Overcoming Character Flaws

Author: Dave Crisp

25 Jun

Is it possible to improve things like character, a perennial question!? Like most challenges in human relations, leadership and HR, the answer is the same – yes, we can change but it’s slow and not every gap can be completely filled. But most important of all it takes us back to the old joke: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?

We keep stumbling over this. The answer, of course, in its humorous way is: Just one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.

This is the crux of coaching, of training, of performance improvement programs and all sorts of change efforts: the people who need to change have to want to change. It begins with they have to see the need for change. So feedback becomes incredibly important for several reasons. First it shows the need, second it shows progress of lack of it now that the person is engaged and working to change and third it suggests where to try next whenever the effort to change isn’t working.

It’s probably safe to say most executives do want to change to some degree. We don’t get to the top without recognizing along the way that we need better skills, that some of what we do isn’t working, etc. But we probably would prefer to change invisibly, not publicly have to admit flaws or have them drawn to our attention. We’d all prefer to anticipate and make the changes before anyone really notices we need to. Unfortunately that isn’t always possible. So we’re caught in what is for some a dilemma. To change effectively we need honest feedback, but we would prefer that no one notice our flaws, in which case no honest feedback would be possible. Of course we know people have opinions and observations, but how to get at them without facing the scary feedback process remains for many a great puzzle.

The solution is fairly simple. Ask for feedback. Steel yourself for what you may hear. Make it as painless and worry free as possible for those you ask – don’t wince, snarl, deny or retaliate, even if retaliation is (in your view) minor sarcasm or push back. Thank the person, ask for more whenever they can think of anything and keep smiling while you leave the scene nicely without betraying your inner turmoil or upset. Feedback, even good stuff, is often upsetting and feels off-topic or unfair or all too painfully true. Whatever your reactions, they are the things you CAN keep to yourself while you keep smiling and treat people positively.

Change ultimately is up to us. If we communicate subtly or otherwise that it’s dangerous or unpleasant to provide us with feedback it shouldn’t surprise us when we don’t get it (or only get the whitewashed version).

So, can character be improved? You bet. But like my efforts to stop griping loudly while driving the car when my spouse is present, it isn’t easy. It was painful for both of us. Neither wanted to fight, but we most certainly did on many more occasions than should have been necessary. I even made little notes to myself (somewhat sarcastic at times). One, partly hidden at the bottom of the cup holder said, “Just don’t talk at all.” Making notes turns out to be a helpful step actually. This marked the point at which I made the decision that I had to be the one to resolve the “problem” (whether I truly bought that it was my problem or not at that particular point – I could hold onto that – maybe not all my problem, but I will solve it come hell or high water!) Slowly I began to anticipate my outbursts and head them off. After a couple of years at it, I can see I’m calmer overall and probably a better driver for it, but it wouldn’t have been a good idea to tell me that at the time. The feedback I needed most was simply to understand it made my spouse upset and nothing I could say would change that. I’m happy to report we now take long drive trips together without her threatening never to get in the car with me again.

How many staff relationships would hold up to this sort of stress remains to be seen, but honest feedback like this at work is possible if people respect each other and want to keep working together. It’s rare though and will remain so until bosses start making employees feel more comfortable in saying what they see.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 5 Habits - Action, Fix The Jerks, How Simplicity Works, Leaders of the Future, Learning Organization

The Challenge of Balance: Micromanage without Micromanaging

Author: Dave Crisp

6 Jun

Micromanaging is universally condemned these days. or is it? Employees say they hate it, having a manager figuratively (or literally) look over their shoulder and dictate every action, but time and again research shows that continual follow up by the manager ensures things get done and otherwise they fall off the table. For example this article pointing out “Nagging Pays Off” on bnet. So, what’s the right approach?

Such paradoxes aren’t just important for tactical application to day-to-day. They are critical to how managers establish the environment for greatest engagement and innovation. They say the devil is in the details and nowhere is this more evident than in this sort of puzzle.

Early on I read a lots of philosophy as a hobby (looking for answers to life problems of the time). I settled on Zen, which seemed to offer the most value. Through understanding that life is made up of paradoxes, of which this is just one example. It focuses on how to handle them, though not in the easiest format. I concluded you should simply accept both parts of the paradox and work with them equally, seeking a solution that acknowledged both – in this case ‘you should micromanage, but not micromanage.’

Either/or is fatal. Finding a resolution to a paradox is different from finding a single solution to a problem because the paradox never goes away or is fully ‘settled,’ but a ‘resolution’ is a working solution for most cases nonetheless. This almost always involves understanding the dilemma that’s posed and a balance of what is in play, using common sense even when the alternatives seem initially at odds.

In this case, yes, it is important for managers to follow up often. But you can do so without what’s usually meant by micromanaging or nagging. There are dozens of excuses to bump into employees in the course of a day or two. It’s logical to ask how things are going. If you also ask how they are (meaning personally) you establish some rapport generally, so ‘how are you doing’ and ‘how’s it going’ gets you into ‘how’s that project coming along?’ Sometimes you need to mention which one, but very often it will be obvious when you ask how things are going that you mean ‘that’ project, the one you’re regularly worrying about.

Employees will recognize what you’re asking about nine times out of ten, but won’t resent it if it’s done casually in the context of asking rather than instructing them on how to do it or when, or formally reminding them of their responsibilities and deadlines. In fact, they’ll appreciate that you trust them enough not to ask those detailed questions, but at the same time you achieve the objective mentioned in the bnet article – making sure the project stays close to top of mind with the employee.

So it’s a fine line, or one might say, a balance between following up a lot, but not nagging or micromanaging by repeatedly telling employees the steps they need to follow.

This works with bosses, too, and line managers where you can’t ‘tell’ them anyway. Things can be overlooked if there aren’t reminders. Sometimes just your presence reminds line managers to think about the HR aspects of their current challenges, but doesn’t require you to formally remind them at all.

This week’s Canadian HR Reporter reports on a recent study by HRPA and Knightsbridge about how HR people can show they ‘understand the business.’ One key to that is this sort of approach. You understand that supervisors and front line managers have to work at things in their own way. You don’t try to tell them too much in detail or enforce the letter of HR programs, but you DO keep reminding them gently that the HR objectives (of engagement, fairness, honesty, etc.) are there and need to be worked into daily routines until they become habitual for everyone. A single lapse doesn’t get you into ‘instruction’ mode, but if you’re there, paying attention, managers will notice you noticing and slowly, but surely try to adapt toward something better in future. Bashing at details probably isn’t ‘business friendly,’ but being a reminder of the value of working toward principles certainly is.

Often it isn’t the behavior, like continual reminders, but HOW it’s delivered. That, too, is a habit worth developing.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 3 Strategic - Thinking, 5 Habits - Action, Coaching Others, Coaching over Command Leadership, Fix The Jerks, Leaders of the Future

Mundane Habits are the Key Exciting Route to Change

Author: Dave Crisp

26 Mar

Extending the last post, we’ve now got more, incontrovertible scientific evidence about what is so hard about changing executive and organizational behavior and why. It boils down to how hard it is to change habits, not just of individuals, but of groups that form organizations. Wow, earth shattering?? It is actually.

To get the idea across, it helps to get people thinking about other changes they want to make in their lives and what those take. For instance, one might start out attempting to lose weight and before long you realize it is more about overall health. It doesn’t take much reading to discover the experts say diets mostly don’t work, that you need an overall lifestyle change – but what’s that?

In practice it means working on one thing at a time, but recognizing it will take more changes to support the one you’re trying to achieve. If it’s losing weight you soon discover it is generally thought the best route is through a combination of moderate dieting and exercise. Both these are sets of habits that take consistent practice to develop. Neither the diet nor the exercise pattern you initially try are likely to be the ones you finally settle on. There are ‘sub-habits’ that have to be developed and other old, established ones you have to ignore (change isn’t really the right word for habits – you never really lose an old habit, just install one that is more frequently used and becomes more comfortable in time).

Habit is comfortable and automatic, so you have to pay attention to notice what your existing habits are and work consistently (tolerating some feeling of discomfort) to practice new ones instead. Most of us don’t last long at this. We try exercising after those New Year’s resolutions or when we get back to work after the summer. and then peter out when work pressure takes over. We skip one visit to the gym, then another, another and finally we hardly go at all. We know how this works.

Instead we have to concentrate on when and why we’re not following through with a view to finding a better time of day, day of the week or whatever until simply by trying variations we start to find the ones that feel most comfortable. and at the same time, by forcing ourselves to try variations we are actually repeating the core element – in this case exercise. which starts to feel not only comfortable, but like something we miss if we don’t do it – it becomes self-reinforcing to a degree, but yes, we still have to make the effort and the time.

If a particular change is truly a priority, it’s because we truly believe it will be better for us in the long run. Building such true belief may take some practice and reinforcement, too, plus reading on the subject, talking with others and willingness to take advice or pay attention to the obvious. We have great skills at rationalizing why our current habits are “close enough” – anything to avoid the discomfort of practicing change.

We can hear the statistics (on smoking, say, or the benefits of a positive employment environment) on our future and still not act, or at least not act consistently enough to make change stick. Senior executives who refuse to work on improving the environment for engagement and individual innovation are no different from the many who prefer to huddle in the cold despite the health risks of continued smoking. I recall one CEO who liked to brag he could outrun same-aged non-smokers on treadmill tests despite his heavy smoking habit. So what? It’s still hard to argue his health wasn’t affected, but at least that’s a personal choice affecting only himself (and eventually his family). Maybe I was lucky early on that my two-pack a day habit didn’t give me a choice if I wanted to keep breathing. Some people desperately want to believe they will never come up against the wall even though they know it’s there in theory. and maybe some won’t change despite the risky gamble.

For CEOs who argue they don’t have to stop yelling at subordinates and firing people for the slightest mistake, the gamble and the consequences affect far more than the individuals caught personally in these episodes. Shareholders, suppliers, customers and all other stakeholders are being shortchanged. Sure a senior executive can get away with bad behavior for a time, but overall results of disengaged staff and high turnover of key people will eventually tell the tale. It’s just proven business fact. Those who don’t acknowledge this can keep kidding themselves, but the rest of the world is figuring out the truth. Increasingly Boards are pushing such changes in habits or ‘culture’ or finding CEOs who will do this for them.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 5 Habits - Action, Coaching Yourself, Fix The Jerks, How Simplicity Works, Learning Organization

Hold The Presses – Brand New Leadership Ideas?

Author: Dave Crisp

20 Mar

Can we constantly expect brand new ideas in the area of leadership and HR strategy? Probably not, but hope lives eternal and it’s amazing what keeps emerging from a continuing focus on one key question. That is: what stops so many senior executives, teams and organizations from applying basic HR and leadership concepts that we know for certain make for better results, engagement and retention of key employees?

Bloggers, speakers, news people and the rest of us will continue to write about this until we get an answer everyone can absorb and apply. I was surprised to see a great contribution about this recently. But I suspect like many, I got excited by it and then a day later I can hardly recall why I got wound up. It seemed so obvious and logical and so much like information we already know that it’s easy to discount it. As a result I have to get myself wound up again and I wondered why.

The answer seems to be that because it sounds like much we’ve heard before that takes away much of its validity. Do you find yourself reacting that same way?

The piece I saw is from ‘strategy + business’ (a site I wasn’t familiar with) talking about how to change people’s behavior and organization culture, aka habits, via a ‘modern understanding of brain research.’ Here’s the thing: they refer back to Adam Smith’s theories (in the 1700s) – that’s how long this discussion has been going on, not just (like most HR concepts) the last 100 years or so.

The drift is that to change habits is tough and requires constant repetition and encouragement. and habits are what perpetuate behavior and ‘culture’ of organizations (which is just everyone’s combined habits). They’ve wrapped this old observation in new jargon – brain research – and some of the findings are generally interesting, but they simply reinforce these basic observations that we already know, have known since at least Adam Smith’s time and yet don’t find management people acting on very often.

Yes, it clearly bears repeating, but having repeated it, have we learned anything new? That’s what we always ask ourselves. The answer, I believe, in this case is yes. We learn that a couple of big organizations have changed their cultures through this process. (That’s important, but minor because although we hear lots about change efforts that don’t work, these aren’t the only ones that have.) We learn that modern scientific research confirms what we generally know, so we are on the right track. There’s some biology at work that it helps to understand and counterbalance – and our beliefs are validated. (Those are always helpful, but again, not totally surprising.)

More importantly we learn a couple of seemingly minor techniques for developing new, better habits that actually could be very important.

First it’s clear the objective isn’t to eliminate old habits (you can’t), but to install new, stronger ones that will take precedence over the old – through endless repetition (in this case endless means you can’t let the focus shift rather than meaning it’s drudgery). You can figure out your old habits by watching your behavior closely, decide rationally what you want to change and start practicing. and persist despite how scary or annoying or frustrating it seems at first. And we ought to surround the core habit with as many new, supporting habits as we can possibly develop. Eventually the new behaviors become ‘the way we do things here’ and you’ve achieved your goal, provided you keep practicing, the more consciously the better so as to ensure when people AREN’T thinking about these things they will ‘automatically’ do the right thing. What you can’t do is order it, enforce a bit of practice and then stop and expect the new, good behavior to continue.

So, it’s always been logic, it’s been observed for centuries, now it’s scientifically proven. and it’s what we all strive to figure out – how to change culture. Shouldn’t that seem unbelievably exciting??? Let’s actually do it this time!

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 5 Habits - Action, Coaching Yourself, How Simplicity Works, Leaders of the Future, Learning Organization

Is Leadership Talent Overrated ?

Author: Dave Crisp

13 Mar

When you consider the book Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin (mentioned in an earlier post) there are many interesting implications for leadership and development of leaders. We do very little training of leaders. At best most companies might manage the equivalent of a couple of days in-house or a week-long seminar at various institutions, some better than others. That’s once or twice in a typical career, hardly continuous learning.

Often what’s taught in such programs is more supervisory basics – how to discipline, how to give and follow up an assignment. That’s hardly advanced leadership. In fact, the concepts of the boss setting fixed goals, following up and disciplining shortfalls, if over-used, are certain to detract from the deeper objectives of leadership, which would have to include coaching and encouraging employees to take initiative, risk trying their own new ideas and driving further than the coach/leader expects.

So if training isn’t extensive, how do our leaders get the 10,000 hours of concentrated practice needed to develop true skill at this highly complex task. The answer seems to be that in most cases (82% as we’ve pointed out from one study previously) they don’t. They remain at a ‘starter’ level of leadership skill that in turn extinguishes employee engagement with a few months.

The best practice organizations in leadership development utilize a range of tactics. They train, they ensure coaching and mentoring (whether internally or externally provided), they send people on developmental visits, they rotate people from assignment to assignment designed to fill in gaps in their experience and background. They try to ensure these on-the-job projects and roles are increasingly challenging and they try to support learning continuously.

If the best we can expect is about half a manager’s time dedicated to new or ‘leadership’ tasks versus routine stuff, it would take about ten years to get 10,000 experience on those skills. That’s probably pretty optimistic since most people won’t be continuously challenged, but will be marking time at least some of those years. Moreover they may not have support or guidance steadily to push progress.

However, we know that, given the right background, some individuals can learn at highly accelerated rates in jobs they’re ‘not quite ready for,’ that challenge them enormously in ways they haven’t experienced before, but find an ability to live up to. The person who suddenly finds themselves in charge in a crisis and excels is a well-known phenomenon. That way you pack 10,000 hours into a much shorter duration.

The problem is we can’t always engineer that sort of exceptional learning experience. As with so many events in life, it’s only if the individual decides for themselves they want to try and exerts immense effort that this can work. You could throw lots of people into challenges that seem over their heads only to find that they are in fact swamped and you’ve hurt that individual’s chances. Some would do better in the next challenge, but there is no guarantee of that and mean time, you’ve created a bad result for the organization as well.

From a Complexity Science view your best bet is to assume it may take at least ten years to hone leaders skills and set them on a path with continuous learning challenges, support and varied experiences, watching all the time for those who seem to have the potential to make a significant learning jump in a very large challenge. Complexity Science, however, doesn’t suggest the success rate will be 100%. More likely fewer than half would survive a ‘big jump’ in responsibility. The Science shows situations advance through continual trial and error with the emphasis on a few succeeding while many fail. So it’s probably better to encourage a great many managers to try small jumps, take relatively small risks and see who emerges with greatest effectiveness. At least then you have a learning culture that supports the bigger jumps when they occur.

If the penalties for small failures are negligible you can move those who don’t do as well to a new learning experience quickly and keep them growing. The more you can engineer this right across the board in your organization, the more effective leaders will begin to emerge along the way. And these will be true leaders who can take the organization far into the future faster, exactly the type we need for the continuous innovation companies today need to survive and thrive.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 5 Habits - Action, Books, Coaching Others, Human Resources (HR), Leaders of the Future, Learning Organization

Is Talent Overrated?

Author: Dave Crisp

6 Mar

On the subject of interesting new books, I stumbled on another, Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, in an airport, just had to have it and couldn’t put it down till the end. Like Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, you could say the main premise is it takes 10,000 hours of solid work to produce a ‘genius.’

Colvin refers to Gladwell, but takes the subject in a useful new direction. What he focuses on is debunking the common belief that some people are simply ‘born with talent.’ He covers eye-opening stories of ‘geniuses’ that can clearly be explained as due to hard work and consistent, life-long application to a particular subject.

Of course, if you aren’t the person who started singing, dancing or playing the violin at three years old and kept at it religiously into your teens that doesn’t change the fact you aren’t likely to perform at Carnegie Hall. But what it does impress on us is that continuous lifelong learning is the route to becoming better and better at whatever our chosen ‘talent’ area is. and those who don’t do it are destined for mediocrity. Of course we’re all born with or learn some skills early, but to be really good at something a tremendous amount of practice is necessary.

When you choose to pursue what you love, practice comes naturally. You simply do more of what you like, so getting people into jobs they really enjoy is critical in talent management and leadership.

Another key learning to draw from this for organization strategy is that internal candidates for leadership have a distinct edge due to longer experience within the industry and operation. Colvin makes a very good start, if not a totally researched argument, that their ‘practice’ is hard for outsiders to duplicate. It’s an interesting challenge to the idea that innovation requires outsiders to be brought in. He acknowledges the truth is that both are needed in some proportion. Insiders can get stale and simply repeat the same routines year by year, learning and developing nothing better, but they are the backbone of the operation and setting an outsider in the CEO role where everyone has to do as told by the new guy or woman rarely works.

Colvin promotes the idea of deliberate practice – choosing a target area to improve and working hard, trying hard. He points out most people do not do this. I can certainly confirm that many appointed to leadership positions don’t do this with the skills of leadership. These appointees rarely get training and even more rarely practice to improve after the first years, which are mostly pure trial and error. A few have some prior skills, but hardly the level of practice Colvin finds necessary.

Instead many managers settle into routines that get them by. They apply their own brand of psychology of handling people – ‘don’t give too much praise or they’ll get lazy; keep them on their toes; challenge everything because people can always do better than their first effort.’ Many executives apply such shorthand guidelines blindly to every one of their people as if every person responds to the same approaches. They argue doing otherwise ‘takes too much time.’ Well, Gladwell and Colvin are expecting 10,000 hours or ten years – not just of experience, but of deliberate practice at this critical skill that most people don’t start developing until their mid-twenties at the earliest. Sure they may have had some leadership experiences to copy or draw on from earlier days and some are truly insightful, but there is rarely dedicated or guided practice in these key skills. What are we doing to promote the extensive learning periods and continuous struggle to grow that this reveals is required to turn out the best?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

1 Comment

Filed under: 5 Habits - Action, Business/Strategy, Coaching Issues, Leaders of the Future, Learning Organization

What Level Was Einstein Imagining?

Author: Dave Crisp

8 Aug

Here’s another Proust-like ‘seeing the world with new eyes’ example that fits leadership and HR. This came to mind when a speaker at SCNetwork’s recent Diversity forum, Brenda Nadjiwan of Indian Affairs, opened her presentation with a quote from Einstein. It’s one I’ve often treated with impatience, partly because it seems almost obvious (have to say, though, we miss lots of obvious things) and partly because it suggests a new struggle and gobs of time may be needed to find a brand new solution. But wait, here’s what came to mind..

The Einstein quote is well known enough: Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. But perhaps Einstein had something different in mind than the obvious meaning that you have to rise up to a higher level of thinking to solve a problem created at a lower level. What if it’s the reverse?

In management strategy we frequently encounter the problem that the solutions we propose are “too simple.” For instance, we point to the tremendous power of simple recognition by senior managers as a powerful force for engagement and performance of staff. Just acknowledge good work we say. It isn’t rocket science. All it takes is literally saying something as simple as, “wow, thanks, that was great” or “I really appreciate your taking the time to think that through, I’m not sure I could have found such a great answer.”

What stops managers from saying stuff like this and reaping the benefits of improved performance from people who will strive like mad to do even better the next time just for a few more words of praise? Can we ever get enough praise? Do we ever get enough so we don’t need more for weeks and weeks and weeks? No. Most of us can absorb that kind of comment almost daily and still crave more. We know what this feels like personally, but we somehow don’t ‘get it’ that others who report to us respond the same way.

Managers argue that employees will tire of this, take it for granted, be even more upset when they don’t get praised next time because we established a baseline (and, oh, it’s work, it takes time, it’s hard to remember to do it – true until it becomes habit!). Many worry that most of the praise would be false, provided for work that’s just a basic expectation of the employee to do a job. Well, I’ve seen tons of employees not do the basics, so it never bothered me to thank people for doing their job and doing it quite well. I never seemed to have too much trouble distinguishing something I could thank someone for and make an even bigger fuss over something truly unique. Psychology tells us repeatedly that positive reinforcement works. So why not?

Isn’t this exactly a case of a problem being solved at a different, but ‘lower level’ of thinking – basic human needs – than the level that created it – expecting all employees to be so ‘grown up’ they just do their jobs because, after all, isn’t that what they’re paid for? Maybe managers are hung up looking for ‘higher level’ solutions when ‘lower level’ would actually work better. Maybe I’ll be accused of ‘lowering the level’ in organizations or in HR, but if it works, if everyone is happy and productivity increases, why not? What do you think?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 2 Positive - Feelings, 5 Habits - Action, Coaching Issues, Coaching over Command Leadership, Fix The Jerks

Learning Emotions – A Strategic Imperative Now

Author: Dave Crisp

30 Jul

Every so often a new idea comes along that you know will have huge impact – like email or Google – simple, yet startlingly powerful. Can you see the implications beyond the basics?

One area that’s particularly challenging to train or develop, but extremely important in 21^st Century leadership is how to help people improve at managing emotional content.

EI or EQ (emotional intelligence or quotient) has proven to be a key missing ingredient for a lot of otherwise promising managers and has never been more necessary than in dealing with today’s more capable workforce and knowledgeable customers. Only by engaging them fully and not turning them off can we unleash the creativity and innovation needed to keep up and keep ahead.

Now, from New Brunswick, a small start-up called Lymbix, has turned a budding idea into a practical application that just might help. but only if enough senior managers take it seriously and ‘walk the talk.’

It’s an add-in for Outlook email called ToneCheck (first version actually free for now at www.tonecheck.com). Like Spell Check, but for emotional content, it can review your email just before sending to see if it is likely to be misunderstood or cause offense. Simple to use, it highlights any section that sounds angry or fits other emotional descriptors so you can edit if you want to be sure you’re getting across not just your idea, but the tone you’re trying for.

According to Lymbix Founder and CEO, Matt Eldridge, “We want to help organizations precisely determine tone in any text-based communication. Email and text messaging services simply don’t allow us to gauge body language and verbal queues, leaving us with just text. With the growth of business email, it is becoming more critical to get the tone of your message right because you often don’t get a second chance with a customer of an employee.” (And can’t we all just think of times when we wish we’d taken a second look before hitting ‘Send?’)

This was developed partly in response to academic research studies that show 50% of emails are misunderstood by providing a practical way to review your hasty typing to make sure it will get your message across effectively. Though it takes just seconds to use, the key will be establishing that it’s needed. Unfortunately many of those who need it most will undoubtedly be last to click the check button.

The good news is senior executives (and HR) have an opportunity to make it clear they’re using it themselves and expect others to as well. People do what the boss does and what the culture expects especially if it takes only moments. The better news is if we can get even a few of our less effective managers to improve at this (and this tool is a learning guide that is private, easy to use and causes them to think in emotional terms they may never have bothered much about before) we all benefit.

We already see developments in robotic devices that assess emotions in people, that read faces, tones and body language and report or respond appropriately to others’ emotional states. Look for this area to evolve considerably in the next decade or two.

Not only for email, but there’s a huge potential spin-off benefit here. As people work privately to correct their shortfalls via email edits, they inevitably will learn to think before speaking as well before as snapping off emails. Imagine if a lot of ‘foot in mouth’ went away as a result of a handy tool people can practice with on their own as opposed to anyone preaching to them about the need to ‘be more sensitive.’ No one is comfortable on either side of an EQ conversation. Here’s a way to automate learning that’s increasingly important for our organizations to master for future success.

The key question is whether you and your teams will be ahead of this curve or less effective than those who are. This budding Canadian success story so far has one workable tool and more planned. Who better to help the world learn to be more tuned to human effectiveness than Canada – but just handing it to staff won’t ensure it’s used. It will requires clear knowledge that it is being used and is expected right to the highest levels. Isn’t that worth the saving in upset customers and disengaged staff? Just imagine 50% of emails today are causing problems. and what do we spend more time doing?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 3 Strategic - Thinking, 5 Habits - Action, Business/Strategy, Human Resources (HR), Leaders of the Future

Diversity Powers Innovation

Author: Dave Crisp

19 Jul

While moderating a panel presentation on Diversity last week, some points really struck home above and beyond some of the issues usually raised. First and foremost, “diversity powers innovation” is becoming clearer and clearer as time moves on. And innovation is the greatest need businesses have going into the an unpredictable future in which dozens of competitors are innovating at a furious pace using the massive amount of information generated by all of us on the Internet to get ideas and ‘how to’ information they can copy.

The most diverse teams come up with the widest range of ideas and offer the wide range of skills needed to implement them. But they are a challenge to manage, so better leadership is required.

What’s clear as well is that a single leader at the top of an organization or function makes an enormous difference. Only when the CEO (or function leader) puts an issue on his or her agenda, talks about it personally and follows its progress, does anything happen. This should be obvious, but like so many “obvious” facts, it is overlooked in a vast number of organizations.

The problem is you can’t talk about and monitor everything at once. You can’t make everything a priority. That confuses people, wears them out and makes them change priorities frequently as each item comes to the fore, so ultimately nothing is actually a priority except keeping your head above water – another “obvious” fact that is constantly ignored.

So what should a leader do? Again it sounds easy, but isn’t – pick the top three or four things and use them to drive results. Diversity today has to be among them because of the need for innovation, let alone that our employees, customers and other stakeholders are now more diverse and will work for, shop with and invest in only those they believe are on the right path (the latter being the good and sufficient reasons normally cited by diversity experts). Of all of these, it is the over-riding need for innovation that will ultimately drive the point home, but that hasn’t struck many organizations yet.

I’ll offer two examples that popped up on my screen recently. First is Antonio Perez talking specifically about how he learned the value of diversity and used it to resurrect Eastman Kodak, a company most of us thought was doomed for lack of it’s recognition that film was a fading commodity: http://bit.ly/9VbSkB and second, Clay Shirky, the media guru, talking about why newspapers have been even slower to recognize and find solutions for their dilemmas with the Internet eating their lunch (or more specifically their subscribers): http://bit.ly/18tDhy.

The more hidden point all this makes is that executives, human as they are themselves, tend to overlook basic human reasons why things are important. We see that diversity is valuable and can contribute, but we set up a ‘program’ for it and expect that will suffice. It won’t because our employees need reminders that matter from a boss that really cares about the issue and about them. We hesitate to make a ‘touchy feely’ item like diversity one of the top three objectives because we can’t quite overcome the feeling that today’s sales or marketing initiatives are more important. The fact is those will get done. done better than any one of us could do alone. if, but only if, we have a diverse and capable team around us. Get the right people in place and keep them motivated, that comes first. Is it something you can see in operation in your organization?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 3 Strategic - Thinking, 5 Habits - Action, Business/Strategy, Coaching Issues, How Simplicity Works, Leaders of the Future

Long Term Challenges in HR

Author: Dave Crisp

11 Jul

I suspect we often have trouble with messaging in HR because some key long term strategy issues appear trivial to many people. For instance, pursuing wider interests than just sales and profit not only takes one’s mind off day-to-day stress and so improves performance, but helps you notice how things work similarly in different contexts. Personal struggles can shed light on leadership challenges.

Here’s an example. A problem in HR is so many of our efforts only pay off in a big way if they’re consistently applied over time. Yet we work in organizations where leaders dream of quick solutions and want to hop from program to program in hopes some new phenomenon will instantly solve immediate problems. Can you deliver both?

I ran into an interesting piece in the online Gallup Journal (http://bit.ly/9WZXTE) about creating personal well-being (a sometime topic I follow). It makes the point strongly that many personal solutions we pursue – for example, losing weight by eating right – actually align for value in the short term, too – eating sensibly keeps you awake and energized through afternoons where you’d be tired and sleepy if you eat the wrong lunch .and long term you lose weight. We know these things more or less, but we seldom push them to logical conclusion. For some reason even though we know both long and short term effects are positive and therefore aligned, we still gravitate to old, comforting habits rather than fully developing new, better ones even though we also know the new ones would become comfortable and comforting in time if we simply persist. Managers have the same problem building better management habits.

Take something like getting managers to recognize employees good work every day. Establishing a positive recognition culture has tremendous impact on results long term, but it also gets great reactions and increases motivation right away employee by employee. We tend to take both these for granted. Many managers hear the message, but still fall back immediately into their comfortable habits of command and control with no recognition. Why praise someone who’s merely done what you asked (likely not even as well as you could have)? If instead you’re asking them to think up better solutions, some of their work will genuinely surprise and please you and it becomes easy to say ‘great idea.’

Buried in these seemingly minor, hard to grasp human foibles are keys to vastly better outcomes for everyone. There doesn’t seem to be a magic pill to overcome habit inertia. At present the only help we seem able to offer is explanations. They seem to make more sense when I see how they work so similarly in personal and work situations. Will such information help line managers change their style? Will it help me eat protein as a late night snack instead of chips? Can that sort of insight help my clients to see the value of asking for ideas and praising them instead of their usual ‘safe’ style of telling staff what to do day by day?

Is there a way to make such small insights help more with implementing long term HR strategies better? How can we make that leap?

Bookmark and share this post