I must be even slower than I thought at marketing. It dawned on me today that every email pitch for a webinar, seminar or program is suddenly adding something about “in troubled economic times” to the end of their usual program titles.

To wit: Talent Acquisition… in Troubled Economic Times” or “How Training Eliminates the Talent Gap… in T.E.T….” Get the idea? So I guess mine are “Effective Leadership… in T.E.T….” or “The Five Easy Skills for Success… in T.E.T….” (Repeating this so often on a page would probably not make Google happy, but apparently readers have an insatiable appetite for it.) This sounds suspiciously like “find the pain and offer to fix it…” plus our natural tendency to want to check every news or blog item that might have something intelligent to say about a situation that defies answers.

Personally I’m sitting on what I own and feel lucky I’m not so leveraged that I have to dump things at today’s loss prices. I’m not enough of a risk taker to go get a big loan and buy up what look like really good bargains at the moment, but I believe the market will come back… just no idea when.

The bottom line for leadership, though, is that we need to be better every day, rain or shine, good times or bad. It’s consistency that wins in the end, not temporary panic fixes. If we wait for “T.E.T.” to get serious about doing the right things, we’re missing a lot of boats along the way. Ah, human nature.

Maybe the title gives this away, but maybe not. With Coaching-style Leadership, there are still times when more directive leadership makes the most sense. Speaking at the HR program I mentioned a few days ago, there were a number of professional coach trainers in the audience. One who is totally committed to coaching as the best solution for all situations took me to task on this after my presentation, zeroing in on this one comment.

I’d said there are times when command and control is still the most appropriate style – and used an example of a sinking ship where you want the person who knows best what to do to assume control and direct the best actions for everyone, the more firmly the better – no panic, life jackets, lifeboats, line up here!

The coach trainer insisted that even on the Titanic, if the captain had coached, everyone might have been saved. In fact, it would undoubtedly have led to a better outcome if the captain had coached the crew sufficiently before the emergency so they knew how to take charge, but I can’t honestly see the opportunity to coach once the iceberg was hit. If you think about the coaching process and questions, is it really an appropriate time to ask people “how’s it going, what do you really want, what should our strategy be, what needs to be different and what will we do now?” Or do you hope the crew lines people up firmly, guides them into lifeboats and tells them how to launch?

The one antidote to panic is clear confidence from a leader who remains calm and balanced and seems to know what to do when you don’t. This is true for any situation, but in true emergencies, it can take a pretty directive leader to convince people. Once things are underway, you hope individuals will take initiative and you may be able to coach that once everyone’s in boats and away, but in those first stages of crisis finding the right balance of command first before coaching seems wisest.

A benefit of being invited to speak at events, albeit as a last minute fill-in, is you get to hear other presenters. At the Conference Board of Canada HR 2008 annual conference last week, it was a pleasure to hear Bill MacKinnon, CEO, KPMG Canada, discuss how he’s helped them embrace great leadership as a true objective throughout the organization. He keynoted the main conference theme – Influential Leadership - anchored to how this improves results.

He kicked off with the emphasis on why paying attention to leadership is becoming so much more important – because organizations, the challenges they face and the tasks of managing and leading them have become so much more complex. He proceeded to virtually itemize the same five key elements I build on.
Most striking of all, he very much emphasized the importance of leaders remaining “calm” (to use his term) in the face of the daily onslaught of challenges we now face. In other words, developing and maintaining the skills of balance in the midst of furious activity ended up being the point he stressed more than any other. I couldn’t agree more.

And balance, of course, involves including all the elements that must be balanced together so you don’t get blindsided by something you’ve forgotten about… like people’s attitudes and engagement, for instance, while you are nonetheless pushing for results. “Both/and” becomes a big challenge of complexity that many managers struggle with. Practice makes perfect. It was great to hear a CEO of a major organization put it in such a “must have, every day” light!

Today’s Training Zone (UK) item about pros and cons of blogging (free registration) drew the main opinions - it can be good for marketing, certainly for self-reflection by the writer, but nay-sayers cite their lack of time (and a wide-spread belief that it’s a vanity thing).

The larger question is who reads blogs and do they help? Clearly most of the people writing business blogs intend them to help and most must believe at some level that they do. Vanity undoubtedly drives a lot of short term efforts to get seen on the Internet, but to stick with it year after year, disciplining yourself to write two or three or more times  a week on your subject takes something more than vanity, especially if few ever read or comment on the majority of what’s out there.

Why bother? Of course some derive solid marketing benefits. I doubt that I will. I’m not great at marketing in any forum and see that a more of a by-product of the real question. For me that is… can blogging about leadership really help?

In organizations over the year, my most startling observation is there are so many people talked into leadership roles, for the money, the power, the prestige, the challenges and on and on, who have no training, no real inclination to lead or much knowledge of what its about at least when they start. In some ways perhaps that makes sense because leadership is best learned by doing. But lots of people never learn, which produces pain and misery for vast masses of employees, co-workers and organizations themselves so to speak.

The hopeful fact is that the best approach to leadership is extremely basic, human and easy to follow. Conversation about it can help. For me, I haven’t fully been able to figure out the best way to say it or develop those conversations widely. This medium may work. Only time will tell. It’s a new way to feel that I’m making the effort. As time goes on the results will enhance reflection and perhaps jointly the blogging community will ultimately identify what creates value and how. Right now it’s a bit of the wild west.

Workforce Management collects the most intriguing human resource challenges imaginable. A California software company announces it will hire only Vegetarians (the owner is one, so we must assume he imagines there is some moral issue involved unless he means higher cholesterol will cause greater health cost as we’re seeing with tobacco). On one hand one can applaud someone with the gumption to put their money at risk to promote what they believe in. He will certainly forego many great employees and others will lie, which will inevitably damage cohesiveness and teamwork. On the other hand do we find it OK to impose one’s will because one can?

Of course this goes on nearly everywhere in one form or another. It’s just that hiring managers mostly don’t mention their pet beliefs in their job ads. When I talk to groups of executives in job search I use my own case of being screened out of some jobs because I never played football or hockey well. I was terrible at basketball. I can’t run due to asthma. Scrawny as a kid, I went on to squash and swimming and grew to appreciate the team sports I missed sometimes taught great leadership lessons… though they also sometimes taught a sort of elitism that excludes a wide range of people as in the vegetarian example. No specific experience or lack by itself dictates later job results. It’s what people do job-wise that counts.

Today, for the moment, employers generally can’t be quite so prejudicial though many still subconsciously apply their beliefs for far less moral reasons. They really should look instead at the work an applicant can deliver and their motivation to do the work. Unless it’s for a job playing football or working for a company that makes it’s living selling vegetarian, then why are these relevant? In the grand scheme it doesn’t matter. Unless the number of vegan owners far exceeds their percentage in the workforce there will always be jobs for meat eaters.

Still, raising this low impact question highlights a raft of related issues managers should ponder when making decisions.

By now you’ve read that multitasking isn’t what people imagine and largely distracts us from effective work (Slashdot link, for instance). It’s really switching quickly back and forth between two or more tasks and each switch wastes time as we struggle to re-orient to the next item. That’s been well researched.

The problem is we all do it. And actually, if you think about it, a certain type of multitasking is necessary and worthwhile, though much isn’t. We need to understand the difference.

What helps is if we pay attention to the one key multitasking that helps us to be most effective, a facet we often overlook. While doing anything, the key question is what its effect will be on other people - will they be more motivated and more capable of helping get things done as a result of what we do?

Everything we do connects with others - customers, co-workers, family members, even other drivers on the road. If we plough through task after task to get "things" done as quickly as we can, it’s inevitable that we start ignoring people - the loud cell conversations in crowded places, the calls taken during meetings and dinners, the brush-offs of co-workers when we "absolutely" have to make something else a priority. No one learns from us, except that in future they’d rather have less to do with us.

The real multitasking requirement we all face is how our work can get done and at the same time people can be helped along the way so they, too, can be optimally productive, learn new skills, improve, grow and thrive. What else are we in business and in life for? And, by the way, some of that greater productivity and improvement will come back to help us get more things done faster ourselves. If we model helping, we will be helped in return. Reciprocity is our human link.

People at every level of work often ask how to cope with frustrations they feel sometimes to the point of despair. Some days it seems there isn’t a sane boss or co-worker anywhere. If it helps to know you aren’t alone, I can certainly reassure you. Not only do I have my own moments of despair (and I’m the only boss I have to blame for that), but being in the leadership coaching business, I hear this constantly from every direction. Unfortunately it’s part of humans working together.

People need to vent. It helps to have someone just listen. Often this can’t be a spouse because it causes them too much worry and they usually just want to convince you things aren’t so bad. Co-workers may cause problems, too, by gossiping about your venting. With splintered families and social relationships there are fewer listeners. A non-work friend or coach is definitely a better choice, but they in turn need to learn coping skills to handle the deluge that usually arrives.

Venting is healthy - to a point. When it goes over the same ground too many times and becomes circular, it’s just more worry. You need to break off the conversation and come back later. Once the person is stuck in the rut, they can’t and won’t let go. They just want your commiseration at that stage.

When you pick things up later, a technique called reframing helps. First, see the challenge differently - it’s a learning opportunity. You’re going to encounter many others like the person now causing grief. If you can learn to handle this one, you’ll be far less likely to reach this awful level of despair next time… so can we move from that to get focused on strategies for coping and improving the situation?

Examples might help.

Recently a friend told me how he’d actually jeopardized his career because he was so frustrated with his boss. He’s in charge of quality improvement and needed the boss’ support to insist other managers follow the process he’d designed. The boss kept advising to cool things off, but my friend is evaluated on results and there weren’t going to be any unless people cooperate. In a risky outburst he basically told the boss she wasn’t doing her job and should get off the pot and do it. This resulted in a counter-speech about "catching more flies with honey than vinegar."

Ouch! Listen when you get that comment. The boss is telling you to cool it and they mean it. Further outbursts are definitely likely to be career limiting. A far better solution is to draw the boss in by asking for coaching. Ask how you should approach people, how important it is to get results, what should you do if there aren’t any by year end? This way the boss can solve problems with and for you and can see what you see… that results, which she, too, is ultimately responsible for won’t be easy to get without a better strategy.

Another recent case: a co-worker of a friend was asked to present to a team meeting on my friend’s project (and take credit for work my friend has laboriously achieved in improving relations and results with a difficult client). This capped some obvious prior efforts by the co-worker to get my friend to give her all the information about the project. Was the boss suddenly favoring the co-worker and ignoring my friend and her effort? Well, it didn’t sound like it to me. My friend had opened our conversation by telling me she’d just been given a terrific performance appraisal rating her in the top 10% of all employees… by the same boss.

Once the venting was over (or at least waning), I suggested the boss might see my friend as so superior she was becoming a "fixer" - opening new client relationships, getting them up to speed and then being able to turn them over to a weaker co-worker and take on yet another challenging situation. If that’s true, that’s not only a great compliment, but a major step toward ensuring promotion to more money and responsibility.

Before venting to the boss or complaining, it’s important to seek feedback that could help determine if the better interpretation is or could be in play. Perhaps the boss hasn’t been fully aware that’s what they were doing and how my friend might react. If asked, "is this what you want me to do, train my co-worker," he might leap at saying yes… or at least begin thinking, "that’s not a bad idea," to my friend’s great benefit. Venting could hurt.

Often these useful twists only come to mind after the initial conversation. Both parties have to get out of the rut they set for themselves when they approach the situation with highly emotion. Emotions don’t let go within that first conversation. You need time out. The next day or so is usually soon enough to step back and ask more strategic questions, look at other possible interpretations and where they could take you. You can even go get several opinions (again, ideally from non-work, non-spouse parties). If you ask, "why else might someone have done [whatever it was]," you may be surprised.

Next - what if there isn’t a really good alternative interpretation? Settle on the most positive one you can even it seems far-fetched… and then check it out… doing so may actually help it come about. No single guess may be the best view. It often takes trial and error to work toward something positive, but just the step of coming up with one new idea to try takes a lot of the sting out of the situation and gets you back to driving toward a solution instead of just sympathy.

Googling "people skills" dredges up some mighty strange stuff. Their sixth highest listing is a blog or column in a publication called AskMen.com, Canadian Edition. I haven’t looked at the American version because this one is so… well… astounding. However, I’m easily won over. If it’s true that 5 million read this stuff, it has to have some value and impact.

If this is what it takes to get men, presumably mostly young men trying to find their way up in organizations, to read some of the 40,000 articles claimed on the site, it can’t be all bad. But you have to read to believe. The article in question on "people skills" is a said to be a re-post. Apparently this is a popular topic. It supposedly responds to a guy who asks how he can stop swearing so much at work. Would anyone really ask that? No matter, it supports developing effective social skills - much to be applauded.

The author suggests in the first couple of paragraphs under the tip "Speak Clearly" that men should wake up and become "eloquent" as a way of getting ahead. Sounds like a fairly big jump. To quote: "He can beautify, amplify and impress his colleagues with his million dollar words and witty comments." Say what, "beautify… his colleagues?" Even allowing for cultural differences in approach and language, that’s an unusual suggestion.

I was also mightily intrigued by the words linked to other articles. "Listen" shows up as a blue link to an article about the need to listen to your significant other - excellent advice, but some of the examples might be called questionable. The same with the article linked for "Emotions." Again, a laudable topic with undoubtedly good intent, but definitely backed up by what you’d say at the very least are ‘unusual’ examples. I’ll leave it to readers to check these out since reporting the contents would not really fit here.

The bottom line? Everyone is and should be concerned about their people skills at some point. If it takes rather odd examples to get through to a certain segment of potential leaders, so be it. It won’t be my market, but I’m glad someone’s making the effort. I just hope they graduate to something a little more focused at some stage.

Imagination makes us human, but challenges our happiness. Dan Gilbert points out in Stumbling on Happiness that what distinguishes us is our ability to imagine a different present, future or even past. Though he identifies many pitfalls, he doesn’t offer a lot of advice for solving the problem this raises.

We need this ability to be able to plan change, but it comes with a cost.

Writers such as Nobel Prize winner, Andre Gide, pointed out long ago that comparison makes us miserable. When we think how things could have been or could be different, we often torture ourselves with the thought. He noted: "In order to be utterly happy the only thing necessary is to refrain from comparing this moment with other moments in the past, which I often did not fully enjoy because I was comparing them with other moments of the future." 

Buddha offered a solution among his first principles (All life is suffering; all suffering results from desire), advising us to work at avoiding desire, meditating toward peace and acceptance, while Helen Keller advised: "Instead of comparing our lot with that of those who are more fortunate than we are, we should compare it with the lot of the great majority of our fellow men. It then appears that we are among the privileged." That she could do this despite severe disabilities provides a ray of clarity.

It isn’t imagination that creates problems, but what we do with it.

The same is true in leadership. If we dwell on what people could have done and make them miserable because of it, we won’t get nearly as good performance as if we appreciate even small progress and encourage thinking about what else can be done right now that can lead to great results in future. Finding the right balance, as always is the key.

David Norton presented in town recently at a Canadian Society for Training and Development meeting. He is co-developer of the Balanced Scorecard, now used for setting strategy reliably in many industries. Again its origins go back 15 or more years, but it has been adopted by far more organizations than the more complex Toyota Way. Hearing directly from the author always adds emphasis to the concepts, which by now are widely proven.

David didn’t present a lot that was new, but some audience members asked questions as if it was. It’s always interesting to see how deeply a tested approach has penetrated… or hasn’t. Its entire purpose is to ensure that when setting strategy companies build in goals, visions and measures for more than just financial results. The added ones needed to "balance" the overall picture usually include process improvement (like Toyota), people learning and growth (like Toyota) and customer focus (not so obvious, but clearly in the Toyota system). More and more those who use Balanced Scorecard approaches are including relations with suppliers and other stakeholders, too, in the aim of safeguarding sharehlolders "long term" interests.

It was interesting to see the evolution that’s happened in the Scorecard approach itself. Specifically it has become even more clear that managing people well for engagement and commitment are now recognized as broad foundation issues and often key in all the elements, not merely "part of the puzzle." That has broad implications.