires reflective self-examination, feedback from others, and knowledge of who you are, where you are going, and why you are going there.  Self-awareness is not something that is intrinsic, it is developed over time, often with the help of others guiding the self-discovery process.

In his book Leadership From The Inside Out, Kevin Cashman suggests:

Leadership is not simply something we do.  It comes from somewhere inside us.  Leadership is a process, an intimate expression of who we are.  It is our being in action.  Our being, our personhood, says as much about us as a leader as the act of leading itself.

Cashman's statement about leadership is also applicable when we are becoming an agent of change; it is not simply something we do.  It is a process, an intimate expression of who we are.  It is moving from passive observer to active participant.

But, why all this talk of self when what we want is to influence others to join us in the pursuit of our vision?  The answer is: through the understanding of yourself, you become a more authentic leader, one who "aligns both actions and behaviors with [your] core values and beliefs". (An Overview of Self as Instrument Using a Leadership lens and a Coaching Application, Debbie Kennedy, December 29, 2006)  This authenticity is visible to those who would be followers and companions on the journey to the desired future, and encourages the development of trust between the leader and the followers.  Also, "Followers learn by observing the positive values, psychological states, behaviors and self-development being modeled by the authentic leader..." encouraging the same behavior in the followers. (Kennedy)

You have the ability to become a leader who makes a huge difference in your organization if you are willing to devote the time to develop the tools you need to be an effective instrument of change - to develop your "self as instrument".  The journey to virtuosity begins inside by learning about who you are, developing self-awareness and self-management (and as Goleman would suggest, in the development of social-awareness and relationship management).  It continues by becoming clear on what you want to accomplish as a result of your effort, and why it is important to create a particular vision of the future.

Once you have developed the ultimate instrument (yourself), no matter where you are, you will have with you everything you need to be an authentic leader who can make a difference.

Changing Minds - The Importance of Character

Whether you are a leader of a nation, corporation, organization, club or other collection of people, one of your first tasks is to get people working in the same direction.  In prior posts we have talked about the importance of vision in bringing people together behind one cause.  But we have not talked about what to do when you have a vision that is not necessarily shared by others in the group.  The problem is not that they don't understand the vision.  They understand perfectly.  However, they disagree with the goal, methods, do not trust that the desired outcome is appropriate, or just generally think the idea is wrongheaded.

What do you do to change the minds of the people you wish to lead into the future?

In his book Changing Minds, Howard Gardner takes on the challenge of describing this process of bringing your message to your audience, and of successfully changing how people think and feel about the goals you have set before them.  Although there are many factors to consider, in this blog entry I want to focus on just one that I believe to be so powerful that if it is not properly considered and respected it will knock the blocks out from under everything you are trying to accomplish.

Money and Motivation

For decades the newspapers have enjoyed reporting about Corporate America gone wrong with stories of greed inside Wall Street and big-energy, and wrongheaded decisions by corporate leaders.  Even after so many years of learning from the school of hard-knocks, the business community continues to make decisions that cause the common person to scratch their head and wonder how such smart people can be so dumb.

We all wonder what is it that makes these Captains of Industry, and the people who follow them, choose the path that leads to having their names and faces plastered on the front page as they do the "perp-walk" into the court house?

The answers are probably many, but at least one is tied to the subject of Money and Motivation.

Without getting into a long conversation about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, "the forces that motivate us tend to shift depending on our personal needs." (Why Pride Matters More Than Money, P. 27)  Everyone is driven to fill basic needs, but what is considered "basic" can vary from person to person. 

Our drive to make money beyond the amount required to provide basic needs is tied to our motivation to achieve recognition as an important and successful person.  Corporate America has learned how to use this drive in its leaders and employees to press for higher and greater achievement of certain goals, usually the sale of products, and accumulation of earnings for the company.

This is a focus on individual success, and what author Jon Katzenbach refers to as Self-Serving Pride.  Each individual is pressed to achieve a goal, sometimes at the expense of others within the organization, and sometimes at the expense of the organization itself.  Enron and the financial market collapse are great examples of workers achieving individual goals and seeking individual rewards regardless of the effect of their behavior on the health of the company or community.  Katzenbach suggests that organizations are missing the point when it comes to constructive motivation.  He writes about the power of pride, particularly institution-building pride, and its role in motivation.

By focusing on money, organizations have found a simple and quick way to push individual performance to great heights for short periods of time.  However, it is often easy for self-serving employees to take advantage of these money-based incentives, increasing their compensation at the expense of the organization's long term health. 

But for the success of the institution over long periods of time it is important to appeal to the employee's emotional commitment, and to establish systems that support the creation of institutional pride.

Leaders need to understand that what motivates the people at the top of the organization is not necessarily what motivates people on the front line.  Therefore, the things that build institutional pride at the top (quarterly earnings, competitive advantage, brand) are not necessarily the things that build institutional pride for the majority of the workforce (working for a highly respected organization, being trusted and supported by managers and supervisors, high quality products, having the tools and systems that allow employees to do great work).

People who are emotionally committed to something - be it a person, a group, an enterprise, a cause, or an aspiration - behave in ways that defy logic and often produce results that are well beyond expectations.  They pursue impossible dreams, work ridiculous hours, and resolve unsolvable problems.

The organizations that have found ways to tap into this emotional commitment are the ones that create long term success by meeting the basic needs for all employees, and establishing reward systems that recognize individual, team, and organizational success.  The employees within these systems take pride in being part of a winning team, and an organization that is highly respected.

Katzenbach points out that "money attracts and retains, whereas pride motivates." (Why Pride Matters More Than Money, P. 128) 

In our society, money is an important part of any compensation system.  Pay must be competitive, sufficient, and focused on creating institutional-pride.  But, without other systems in place that create institutional-pride, employees will always go to the organization that offers the highest pay.

Organizations that create institutional-pride retain the top performers, gain the advantage of emotional commitment, have employees who care about the quality of the service and product, and can achieve greatness.

Influence

It has often been said that leading from the top is one thing, but leading from within the pack is quite another.  For every organization there are only a handful of top positions; positions where there is an implied right to lead, or power to make decisions.  Those who find themselves in the middle or bottom of the hierarchy sometimes question their own ability to be leaders, or to have any influence on how the organization works.

The key word here is "influence".  It is true that not everyone can occupy the corner office.  But it is also true that everyone can find a way to be a leader, to have some "influence" on how things are done, and to make a difference.

What exactly is influence, and how does it become part of leadership from the middle?  Here are a few thoughts to chew on.

Influence, as Dr. Robert Cialdini of ASU says, is the "ultimate power tool".  Those who understand how to use influence can have a profound effect on their organization, regardless of their position.

Influence has gotten a bad rap because it is often seen as a process used to get people to do things that might not always be above board.  However, like any tool, it can be used to build up or to tear down.  Properly used, influence can help your organization, team, or work group achieve things that might not otherwise have been possible.

Having and applying influence depends on a number of underlying concepts.  Here are a few to consider:

• Reciprocity - If you have done something for me, I feel some obligation to do something for you.  When we are negotiating, if you have moved back from your opening position (a position that was most beneficial to you) to a fall back position that is better for both of us, I feel inclined to move my position as well.  "No" is not a final answer.  When you get a "no", introduce a fallback position.
• Scarcity - People are motivated to have what they can't have, or to move if there is a narrow window of opportunity.   Helping people understand that an opportunity is short-lived can help move things along.
• Authority - We prefer to say "yes" to authority.  If you have expertise or a background that places you in the position of being an expert, start by exposing your weaknesses, then offer your background of experience and knowledge.  Present your strengths only after showing your weaknesses.  Your authority is strengthened by showing that you are aware of your shortcomings.
• Consistency - People like to do things that are consistent with prior actions.  Sometimes this is a challenge, particularly when the prior actions may be taking the organization down the wrong path.  However, searching for ways to show consistency is important.  Even a change of direction can be seen as "consistent" under the right circumstances.  Also, get people to commit to actions in a public setting, get them to write down what they have agreed to do, and followup conversations and agreements in writing.
• Consensus - People and organizations like to look at what others are doing.  Leaders often import practices that have succeeded for others.  And, organizations often follow trends in behaviors that their leaders see as positive.  You can help identify these trends, bring them to the attention of your peers and managers.  And, you can use your influence to help the organization choose the paths that are most advantageous.
• Likeness - You are more influential if people feel that you are "like" them.  This may seem like a negative trait, but good or bad, it is true that people are generally more inclined to favor people who they see as similar to themselves - people who think like them, value the things they value, have goals that are consistent with their goals, and see the world in ways that are similar to their views.  This doesn't mean that you have to become like the person you are trying to influence, but if you search for the similarities and emphasize those as you work together, you will have a better chance of being influential with that person.

There is more to influence, but by now you probably are getting the idea that you can have influence on your peers and leaders without having to have a position of power from which to work. There is plenty of reading on the concept of influence.  Dr. Cialdini has written extensively on the subject, as have many others.

In addition to Cialdini's work, I can recommend Influencer - The Power to Change Anything by Kerry Patterson and a host of co-authors.

Use your influence for good and positive change.  Help others use their influence to improve the organization and achieve goals that lead to success.  And, don't be afraid to use influence when it is taking you in the right direction.

Ownership

Imagine this scene:  You walk out of your front door to pick up the morning paper.  On the ground next to the paper is an empty take-out food container.  You pick up the paper, look at the empty container, and go back into the house leaving the the trash on your front doorstep.

"Difficult to imagine", you say.  Why?  This scene is played out every day on the streets of our communities, and in the halls of our organizations.

How can it be that in one case we can't imagine leaving trash on our front door step, and yet we will allow trash to remain on the sidewalk of our town as we walk by.  In our home, we will expect workers to do their jobs correctly, but in our organizations we will tolerate work that is only "good enough to get by"?

The difference is "Ownership".

In our example, you are (or at least are imagining that you are) the homeowner.  This is your property.  Some thoughtless person has thrown their trash on your property, and it offends you. 

When you walk down a street, or are working for an employer, your feeling of ownership is very different.  You may feel like you are part of the community, or are a loyal employee, but you are not the owner.  It is someone else's job to pick up the trash, or it is someone else's job to oversee the work of the other employees.

Within an organization, when the top leader or manager is the only one who feels ownership for the quality of the work, or the accomplishment of a goal, life is very difficult.  Everyone does their part, but only their part.  This is not out of spite, nor is it even a conscious attitude on the part of the employees.  Many feel ownership for their part of the product.  But, if the product is not completed on time, or does not meet the quality standards required by the customer, it is not their fault.  It is someone else's fault.  It is the owner's fault.

In the same organization, when everyone feels ownership of the final product, or accomplishment of a goal, the atmosphere is very different.  The top leader or manager now has allies, other owners who care about the end result, not just their part of the project.  To continue the metaphor above, you now have many homeowners who are willing to either pick up the trash on the front step, or help others do it.  But, have no doubt that the trash will get picked up.  

For a leader, the goal is to change the conversation within the organization from one of tasks and parts, to one that focuses on what we are trying to construct together.  This is not an effort to make every person responsible for every action or task.  However, when many people see what is being constructed, can speak about the end result as well as their contribution to that result, and begin to feel ownership in the final product, the likelihood of success is increased many fold.

Peter Block, an author, consultant, and expert on bringing people together, says that "Ownership is the decision to become the author of our own experiences," (Community - The Structure of Belonging, Peter Block, P. 128).  This is true for communities both inside and outside of our organizations.  When people choose ownership they move from the role of victim, employee, or observer, to architect of the world within which they choose to live.

After reading this, the next time you are walking down a street and see a piece of trash you will automatically think about whether you are an observer or an owner of the community.

________________________________________________

I want to point your attention to the comment below from Robin Reid.  Robin is both an organizational development expert with years of great experience under his belt, and a good friend.  His comment is right on the money with regard to the relationship to ownership and decision making.  Thanks for the insight, Robin.

Why Teams Don't Work

Teams have become the centerpiece of our corporate and government structure.  Whether you are Toyota, the White House, or a local public works department, teams are used to take on every major task, and solve challenging problems.  Business schools have taught the wisdom of teams for decades.  So when the Harvard Business Review published an article titled "Why Teams Don't Work - An Interview with J. Richard Hackman"" in May 2009, many heads were turned.

Hackman, who is a professor at Harvard University, and an expert on social and organizational psychology and teams, says:

Research consistently shows that teams underperform, despite all the extra resources they have.  That's because problems with coordination and motivation typically chip away at the benefits of collaboration.

This is not what we learned in school.  We learned about the synergy of the team, how teams help overcome the weaknesses of the individuals that make up the team, how many hands make light work, and that if you want something done better, give it to a team.

However, as you probably suspected, this is not the end of the story.  Hackman goes on to help us understand what gets in the way of creating high performing teams.

One of the primary road blocks to having a high performing team is lack of clarity regarding who is on the team.  Hackman points out that the CEO is often responsible for these fuzzy boundaries related to team membership.  There is a hesitancy to exclude people from teams, and a tendency to include people on teams for purely political reasons.   The solution: "putting together a team involves some ruthless decisions about membership; not everyone who wants to be on the team should be included, and some individuals should be forced off."

It comes as no surprise to anyone who has worked on a team that teams need a compelling direction.  Hackman warns that the process of setting this direction can be emotionally demanding, require the exercise of authority, and may arouse anxiety, angst, and ambivalence.  Not everyone will be able to embrace the selected direction, causing some change in the makeup of the team.

Some of the facts about teams that Hackman points out are:

• Teams do not need to be harmonious to produce an excellent result,  In fact, some tension appears to bring out better performances.
• Teams do not need to be big to perform well.  Hackman suggests no double-digit teams.  Big teams wind up wasting everyone's time.  He advises CEOs to consider his finding that "...having a huge senior leadership team...  may be worse than having no team at all."
• Newness may be a liability.  Teams that have been together for some time perform better than teams where membership is changed on some regular basis.  Changing membership to inject creativity may hamper rather than help team performance.
• Teams with "deviants" (people who are willing to challenge the group thinking) perform better than teams that are never challenged.

There are two other resources that you might consult if you are working within, leading, or creating teams.  The first is The Wisdom of Teams by Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith.   The second is Why Teams Don't Work - What Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right by Harvey Robbins and Michael Finley.  Both are excellent references for any leader struggling with how to create high performing teams.

Everyday Creativity

Dewitt Jones, the highly regarded National Geographic photographer, has taught literally thousands of leaders some very important lessons about bringing creativity into the workplace.  Here are a few of the topics Jones covers:

Perspective - Learn to change lenses; change the way you look at challenges and problems.  Are you too close to the situation?  Are you not close enough?  Are you seeing things from only your perspective, or are there other perspectives that are valid ways to look at the situation?  You will almost always find that there is more than one right solution.

Try - If you don't try, you have already failed.  There should be no penalty for trying.  Leaders should encourage others to try, and have no fear of failure.

Patterns - We all fall into patterns of behavior, and ways of thinking.  In order to find creative solutions, we must break these set patterns.  Seeing things in a new light is necessary to find creative ways of dealing with challenges.

Technique - Train your technique so that you know how to use your equipment (tools of the trade) without having to think about the technical part of the job.  For Jones, this means being a skilled photographer who intuitively knows how to adjust his photographic equipment for various lighting conditions.  For a leader, it may mean being comfortable with the technology of your business, with computer systems or applications, or with communication channels.  The technique of using the tools should not get in the way of being creative.

Potential - Every situation has places from which you can view events, people, and interactions.  Find the place of most potential.  This may be a place that is unusual for you, in your role as leader, to stand.  However, it is in this place where you will most clearly see what is going on down on the stage, and how you may be able to influence the outcomes.  (See the earlier post on The View from the Balcony).

Windows of opportunity - The world provides us with windows of opportunity.  These may be instants in time, days, or months.  Be patient.  And, be ready to take action when the window of opportunity opens.

It's up to you - Whether you are the leader of an organization or one of the staff members, there is no one to whom you can delegate creativity.  If you are the leader, you affect the organization's culture.  Is creativity encouraged?  Is there a penalty for trying?  Are patterns allowed to be broken?  Do people know how to use their tools?  How skilled is their technique?  Do you encourage people to take advantage of windows of opportunity?

I encourage you to check out the very short video by Dewitt Jones - Everyday Creativity.  It is a very inspiring and information filled 22 minutes.

100% Responsibility

If you search the Internet for articles on the concept of 100% responsibility you will find many entries that talk about taking responsibility for your own life, or how managers and leaders are always 100% responsible for the organization's results.  These are good ways to view 100% responsibility, but I don't believe they get to the heart of the true meaning.

This concept was first introduced to me by Robin Reid, an organizational development consultant who worked with my organization in the 1980s (see note below).  As our management team worked through this concept with Robin, there was a great deal of push-back and resistance.  Managers didn't like the concept.  It flew in the face of how they viewed their role in the organization. 

However, in my experience, this concept had a huge impact on me and how I approached my role as an employee, manager, and leader in my organization.

The concept itself is relatively simple:

• We are all (employees, managers, leaders) 100% responsible for our organization's success, products, and results.  

"How can that be?", I hear you say.  You are thinking, "I am only an employee.  I am not responsible for the final product.  I am not responsible for the output of other departments.  I am not responsible for decisions made by the board, or council.  I am only responsible for my own actions."  And, these statements are, in part, true.

But, consider an extreme situation.  You are in a car that is headed over a cliff.  The driver is oblivious to the problem.  Do you blithely head off into oblivion, or do you pull the hand break? My guess is that you would feel a certain sense of self-preservation (responsibility), and might do something to prevent your ultimate demise.

In this admittedly extreme example, you are a passenger, not the driver.  But, your status as a passenger does not preclude you from acting when the situation calls for it.  The driver has the primary responsibility for the safety of the journey, and this responsibility is not changed in any way by your responsibility as a passenger.  The driver's job is to operate the controls; you cannot operate the controls for the driver.  But, when things begin to go badly, you have the right to express your concern.  You have the right to influence in whatever way you can.  And, in the end, you have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the occupants of the car.

Your expression of concern, and ultimate action, may cause conflict later.  However, there are long term consequences that are important enough to allow for a little conflict.

Responsibility is not something that can be divided easily.  When I am only 50% responsible for the outcome, I can do what I think is proper, and still have the project fail.  I can feel good that my part was done perfectly.  But, if my responsibility stops when I hand off to the next person in the chain, doing my part 100% right is little comfort when the end product is flawed or broken.

I may not be the one who "operates the controls" for all stages of the production or project, but my concern should be similar to that of the passenger in the car.  When things are not going well, I have a duty to participate in getting the system back on track.  My feeling of responsibility does not diminish the responsibility of the other people involved in the project.  Each person is responsible for his or her contribution to the whole.  And, if each person feels ownership in the final product, we are more likely to work as a team, welcome the help of others, and strive for a successful outcome instead of simply the success of one person's portion of the project.

On a deeper level, this acceptance of full responsibility, to be "...accountable for all the implications of our actions [or inactions] grows directly out of accepting the fact of our free will." (Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block, Freedom and Accountability at Work, P. 78-79)   Responsibility is a choice.  Our choice to speak up when we identify something that requires the attention of others, or to remain silent and tell ourselves that "it wasn't our fault" is exactly that, a choice.  Our decision to speak up does not diminish another person's responsibility to carry out their job in a responsible manner.  But our decision to act expresses our ownership of the result, not just pieces of the system.

A decision to be 100% responsible is something anyone within the organization can make.  And, every time someone makes a decision to be 100% responsible, for ownership of the result, everyone wins.



Note: Robin Reid gives credit to Hyler Bracey, from The Atlanta Consulting Group, for introducing him to the concept of 100% responsibility.  I can find no Internet site for this organization, but I did find a link and reference to Hyler Bracey, author of Managing from the Heart.

The Decision Making Continuum

In your role as manager, one of the quickest ways to cause confusion within a group, team, or organization is to make assignments or establish goals without being clear on how decisions related to that assignment or goal will be made.  If you have a team that is high performing, filled with enthusiasm, and hard-charging, you can change all of that by pulling the decision-making-rug out from under them just when they think they have the project under control.

To avoid this problem, as you work with others make it a point to get clear up front on how decisions related to the task at hand will be made.

Here are a few tips for getting clear on which decision making style might be appropriate for a given situation:

• Now Hear This
• Manager Role: The final decision has been made.  Provide Information. Facilitate limited discussion.
• Team Member Role: Ask for clarification as required.  Limited input.
• Trial Balloon
  
• Manager Role: Discuss tentative decision that has already been made.  Ask for reactions and suggestions.  Make final decision. (The decision may change based on the discussion.)
  
• Team Member Role:  Provide reaction and suggestions.
• The Buck Stops Here
• Manager Role:  The final decision has not been made.  Present the issue.  Ask for ideas and suggestions.  Make final decision.
• Team Member Role:  Provide ideas, suggestions, and alternative solutions.
• Coach
• Manager Role:  Ask the team to help create a decision.  Present the issue.  Define resolution boundaries.  Facilitate problem solving and/or analysis session with the team.  Approve final decision resulting from the discussion.
• Team Member Role:  Participate in problem solving and/or analysis session with the team.  Generate recommended solutions as a group.
• You Tell Me
• Manager Role:  Present the issue.  Define resolution boundaries. Approve the final decision as long as it fits the defined boundaries.
• Team Member Role:  Participate in team-facilitated problem solving and/or analysis session.  Team generates recommended solution and course of action.

As you move from "You Tell Me" to "Now Hear This" in the decision making model, employee involvement is reduced, and manager involvement is increased.

You might note that there is no case where the employee or manager is totally absolved of responsibility in making the decision.  In "You Tell Me" the manager is still expected to establish boundaries and approve the final decision, although that decision may be more ceremonial in nature.  In "Now Hear This" the employee retains the obligation to ask clarifying questions and understand the decisions that are being made.

Establishing the decision making style early will help avoid problems later.  Also, maximum empowerment will be found in groups that know how decisions will be made.  A quick way to kill the feeling of empowerment is to change decision making styles midstream, shifting to a more manager-controlled style.

_______________________________________

Please note, this material is based on the work Gary Winters did with my organization in the early to middle 1990s.  Gary and Eric Klein have since gone on to author a book called To Do or Not To Do - How Successful Leaders Make Better Decisions, published in 2005.  I have not read the book, but I do know Gary Winters.  And, knowing him, I can assure you that you will find a complete and understandable discussion of decision making therein.  You may also want to check out Gary Winters' blog, The Leadership Almanac, at http://garywinters.com/.

Opening Your (Johari) Window

Back in the 1950s two fellows names Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham developed a tool to help people better understands their interpersonal relationships and communications. Over the past 50 or 60 years this tool, known as the Johari Window (that’s a combination of Joe and Harry), has been used countless times to help individuals and groups learn more about themselves, and their managers, subordinates, and leaders.

The concept of the Johari Window is relatively simple. Consider the fact that there are things about yourself that you know, and very likely things about yourself that you don’t know. Also, it is fairly obvious that there are things about you that others know, and there are things about you that others don’t know.

This simple premise forms the basis of a very interesting conversation about who you are, your blind spots, what you are willing to share with others, and the great unknown.


If you read the earlier blog post on Trust, you might remember that part of what makes a leader trustworthy, and therefore successful, is communications – letting people know what you are thinking, and what drives you. And, as this communications is going on, you are exposing things about yourself to others. You are enlarging the part of the Johari Window called the Arena – the part that both you and others know about you.

The larger the Arena (this area of shared knowledge) the better your understanding of how others see you, and the better others understand the characteristics that make you who you are. Because you are open, your coworkers do not need to interpret or insert meaning. They can understand your words and actions for what they are. This openness contributes to a more trusting relationship.

Do not confuse openness with agreement. People will still disagree on policies, direction, and goals. But, by removing the need to insert meaning, or imply motives, the debate can focus on the topic of the work. I do not have to agree with someone to trust them; but, I do need to understand them, and have an understanding of what drives them.

The Johari Window below shows what happens as self disclosure and communications begin to expand the Arena. Your Blind Spot shrinks, you are seen as more genuine (the Façade shrinks), and there are fewer questions about your motives and how you will react to your team (the Unknown shrinks).


If you are interested in doing an online exercise using the Johari Window there is one at this URL - http://kevan.org/johari. Instructions are found on the web site.

If you are interested in doing the exercise in person, talk to that coach I suggested you get in the Trust blog entry, or contact me and maybe I can give you a referral. My contact information is on the right side of the blog page.
.
.
.

The Paradox of Success

Organizations, like people, sometimes reach a point where the ego, either the collective ego of the organization or the ego of the organization’s key leaders, has swollen to the point where growth is stifled. New learning becomes impossible. Innovation and exploration slow or stop.

“We are the best!” “We are bullet proof!” “We are too big to fail!”

When an organization has become so certain that it is the model for others to follow, that it has the answer to every problem, and/or that it is so competitively superior to others that there is no need to look for improvements in services, products, or delivery systems, the end is near.

The employees of these companies are often the first to detect these signs. The problem is that within organizations where this mindset is held at the highest levels it may be difficult or impossible for lower level staff to get top level managers to see the signs.

In his book The Paradox of Success, John O’Neil gives a few telltale signs that help identify when an organization needs to step back, regroup, and invest in some serious organizational self-renewal. O’Neil suggests that we watch for:

• Centralization vs. Decentralization of Power – In pyramidal structures the decision-making capacity is located at the top, in the top manager’s office. In self-renewing organizations, knowledge and decision-making power are dispersed where the action takes place.
• Adaptability of leadership – The old, more typical, organizational structure has the strong leader; single point of control; a lonely, isolated, resourceful, and action oriented leader. A self-renewing organization develops and nurtures large numbers of leaders who know how to work alone and in teams. These leaders swarm around trouble, and know when and how to retreat to think deeply, and plan carefully.
• Flexible structures and procedures – The typical organization is massive, hardwired with policies and procedures, specialized by department and function, and slow to respond to change or mistakes. The self-renewing organization is light and flexible, situation-responsive, quick to adapt. It thrives on partnerships and strategic alliances, continuous learning, and is aware of its shadows – those places where the taboo topics, and the dark side of both corporate and individual personalities lurk. (The Paradox of Success, John O’Neal, 1994 – P. 254)

Individuals and leaders of organizations need to treasure truth-telling friends and associates. They need to listen whether the news is good or bad. They need to seek out teachers and mentors who will challenge them, and introduce them the undiscovered country where growth and improvement lie. Learning is the fuel that will enable both individuals and organizations to sustain success.

Your role is to be a “truth-telling” friend to the organization and its leaders. Or, if you are the leader, your role is to seek out and listen to those who can see the truth and are willing to say it openly. (This is easier said than done for many leaders.)

Your role is to find a teacher or mentor who can lead you into the wilderness where self discovery and learning can take place. Or, it might be that your role is to become a teacher or mentor who can help others on their journey of growth and discovery.

Either way, you have a role. If you choose to play it, both you and your organization have a chance at success.

What is the truth about you? What is the truth about your organization? Who should you tell? Who should you seek out? Who are your teachers or mentors? When does your journey of renewal begin?


.

10,000 Hours

A few weeks ago, my friend Tim Scudder (CEO at Personal Strengths USA) posted the following on one of the networking sites we both frequent: "Just read Outliers by Gladwell. 10,000 hours to achieve mastery!? Speaks volumes to the value of retaining and developing people."

I have often thought about the importance of developing and retaining good people. Clearly investing in the growth of our employees is essential to the success of the organization.

But,Tim's comment caused me to stop and reconsider my thinking about the organizational costs of loosing an employee who has reached a significant level of mastery. His comment made me think about the true value of the individual, and the importance of retaining and continuing to develop these exceptional people.

From a leadership perspective, the knowledge, skills and abilities of the people within the organization contribute to the success of the entire system. (See the blog post on Knowledge, Skill and Talent) The stronger your team, the more likely it is that you can achieve your goals.

In Outliers, Gladwell states “…[T]en thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert – in anything...” (P. 49)

At first blush it seems that this in not that hard to achieve. Any employee who had worked for five years has invested 10,000 hours in a job. So why is it that finding people who have achieved mastery is so rare?

When you examine what mastery requires, it is more than time-in-grade. Mastery requires study and focused effort. For example, an employee may come into the organization having an idea of what leadership requires, but they may spend only a few hours each week developing their leadership skills; only a few hours in practicing the craft. It may take many years, even decades, to achieve the 10,000 hours necessary to develop a great leader.

If you do the math (and this is admittedly very rudimentary math based on some very gross assumptions), at a total cost of $100 per hour (including all overhead related to employing a person), and assuming that a person spends maybe ¼ of his or her time actually working on developing mastery of a chosen field, it will take 40,000 hours for a person to achieve the 10,000 hours of investment in a chosen field. This is equal to about 20 years of work. During those 20 years, the organization will have invested over $4 million in that employee’s development. If the person spends significantly less than ¼ of their time each week invested in developing their craft, mastery may never be achieved.

What is lost when that 20 year veteran, that person who has achieved mastery, walks out the door?

At a minimum, you will be trying to attract another highly experienced person from a competitor or related business. According to Human Resources experts like Hewitt Associates and Bliss & Associates, the best case cost for lost productivity, recruitment, and training will be 150% of the person's salary. (Julie Clark, City of Carlsbad HR Director) In the worst case, you will invest years bringing the new person up to a level of mastery that was lost.

A leader (and the organization as a whole) must consider not only the monetary costs of loosing an employee who has achieved mastery, he or she must also consider the systemic costs.

What were the costs to the classical music world for the loss of Mozart? What would be the cost to Apple for the loss of Steve Jobs? How would the world be different today if we had lost the other masters of their craft before their contribution was made?

What would be the cost to your organization of the loss of key leaders or "masters"?

Tim said that the concept that it takes 10,000 hours to achieve mastery speaks volumes about value of retaining and developing people.

I believe that it not only speaks, it shouts.



.

What Makes a Culture Successful?

For decades there has been a discussion going on in the ranks of culture wonks regarding whether corporate culture has a significant impact on a firm’s long-term economic performance. The conventional wisdom says that there is a direct link between corporate culture and success. But, where was the proof?

In the early 1990s John Kotter and James Heskett published Corporate Culture and Performance, in which they studied the relationship between culture and success. Their work uncovers some of the things a manager or leader can do to create a culture that supports the success of the organization.

Admittedly some of the examples in the book are dated. The economy of 2009 has taken some very good companies into uncharted territory regardless of their culture. But, if we look at culture as something that survives beyond the economic cycle, that creates a foundation of the vision, ethics, reality and courage for those who live within the culture, we find that Kotter and Heskett have some great advice for leaders even in today’s turbulent times.

Having a strong culture is often cited as an important element in an organizations success. Kotter and Heskett point out that having a strong culture is not enough. History is full of examples of organizations with strong cultures that were either negative or did not adapt as the world changed around them. Strength of culture does not guarantee success.

These non-adaptive cultures were often characterized by arrogance, bureaucracy, centralization, and insularity. Managers tended to hold on to strategies that were no longer relevant. And, managers in these organizations were likely to make it difficult for anyone below them to implement new processes or procedures. The hierarchy required involvement from the top when implementing new or better strategies. (P. 142 – 151)

Successful cultures were those that had values and norms that helped it adapt to a changing environment. In these cultures managers paid close attention to the world around them, and made incremental changes in strategies and practices to keep the firm’s culture in alignment with “reality”. (See prior blog entries on Reality.)

These managers and leaders were driven by a desire to meet the needs of all constituents – customers, employees, stockholders, and the community. These values also emphasized the importance of people (See prior blog entries on Ethics.), and processes that encouraged changes that created “…competent leadership throughout the management hierarchy.” “[T]his value system is key to excellent performance … because it tends to energize managers and get them to do what is needed to help firms adapt to a changing competitive environment.” (P. 143)

The research of Kotter and Heskett has empirically shown that valuing vision, ethics, and reality are essential to a culture’s success. Their work also suggests that managers and leaders need to exhibit free will and courage to successfully lead their organizations through turbulent times.

……………….

For those of you who are interested in leadership, this might be a good time to go back and review some of the early posts on this blog related to the Dr. Koestenbaum’s work on the Leadership Diamond – Vision, Ethics, Reality, Courage.

Here are a few links, just to get you started:

Leadership Diamond Basics
Free Will
Going Deeper
What is Real
Change
Polarities
Asking the Right Questions

……………….

How to Search Prior Blog Entries:

To search for prior entries on this blog, you can type key words into the search box located in the upper right portion of any blog page. Typing "Reality" into the search box will yield all blog entries where the term "Reality" has been used.

Skills, Knowledge, And Talent

Please note that there are several great comments posted at the end of this blog. Be sure to click on the "comment" link at the bottom of this entry to see the comments. And, thank you to all who have shared their views.

______________________________________

We often read or hear about leaders who are described as skillful, knowledgeable, or talented. But, what does it mean to be skillful, knowledgeable, or talented? And, can a person who wants to be a successful leader become skillful, improve their knowledge base, or expand their leadership talent?

Part of the answer lies in the definition of skills, knowledge and talents. Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman examine the difference between skills, knowledge and talents in their book First Break All The Rules.

According to Buckingham skills are the "how-to's of a role" (p. 83). Skills can be transferred from one person to another. A person can learn a how to hold a golf club, build a house, write a sentence, or do arithmetic. Skills are an important part of being successful at any endeavor. And, without skill any resulting action or effort will be clumsy and ineffective.

Knowledge is "what you are aware of" . There are basically two types of knowledge: "...factual knowledge - things you know, and experiential knowledge - understandings you have picked up along the way." (p. 83)

Factual knowledge would be the rules of mathematics, accounting, scientific principles, or other similar fact-based information. Like skills, fact-based knowledge can be learned from others and/or gained through some form of education. (p. 83)

Experiential knowledge is harder to teach. It is less tangible, more related to patterns and connections. To gain experiential knowledge you must take time to stop, reflect on past experiences, and find meaning. Experiential knowledge may be different for each person because each will experience a different pattern of life. (p. 83-84)

Talent is a totally different phenomenon. Talent is the pattern of thinking and feeling that comes from the very core of the individual. Some people care deeply about precision and accuracy, discipline, and responsibility. Others have a drive to compete, be competent, strive to achieve a mission, or dedicate themselves to a certain belief. And, others may feel strong empathy, value interpersonal relations, dedicate themselves to the success of a team, or exhibit great courage in overcoming resistance. (p. 84-85) Buckingham breaks talents into three categories: striving talents, thinking talents, and relating talents.

• Striving talents explain the why of a person. They help you understand why a particular person cares deeply, and why they try a little harder than others in certain circumstances.
• Thinking talents explain the how of a person. They explain how a person analyzes situations, how decisions are reached, whether thinking is linear or intuitive process, or is the person systematic or creative.
• Relating talents explain the who of a person. They explain the relationships the person is likely to build, in whom will the person trust, the way the person will relate to strangers, and expose deep feelings about the way the person will manage interpersonal relationships. (p. 85)
  

Buckingham says that talents cannot be taught. If a person does not have a particular talent, there is very little a person can do to inject it into themselves or others. Talents are difficult (if not impossible) to transfer from one person to another.

If Buckingham is right, this creates an interesting situation for us in our role as leaders. It becomes essential to understand ourselves deeply; a process that takes dedicated self-examination.

Knowing our own skills, knowledge, and talents is the start. We can then develop ourselves through purposeful learning, receiving coaching, and reflection (making sense of our experiences). We can also make use of this self-knowledge to help us identify people who bring skills, knowledge, and talents to the organization or team that are complimentary to our own.

This self-development takes courage and the ability to admit that we may not have every attribute necessary to create success (or as Dr. Peter Koestenbaum would say, "Greatness").

Relying on others is easier for people who already have a strong relationship awareness skills, or what Buckingham calls "relating talents". (P. 252) It may be harder for people who tend to be autonomous thinkers. But, regardless of your personal talents, being able to bring the right people together at the right time is essential to the success of any endeavor.

If you are interested in doing some meaningful self-reflection, nothing beats having a great coach to guide you along the path. As one of my colleagues (and one of my unofficial coaches) Ray Patchett pointed out to me one day "Even Michael Jordan has a coach." No matter where you are in your career, the corporate hierarchy, or how good you think you are, there is no substitute for having someone who can help you take a realistic look at yourself.

In his article "Teaching Smart People How to Learn" (Harvard Business Review, May , 1991), Chris Argyris points out that professionals often find learning about themselves most difficult. Self-examination and questioning our own behavior is extremely difficult, particularly for those who have achieved some professional status. Having someone who can help you through the discovery process, who cares about your success, opens pathways to greatness that many never discover.

The more you understand about yourself the more you are going to be able to understand others. Also, the better you understand your own skills, knowledge, and talents, the better you can identify where to improve yourself, and when to bring others close to you to help fill in gaps.