The "Spring" in Your Step

Today I finally wrote down my updated business strategy (long overdue) and by July, I will be relaunching my website. At three years, it was time. As a small business owner committing time to the ongoing creative process is the most difficult thing I do. It is also one of the most rewarding aspects of my work. I had a very vibrant and challenging year last year. It was great. But it it left me with little time to reflect or dream - requisites for innovation and creativity. I was still moving fast, but the spring had left my step. I love that spring and I missed it. I also believe it is absolutely necessary for my work.

The spring is coming back and I feel the energy that only a compelling vision can provide. I am excited about some new ways I envision for my work, my clients and my life. If you find yourself in similar circumstances, do more of the things you love, nurture your heart and start tracking the things you do that give you energy - and do more of them forever. The spring will come back. I look forward to sharing new ideas and programs throughout 2010.

Get Bigger

Part of being human is being imperfect.  At some level we all would agree with this.  Why then do we often act so coy about the need for leaders to get bigger and better at their role.   As individual contributors, we often engage in development to contribute at a higher level or prepare for something we want to see happen.  As leaders, we must always change and get bigger because our context and people require it.

A really smart and wonderful client recently said that his weaknesses as sighted by his directs did not represent reality but rather their perceptions.  I agree.  He felt some relief when he realized this.  However, as a leader the reality that most matters is that of the people you are trying to inspire to their best contribution.  In a leadership role, other's perceptions of us carry more weight than our own. Leaders are accountable for getting work done through others.   We often need to grow and change for them.   Thankfully we also reap the benefits.     

A concrete example is forthcoming.  A client has promoted a leader to a higher level position due to her technical competence and the fact that she has delivered results in her prior role.   However, they also know from feedback that this executive has some required interpersonal development and needs to learn to better manage people.   She now has a much larger section of the business.   Her boss is hesitant to mention this when the promotion is discussed because he doesn't want to diminish the accomplishment.   Or, more commonly, the boss ignores what they know and doesn't say anything.  In about six months dissatisfaction with newly promoted executive's leadership style surfaces.   Still the head guy is hesitant to deliver contrary feedback - they did promote this leader.

The company promoted someone who they trusted to deliver results.  That makes sense.  With a larger staff, people management takes a bigger priority in the new role.   The necessary feedback is not about the executive.  The feedback is about the new context and the new requirements of the larger role.  It is not a blaming moment but represents a change and is based upon the demands of the position.  This is normal.    This is not just semantics.  If the company wants the team to succeed and do their best work, the promoted executive needs to expand her people management skills.   This will be good for her, good for her team and good for the company.   The change is not about the executive.  It is for her people and the company.    This is the requirement of leadership.  We don't do it for ourselves, we do it for the business and our people.   Once we become leaders of human beings, we change for them, and often reap the benefits ourselves.   

So I think the conversations is more like this:  "You do great work.  We promote you.  And because of the expectations-the larger staff, bigger demands, more complex role, role of a Vice President, etc.-of this position we need you to grow.   As part of your transition we will help you leverage your current strengths and expand your skills.  We particularly want you to work on _______.   We request this because we want you, your team and our organization to continue to do well."   Gosh, as I write this I wonder why this is not the normal discussion that we have when we promote someone.  Better yet, when you get promoted, ask for feedback and development.  Just assume that you have room to grow and you will.   

Keep growing.  Get bigger.

Don't Be Evil!

The first time I saw this now famous motto I was delighted.  As far as corporate philosophies go, "Don't be evil" is a pretty cool one.   Upon more reflection, I want more from this great company.   I want to know Google's positive intention.  

I describe intention as what you desire to create or make happen.   For more information on intention, read The Life We are Given by George Leonard and Michael Murphy.  Leonard and Murphy use the term "affirmation" to describe creating the outcomes you intend.   Forgive for Good by Dr. Fred Luskin provides another take on intention.  Dr. Luskin uses positive intention to connect us to our original goal or desire to help release ourselves from unproductive grievances.   

When creating an important intention it is more powerful to:

• State it in the present tense (even if you are not there yet)
• Describe your intention positively

The problem with "Don't be evil" or any intention stated in the negative, is that it doesn't describe the behavior you want or expect.   I want to know what positive actions are desired.   To make this more powerful (by powerful I mean the degree to which it can inspire the desired outcome) tell people what you intend or expect:

"We treat people well"

"We take actions that create good in the world."

"We do what is best for the world, our company and our people."

Even in our daily interactions we can hold positive intentions.   It is the difference between saying, "I don't bully people" v. declaring, "I create collaborative relationships with shared power."  I also like positive intentions because they describe that to which we are committed.   And that makes us more accountable - which is just good stuff.

Do well, be powerful and do good.  

SAT Feedback

What keeps you from giving the feedback that your team needs?    

Clients tell me that the biggest impediment is time.  My experience in working closely with groups of leaders is that the other big challenge they face has more to do with skill and emotions (and the two are linked).  If you are a manager, one of the most important things you do is to provide both performance and developmental feedback to your staff.   To be good leader, you must be skillful at this.   For the purpose of this article I will focus on performance feedback.  Let me distinguish performance v. developmental feedback:

• Performance Feedback is focused on aligning the individual actions and behaviors with the needs of the role and goals
• Development Feedback is focused on expanding the individual's skill set to advance their contribution, confidence, and career.  

There is crossover.  Sometimes the feedback you provide serves both needs.   Whatever you currently do, here is my take:

• All feedback, constructive and positive should be SAT   
• Follow the same "ground rules" for positive and constructive feedback
• Just practice and you will get better at it.  

SAT feedback is:

1. Straightforward - plan what you need to say and say it directly

YES - "I want to talk about ___.  This (specific aspect) needs to improve in the following ways." 

NO  - "Overall you did a good job but I want to understand why you did ....." (you are trying to "soften it"....for what purpose?) 

2. Accurate - ground your feedback in data, observation, work product and facts.  Get rid of any judgement - it is unnecessary.   You need to see behavior that matches the needs of the role and goal.  

"You're presentation was disappointing." is better stated with specifics of what the presentation was lacking and what you need to see in the next (just the facts).   Give them a resource if they need it (direction, coaching, a partner who is great at what they need to practice or a class). 

3. To the point - Keep feedback as simple and short as possible. Economy of words makes all feedback more powerful.  Their actions and impact of outcomes are the focus of your feedback.   Why they do what they do is unknowable unless they are aware of it and choose to tell you.  

I could do another entry on dealing with emotions, yours and theirs. For right now let me just say that you provide feedback because they need it.  Good feedback makes us all better.   Observe what it is like for you, take care of yourself and do it anyway.  My final point on this deep subject - give LOTS more positive feedback and make it SAT.   Include as much specific data as you would with constructive feedback.  Routinely call people into your office or a conference room to celebrate their performance and provide positive feedback.   Do this 3-4 times as often as you provide constructive feedback.  If you do this, your constructive feedback will be more powerful and meaningful.

Get going, SAT.

Being Skillful at Receiving Feedback

Of all the work I do with organizations and individuals, one of the most complex is helping clients improve the quality and effectiveness of their feedback processes.  It is complex because it evokes all sorts of emotional responses from people.  For the purposes of this article, I will focus on the skill of receiving feedback.

If you are a leader, knowing how to receive feedback is particularly important because you serve as a model for others.   Also, if you ask for feedback on a regular basis, you set a standard that feedback is an important part of continuous improvement.   Asking for feedback from your direct reports, peers, boss and others in your influence circle is something you can do once or twice a year, or corresponding with important project cycles.    One caveat; if you ask for feedback, it means that you are willing to take action on items you hear multiple times and make the requisite changes.  If you aren't willing to make any changes, don't ask for feedback. 

 To start the process:

1. Clarify the goal of the feedback meetings. (To improve a process, develop as a leader, etc.)

2. Prepare a short (3-4) list of open-ended questions.   

3. Create a list of people from whom you would like feedback 

3. Send out a simple request with the goal (as outlined in #1) of the meeting and include the questions so they can consider them in advance.

Next you need to prepare for your presence.   Consider your intentions for your body, your tone and your demeanor:

1. What do you intend for your body? (What does calm or interested look like?)

2. What about the tone of your voice? (What does it sound like?)

3.  How will you take care of yourself as you listen to the other person's feedback?

Set aside a few minutes before each meeting to review your goals and your vision for your presence.   

There is only one instruction for the actual meeting: listen with your whole body.   Ask the question and wait to speak until the other person has completely finished.   Take a full breath after they stop talking to ensure they are done.   You may take notes.  If you are genuinely curious or confused about a response, you may ask a follow-up question.  I caution you here because I don't want anything (tone of the question, for instance) to get in the way of the other person feeling completely heard.   So check in with yourself and consider how you are feeling before asking the question.  

Afterward pull out 1-3 things you heard over and over and plan the changes you will make. As follow-up with those who gave you feedback, share your appreciation and your next actions. Feedback from others is essentially an expression of their needs.  How you receive it, is an expression of you. 

Delegation Obligation

This post is for all you pacesetters out there.   To ensure that we are not wasting your time answer the following questions:

1. Were you promoted to a manager because you were highly technically proficient and got things done?

2. Do you know more than those who currently report to you?

3. Do you still love to take a project and get it done on your own?

4. Do you currently work harder (longer) than your direct reports?

If you answered yes to three of these questions, chances are you are practicing the pacesetting leadership style a bit too often and that you still need to up your delegation game.   Although I could write a book on this, I will instead give you an important distinction regarding your delegation obligation.

If you are not delegating enough important work to your directs, or if they aren't allowed to just grab cool projects, then it is safe to say they are not getting the development they need.  If this has been going on a while - more than 6 months or longer, it is also safe to say:

1. You have already or will soon lose your best folks (they will develop with you or somewhere else)

2. You will undermine your direct report's ability to advance

3. You will be unprepared for a larger leadership role (at some point you can't do everything yourself)

4.  Eventually you will build a reputation as a leader who does not develop others (and you won't attract the best)

If this rings familiar or if you are resisting this info a bit too strongly, start delegating.   Ah, you "don't have time" you say.   I know this is true because you are so busy doing the work!   It will be more time consuming at first to delegate and you will need to provide the right amount of structure and support.  It will be uncomfortable and you may feel nervous for a while (no, it won't be the same as when you do it).  So, feel uncomfortable and nervous.  Leadership is about getting fabulous stuff done with and through others.   Practice delegating and you will get better at it.   

Yes, you are still wonderful and it's not just about you anymore.

Common Sense Rules

Of the many tools that I use when I work with organizations, one of my favorites is the Organizational Climate Survey (OSC), published by the Hay Group. It measures organizational effectiveness on six dimensions that consistently demonstrate the greatest direct impact on individual and work unit performance. It is also something many leaders directly impact.

One of these dimensions is called "Flexibility". As defined in the OCS Technical Manual, the flexibility dimension measures "perceived constraints in the workplace and the amount of red tape - particularly unnecessary red tape-in the organization." Flexibility in this context refers to rules, policies or procedures and the degree to which the organization is willing to stay open to the most efficient and practical way of getting things done and how adaptive rules, policies and procedures are to new circumstances in light of change.

You are expecting an example and I have several. Most client organizations have policies about who gets an office and who gets a "work station". I use this example because it is fairly universal to organizational life- but any policy may apply. One organization made a policy that work station size would be determined by position level regardless of requirements of the job. When the company moved to its new location, a designer in the organization found his work station to be the smallest available. He was upset and raised the issue to his boss. His boss discussed the issue with corporate HR and they confirmed that this was the work station available to someone in the designer's grade level. The designer made the case that his position required all sorts of samples, pictures and material workbooks. He was crammed into the tiny space and very upset about the situation. He is considered a high performer by his boss and peers. He is now looking for a new job.

Of course all this might seem petty at a certain level. Experience tells me it's not. My interest is in how this rule is impacting the productivity of this individual and countless others who have been given the smallest work spaces. It seems like the company was thoughtful and fair on one level. On another level, in light of certain positions, it is perceived as an unnecessary constraint. This employee isn't asking for more money, or demanding a higher level position. He wants a work space that supports his work. This is in line with what the Gallup organization found in their 1998 survey. One of their key 12 indicators impacting productivity, profit, turnover and customers service is "I have the materials and equipment to do my job properly." I am curious about the cost of this (or any) rule to the productivity and profit of the organization. I wonder would the one time cost of providing a larger work space for all employees offset the impact of the current situation to employee profit and productivity?

In another client organization the decision was made to give offices to officers of the organizations (a small number of top leaders) and the same size work stations to all other employees. When they moved into the new building a few years ago, the memo went out about the decision regarding limiting offices to allow the maximum amount of natural light on all floors. The building is full of light and space and offices take up a very small portion of each floor. The work stations are spacious and comfortable and all the same. Occasionally I hear high level leaders talk about looking forward to becoming an officer so they can have an office. But I haven't heard a complaint amongst anyone else. The difference in impact of this policy is tangible. No one knows the level and salary of anyone based upon the size of their work station. They just know they are not officers in the organization. This rule seems to work and not cause unnecessary constraints or impact to productivity.

Tonight on CEO Exchange on public television I heard Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel, mention the highly collaborative nature of the work at Intel and the way their office is designed to support this. He told the interviewer that for this reason they have a very open office environment and all employees have work stations including him. I am struck by Intel's perspective compared to the first example I use. Sometimes I am puzzled; why it is so difficult for some companies to just do what works? Be it ego, or power, or lack of imagination, it doesn't really matter. How an organization's rules and policies support productivity or detract from it can be measured. We now know that stupid rules are linked with lower business performance.

Flexibility seems particularly important in light of the amount of change many of my clients are experiencing. The point is get any unnecessary rules out of the way. If you can, make rules that make sense, communicate why they make sense and be flexible. If you find yourself having trouble explaining them in a way that is practical and easy to understand, question the rule, policy or procedure.

For organizations, common sense rules rule.