Michael Timms's Blog, page 4

Why Your People Strategy Should Focus on Employee Development

Most companies have a business strategy, or a “strategic plan,” but far fewer have a people strategy.  That’s kind of ironic because how can an organization have any confidence in their strategic plan if they don’t know whether they will have enough of the right people to execute that plan?

There are three primary goals of an effective people strategy:

Find the Right People (Recruiting). Find people with the essential skills to do the job and who model the company’s values and behavioural competencies.Help Them Reach Their Potential (Development). Help employees become outstanding at their current job and prepare them to take on greater responsibilities.Keep Them Engaged (Engagement). Ensure employees remain enthusiastic about their work and committed to the organization.

Given these three primary goals of a people strategy, which goal do you think is most important?  The correct answer surprises most business professions, and even many HR professionals.  It’s employee development.  Here’s why.

Development Reduces the Need for Recruiting

Organizations that are world-class people developers have a far less workforce planning / recruiting to do for three reasons.

Most of their management positions are filled internally.Their turnover will almost certainly be lower (see higher engagement below).Most of their recruiting is focused on entry-level positions, which is far easier and consumes fewer resources than recruiting experienced candidates.Development Leads to Engagement

Similarly, organizations that are world-class people developers naturally have higher employee engagement because:

The principle driver of employee engagement is good managers, not benefits and perks. Cultivating better leaders is one of the essential goals of employee development.One of the top reasons (if not THE top reason) why employees choose to stay with an organization is the availability of career development opportunities.

 

You might think of your people strategy as a three-level pyramid which highlights an organization’s three primary people goals with the main emphasis on development.

[image error]

The bottom line is that organizations that focus their people strategy on employee development are far more likely to achieve the organization’s other two people goals.

The Two Most Common Mistakes Organizations Make in Employee Development

In my experience, executive teams spend far too little time discussing employee development.  Perhaps its because they don’t understand the profound impact that developing their employees has on the organization’s people strategy or its business strategy.  Or perhaps they just don’t know a better way to go about developing their employees.

Most organizations simply add employee development conversations to the last page of the performance evaluation form.  This is the first and most lethal mistake organizations make in attempting to develop their employees.  After a manager and employee slog through the torture test know as the “performance review,” neither of them has the time or energy to have a thoughtful discussion about career development.  Consequently, most development plans are reduced to “take a course on effective communication.”  This is not a development plan—at least not one that will make a material difference.

The second most common mistake organizations make in employee development is leaving development conversations solely up to the manager and employee.  Let’s be honest, a manager is not naturally motivated to spend very much time and energy to prepare a member of their team to advance out of their current role and perhaps out of the department.

How, then, can organizations rise above the sea of mediocrity and become world-class people developers?

How To Become a World-Class People Developer

Becoming a world class people developer is not as difficult as you might think.  It begins with separating performance discussions from development discussions.  They are two distinctly different conversations that deserve their own time to discuss.

Another step on the path to becoming a world-class people developer is to provide employees with trained career coaches to help them create a development plan that is focused on gaining new experiences, not simply taking courses.  Employees who sign up for a career coach are referred to as “career owners” because they, not their employers, are in charge of their career development.  Career coaches meet with career owners about once a quarter to review progress and to help career owners stay accountable to their development plan.

To see how this might work in your organization, check out the video below of how the City of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, went from a typical organization that struggled to provide real development for their employees, to a world-class people developer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Does a World-Class People Developer Look Like?

You don’t need to be a high-tech company with bean bag chairs, or a Fortune 500 company with an on-site chef.  No, any executive team that understands that they can’t achieve their goals until their people achieve their own goals is qualified to be a world-class people developer.

[image error]

The City of Moose Jaw was recently recognized by the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators with the “Award of Excellence for Professional Development” in the 20,001 – 100,000 population category.

You can check out their 2 min award video HERE.

Congratulations to the City of Moose Jaw for their outstanding achievement!  I am proud to be part of their success story.

The post Why Your People Strategy Should Focus on Employee Development first appeared on Avail Leadership.

The Test of True Leadership

With all that’s been written about leadership, it’s surprising how much misinformation exists on the subject. Leadership is not the mysterious cosmic force that it’s been made out to be. It isn’t an art, and it has little to do with charisma.

Before I share possibly the most succinct and complete definition of leadership I’m aware of, and a way to discover if you are a true leader, let’s first clear up what leadership isn’t.

The False Dichotomy of Management Versus Leadership

Social media posts are full of tables and infographics like the one below contrasting management with leadership.

[image error]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definitions that pit management against leadership like this are garbage. Like soda pop for the brain, this simple way of differentiating managers and leaders might taste good to consume, but in the end, it’s just empty calories.

This soda pop definition of managers versus leaders simply separates the operational activities of management from the strategic. At worst these caricatures demonize the term “manager,” making it synonymous with “bad leader.” Consequently, the word “manager” has become something of a repugnant term in modern business literature.

The soda pop definition of management and leadership promotes three false notions.

Managers and leaders are on opposite ends of the same spectrum. They’re not. CEOs VPs, directors and managers are all management positions.The CEO is the visionary strategic thinker and is therefore excused from being disciplined, organized, and aware of the details. This, again, is false. People who are disorganized and chaotic inevitably create disorganized and chaotic organizations. This, by definition, is the opposite of what an “organization” is supposed to be. Good leaders are also good managers.Being an executive means you’re a leader. I get an involuntary twitch in my neck when I hear senior management teams refer to themselves as “senior leadership teams.” When I hear this, I picture Napoleon crowning himself emperor. You can’t designate yourself a leader. Your position in the hierarchy has nothing to do with leadership. You are only a leader when others willingly follow you because they trust and respect you, not because they fear the consequences of not doing so. When organizations use the terms “executive” and “leader” interchangeably, people begin to believe that leadership is a position reserved for only a few. This notion is categorically false.

You are only a leader when others willingly follow you because they trust and respect you, not because they fear the consequences of not doing so.
Click To Tweet

Management is a position. Leadership is how one chooses to influence others. They are apples and oranges, so let’s stop comparing them. The question isn’t about the difference between management and leadership. What we’re really talking about is the difference between how people choose to influence others to achieve the desired results.

Two Methods of Influence

There are basically only two ways people can influence others.

Coercion: This occurs when someone in authority uses positional power to obtain the compliance of others by controlling their outcomes, such as determining their compensation, benefits, work assignments, and working conditions. People do what those in authority want them to do because they are incentivized to do so.Leadership: This occurs when people voluntarily choose to follow someone else. People do what leaders want them to do because they trust and respect their leader.

Leadership is the skill of getting others to move in the right direction without coercing them. Any time someone leans on their formal authority to get compliance, they cease to be a leader.

Leaders Care About People and Results

People in leadership positions who are primarily concerned with getting results tend to rely on coercion to get those results. Leaders, on the other hand, care as much about the people they lead as they do about achieving the desired results. Leaders demonstrate that employment is a contract and a relationship. The contract is the exchange of value—labor for money. The relationship is about how employees feel about their work, their boss, and the organization that employs them.

People don’t decide how hard to work or when to quit based on the stated or implied employment contract. Human beings make decisions based on their feelings and simply refer to facts to justify their decisions. This is why the relationship portion of employment is as important, if not more important, than the details of the stated or implied employment contract. True leaders have a dual focus on people and results—the relationship and the contract.

Leaders care as much about the people they lead as they do about achieving results.
Click To Tweet

Leadership Defined

Leadership is about helping others reach their potential while also ensuring that the team achieves its goals. If we distill this observation down to its simplest form, we are left with the following definition of leadership.

Leaders elevate others to achieve a common goal.

Based on this definition, who can be a leader? Is the title of “leader” reserved only for the heads of companies or other organizations? Must one be an executive to be a leader? The beautiful truth of leadership is that anyone can be a leader if they want to. Leadership begins with caring about people and results. The rest is learnable.

The Litmus Test of Leadership

How can you know if you are truly a leader as opposed to someone who simply occupies a leadership position? The answer to this question can be found in the analysis of the definition of leadership. Let’s take a closer look at the key elements of leadership.

Elevate others. Leaders elevate others by helping them discover and enhance their strengths, encouraging them to exercise their agency, and by building their confidence in their abilities. Like parents, leaders make personal sacrifices to help others reach their potential. This includes sacrificing their time, ego, and status, restraining their impulses, and inconveniencing themselves to make a difference in someone else’s life.Positive change. True leaders bring out the best in people and inspire positive change. Terrible leaders bring out the worst in people and inspire negative change. Positive change is motivated by a desire to build a better future without causing harm to others. In contrast, negative change is motivated by fear, revenge, greed, and selfishness and usually ends up benefiting some and hurting others.Achieve a common goal. Inspiring people to act is only half of the equation. Leaders mobilize others to realize a worthy goal that one person alone cannot achieve. Followers are willing to do what it takes to achieve the common goal primarily because they are inspired by: a) the goal itself, b) their leader’s character (not to be confused with charisma), and c) their leader’s care for them.

These three elements of leadership—elevate others, positive change, and achieve a common goal—combine to produce willing followers. Therefore, the litmus test of leadership is the answer to this question:

Would anybody willingly follow me if they weren’t being paid to do so?

Based on this test, how many people in positions of authority are really leaders?

The above definition and test of leadership may sound like the ideal because it is so far from the norm, but this is how true leadership works, and it is possible. Maya Angelou famously wrote, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” How did she learn this? Angelou worked with Martin Luther King Jr. as a civil rights activist and fundraiser. King inspired Angelou to adopt and achieve his dream because, in her words, “He was a prince of peace” and dispensed “a comfort of courtesies while trying to make wrong right.” On another occasion she said of King, “He had no arrogance at all. He had a humility that comes from deep inside.” King’s influence undoubtedly elevated Angelou to reach a potential she likely wouldn’t have dared imagine before meeting him.

Abraham Lincoln’s biographer wrote that “The powerful competitors who had originally disdained Lincoln became colleagues who helped him steer the country through its darkest days.” Edward Bates was one of Lincoln’s rivals for the presidency. Lincoln eventually appointed him as attorney general. Even Bates, who initially viewed Lincoln as a well-meaning but incompetent administrator, eventually concluded that Lincoln was an unmatched leader, “very near being a perfect man.”

Fortunately, you don’t have to be perfect to be a leader. You simply need to care deeply about people and results.

Discover how to demonstrate that you care deeply about people and results by learning three powerful accountability habits in my new book: How Leaders Can Inspire Accountability.

 

[image error]

The post The Test of True Leadership first appeared on Avail Leadership.

Why We Keep Getting Bad Bosses and How to Stop It

Julie Payette is an engineer, a scientist, and a former astronaut who speaks six languages, is a critically acclaimed musician, has held executive positions at the Montreal Science Centre and the Canadian Olympic Committee, and has a school named after her.  By anyone’s standards, she is an extremely accomplished individual.  That must mean she’s a great leader too, right?  Wrong.

That line of thinking, that a great resume equals leadership ability, is precisely why terrible leaders continue to be hired and promoted into top leadership positions within business, government and non-profit organizations throughout the world.  How many times have you seen examples of terrible bosses and thought to yourself How in the world did they get that job?  The answer is staggeringly basic.  Most organizations treat appointments to leadership positions so casually that they fail to articulate a standard of leadership and make this standard the criteria for promotion.  It is that simple.

That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mistake when he made Julie Payette the Governor General of Canada.  His mistake was compounded by the fact that a simple reference check would have revealed that she received complaints of mistreating staff at both her previous executive positions.

Payette resigned from her position as Governor General on January 21, 2021 after a damning workplace investigation revealed that she was the epitome of a toxic boss.  Payette presided over a department of more than 120 government employees.  About half of the current and former employees interviewed in the investigation described the general work environment as “hostile, negative or other words to that effect.”  A quarter of the respondents specifically used the words “toxic” or “poisoned.”

More disturbing than the sheer number of complaints were the descriptions of Payette’s leadership style.  For instance, Payette frequently required her staff to huddle around her on flights home from trips abroad where she routinely criticized them in front of their peers.

A former employee said “I would say in almost every meeting somebody was berated. There was, I’ll go as far to say, a victim at every meeting.”

A government source added “She needs to control absolutely everything. If things don’t go the way she wants it to go, she needs to find someone responsible for it.”

Payette would also put staff on the spot by quizzing them about space, such as asking them to name all the planets in the solar system, or to state the distance between the sun and the moon.  “She loves these gotcha moments,” said another source. “She’s just smarter than you and she likes to let you know that.”

As a result of the work environment Payette created, sixteen of the people interviewed in the investigation left their jobs within a year of each other, and another thirteen reported taking sick leave.

As is often the case, employees in the Governor General’s office had no way to report the abuse without reprisal. Human resources was seen as simply a middle man with no influence to make any changes.

Confusing Confidence with Leadership Ability

There is a pervasive flaw in human perception and reasoning which tends to propel precisely the wrong people into leadership positions.  This error of cognition is that we tend to confuse confidence with leadership ability.  Consequently, self-promoters who come across as confident, charismatic, and bold, often get the top jobs.  The problem is, there is very little correlation between confidence and leadership ability.  “We assume that confident people have more potential for leadership,” states leadership researcher Thomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “but in any area of talent, including leadership, there is very little overlap between confidence—how good people think they are at something, and competence—how good they actually are at something.”

There is, however, a correlation between overconfidence and a) low self-awareness, b) lack of empathy, and c) selfishness.  People who are certain of their own rightness in any situation tend to try to force their will on others, squash dissenting perspectives, and attack anyone who dares criticize them.  This might explain why studies have shown that psychopathy and narcissism are about five times more prevalent among executives than the general population.

Overconfident people with low empathy have no problem bullying others into submission to advance their own agenda or grinding value out of subordinates to elevate themselves.  Ironically, the self-assertive qualities that propel people into leadership positions are the same qualities that tend to make them terrible leaders.

The self-assertive qualities that propel people into leadership positions are the same qualities that tend to make them terrible leaders.
Click To Tweet

Confusing Performance with Leadership Ability

High-performing jerks continue to be found among the leadership ranks in many organizations.  However, employees who have the greatest positive impact on people and results can fly under the radar because they prioritize team success over their own glory.  A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that the better an employee was at sales, the worse they were at managing others.  The study also revealed that the inverse was true. Sales actually increased under managers who produced lackluster results in their previous sales roles.

In explaining their findings, the authors of the study noted that star individual performers tend to collaborate less with their sales colleagues. When more collaborative but less successful salespeople were promoted to manager, their teams achieved 30 percent more sales than teams led by less collaborative managers who were previously more successful as salespeople.

This phenomenon is as true in sports as it is in business. Star baseball players, for example, might be able to hit home runs and sell admission tickets, but they don’t necessarily win games. The movie Moneyball tells the story of how Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, forever changed the game of baseball in 2002 by exploiting this fact.  After assembling a team of low-profile players who played more for their team’s success and less for their own personal glory, Beane’s club went on one of the longest winning streaks in baseball history and was able to compete with baseball teams that had more than three times as much money to spend on players. Beane himself was a baseball player who didn’t live up to expectations but who flourished as a general manager.

To be sure, technical competence is strongly corelated with leadership performance.  It’s pretty tough to effectively direct others when you don’t understand the details of the work.  However, the best leaders were often not the top individual performers.

Create a Standard of Leadership for Your Organization

One time when I spoke at the California HR Conference, I asked a room of 200 heads of HR the following question: “How many of you have a consistent criteria for promotion that management all agrees to and applies when making promotion decisions?” Zero hands went up.

The reason we have an overabundance of managers with poor leadership skills is because most organizations have not provided a realistic description of what good leadership looks like.  Consequently, they have no established standard of leadership to help them decide who to hire or promote into a leadership position.

Most organizations either have no leadership criteria or have created a “leadership competency model” that amounts to little more than a laundry list of vaguely defined leadership attributes.  Every leadership competency model I’ve ever seen reads like Dr. Frankenstein’s instruction manual for assembling the perfect leader. Nobody, including the incumbent executives, could ever live up to the description of leadership that they use to evaluate others.

Instead, my clients ask their employees to be themselves and embrace their unique talents and non-talents that make them who they are. They just ask their employees to work on developing a few habits that, when added to their existing collection of unique strengths, will help them become exceptional leaders.

Not all good leadership behaviors produce an equally positive impact. Some leadership behaviors are more potent than others. I facilitate focus groups within client organizations to discover the highest impact behaviors that consistently lead to successful outcomes. To accomplish this, we reverse engineer their organization’s success stories to identify patterns of behavior that enabled or facilitated their successes.  The result of this process is that clients identify the three or four most impactful leadership competencies for their organization that apply across all levels of leadership.  These leadership competencies come with precise behavioral descriptions that almost anyone can learn, regardless of personality type.

Many people have the capacity to be an effective leader, but very few know what behaviors they must focus on to achieve their leadership potential.  “If we want to improve the performance of our leaders” said Chamorro-Premuzic, “we should start by focusing on the right traits. Instead of falling for people who are confident, narcissistic and charismatic, we should promote people into leadership because of their competence, humility and integrity.”

Defining what great leadership looks like is the essential first step toward establishing more humane workplaces.  The next steps are for current leaders to exercise these learnable, high-impact leadership behaviors themselves, and then to commit to only hiring or promoting people into leadership positions who exhibit them.

Defining what great leadership looks like is the essential first step toward establishing more humane workplaces.
Click To Tweet

______________________________________________________________________________________

To learn more about how Michael can help your organization develop high impact leadership competencies, click below to make an appointment with Michael.

[image error]

The post Why We Keep Getting Bad Bosses and How to Stop It first appeared on Avail Leadership.

Want To Be An Amazing Leader? Ask For Feedback.

When was the last time your boss asked you to give them some feedback on how they could improve?  If your boss is like most managers, you’re probably thinking “I can’t remember the last time they asked me for my perspective on their performance.”  This lack of feedback is a big reason why most people in leadership positions are not strong leaders.

Leadership researchers Jack Zenger and Joe Folkman found that leaders who requested feedback the least (in the bottom 10%) were ranked at the 15th percentile in overall leadership effectiveness.  On the other hand, leaders who requested feedback the most (among the top 10%) were ranked at the 86th percentile in leadership effectiveness.  Folkman concluded “The best leaders… ask more people for feedback and they ask for feedback more often.”

Requesting feedback is quite possibly the single most impactful thing a leader (or anyone for that matter) can do to improve their performance.  Based on my consulting work, I estimate that 90% of workplace problems would disappear if everyone in the organization systematically requested feedback from multiple sources on a regular basis and received it with a desire to improve.  Of all the ways requesting feedback reduces problems and improves performance, here are three of the most impactful.

Increases Mutual Respect. Regardless of how you may initially feel about someone, your respect for them immediately ticks upward the moment they say to you “I value your perspective.  Where do you see that I can improve?”Improves Dialogue and Understanding. We come to a lot of inaccurate conclusions and make a lot of poor decisions based on assumptions about our own performance and other people’s intentions.  Requesting feedback initiates real dialogue like nothing else.Enables Continuous Improvement. We cannot improve what we cannot see.  And we don’t see a lot of what can be improved for the simple reason that we don’t ask.Why We Need Feedback

Our unconscious brain knows something that our conscious brain often forgets: confident people generally perform better than insecure people.  When we think we have a good chance at succeeding, we tend to try harder and persist longer.

Because confidence is key to survival, we have developed several security mechanisms to protect our fragile egos. One of these security mechanisms is called the Self-Enhancement Bias.   Our brain tricks us into believing that other people’s successes are the result of good luck and their failures are well deserved, whereas our failures are a result of bad luck and our successes are well earned.

While the self-enhancement bias effectively bolsters our confidence and does motivate us to achieve, if left unchecked, over-inflated egos create unhealthy self-delusion that can result in narcissism, selfishness, broken relationships and poorer outcomes—if not for the individual, then certainly for those who are impacted by their behavior.  Feedback is the reality check we need to calibrate our confidence to ensure it continues to work for us, instead of spilling into overconfidence, which works against us.

Feedback Improves Performance

Besides saving us from developing over-inflated egos, an abundance of studies show that feedback is one of the most powerful influences on performance.  We do better when we have an accurate understanding of how closely our current performance stands in relation to our desired performance.  Sprinters need feedback from the stopwatch to know if their new training regimen is working.  We lose weight more effectively if we weigh ourselves every day.  My presentations get better when clients tell me what they felt went well and what they would suggest I do differently next time.

Reaffirming feedback tells us that we are on target and encourages us to continue to do what’s working.  Helpful feedback, as I refer to it, gives us ideas on how we can improve.  Research, and common sense, leave no doubt that feedback greatly improves performance.

Power Causes Feedback Deprivation

If people in leadership positions have the greatest impact on team and organizational performance, one could argue that they need feedback the most to keep their performance sharp.  But tragically, the more formal authority one has, the less feedback they tend to receive.  There are two reasons for this.  The higher one climbs in an organization, 1) the fewer people there are above them to directly observe their performance and initiate helpful feedback; and 2) the more people there are below them who are strongly dis-incentivized to say anything that might displease them.  Simply put, the higher you climb, the less feedback you receive.

The higher you climb, the less feedback you receive.
Click To Tweet

The feedback deprivation caused by power inequality robs those with formal authority of their self-awareness.  And this lack of self-awareness translates directly into lower emotional intelligence scores.  Emotional intelligence researcher and author, Dr. Travis Bradberry, analyzed the emotional intelligence profiles of over a million people in their database by job title and discovered a disturbing trend.   Emotional intelligence scores climb with titles from the bottom of the corporate ladder upward until middle management.  But from that point on, the higher up the corporate ladder you go, emotional intelligence falls steadily.  “CEOs” Bradberry writes, “on average, have the lowest EQ scores in the workplace.”

The bottom line is that people in leadership positions, including all levels of management, must become experts at requesting feedback it they want to become a more effective leader.

Managers who want to be strong leaders must become experts at requesting feedback.
Click To Tweet

How To Request Feedback

There are many ineffective ways to ask for feedback, but without doubt the worst way is to ask, “Do you have any feedback for me?”  This closed-ended question begs the response “No”, or “I can’t think of any right now.”  Asking for feedback in this way is possibly worse than not asking for feedback at all because the asker will be tricked into thinking that since nobody ever has any helpful feedback for them, they must really be as awesome as they always thought they were!

Instead, renowned leadership coach Marshall Goldsmith advises that the best way to request feedback is to simply ask “How can I do better?”  Phrasing it this way encourages people to provide you with helpful suggestions instead of destructive criticism.

Building on Goldsmith’s suggestion, here are eight tips for requesting feedback like a pro.

Explain Why You Are Asking. Before people will give you helpful feedback, they need to be convinced that you want it for the right reason, and the only right reason is so you can improve.  Make sure to be clear about this up front so they don’t come to any other conclusions.Focus Your Request. People are far more likely to give you helpful feedback if you give them a specific area you’d like feedback on.  For instance, you might ask “How can I do better at running meetings?”, or “How can I improve the way I communicate?”, or “How can I do better at providing you with feedback?”  (Check out The Definitive Guide to Enlightened Performance Management to learn how managers can establish a routine of giving and receiving feedback with their staff.)Ask for Positives. I always ask people to start with telling me what I’m doing well.  This makes them feel more comfortable giving me helpful feedback.  If I suspect someone may be uncomfortable giving me feedback, I double-down on this behavioral hack by asking for two things I’m doing well and one thing I could do differently to get better results.Give Them Time To Think About It. It’s usually best not to ask people to give you a response right then.  Instead, ask them if you can follow up with them in a few days.  This gives them time to think about it.  You may even consider adding ‘sharing feedback’ to your weekly one-to-one meeting agenda.Receive It In-Person. Don’t ask for feedback to be delivered through email.  Requesting feedback initiates an important conversation where tone of voice and body language adds clarity and reveals sincere intentions.  Although feedback can be delivered over a phone call, it works best in-person or over video conference.Solicit Feedback From Multiple Sources. Requesting feedback from the same people might lead to a skewed perception of reality or cronyism.  If you really want to improve, ask for feedback from a variety of people, and gather feedback data from objective sources such as surveys and performance metrics.Receive Feedback with Gratitude. The old saying is true that “people who shoot the messenger stop getting messages.”  The only correct way to respond to feedback is “Thank you.”  You may also want to add something like “I hadn’t considered that” or “You’ve given me something to think about.”  Any defensiveness in your response will be interpreted as a sign that you don’t really want helpful feedback.Make It Private. Of course, always ask for feedback in a private one-to-one conversation, never in a group setting.Don’t Give It Until You Ask For It

Requesting feedback is a prerequisite for providing feedback. You may have the right to provide feedback by virtue of your position but showing that you want feedback gives you the emotional permission to provide feedback, and demonstrates that feedback is truly a gift.

____________________________________________________________________________________

For help infusing the habit of feedback into your organization, check out the Creating Accountability Workshop Series.

[image error]

[image error]

The post Want To Be An Amazing Leader? Ask For Feedback. first appeared on Avail Leadership.

Why Every Manager Should Hold One-on-One Meetings, And How To Do Them Well

Throughout the first decade or more of my career, most of my bosses, even the lackluster ones, met with me individually on a regular basis.  This led me to believe that holding regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings with staff was a generally accepted basic management practice.  However, when I began my consulting work, I soon discovered this was not the case.

Having studied the principle of accountability for many years, I have learned that holding regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings isn’t just a “nice to have” management practice; it is an essential component of effective leadership and is key to getting the right results from those you lead.  Of all the ways to influence people, one-on-one meetings are the most potent and personal method.

What Are One-on-One Meetings?

For starters, let’s be clear on what they are not. One-on-one meetings are not performance reviews. They are not quarterly check-ins, they are not team meetings, and they are not unscheduled touchpoints about day-to-day issues. I hear many managers say, “I talk to the people who report to me just about every day. Why do I need to schedule a meeting with them?” Let me explain.

First and foremost, one-on-one meetings are as much for the employees’ benefit as they are for managers. It is a dedicated time reserved for employees to get what they need from their managers, so they can do their jobs well. But more than that, this one-on-one time is set aside for employees to talk about things that are important to them, such as how they are enjoying their work and how events in their lives may be affecting their work. Employees may be reluctant to bring up sensitive issues with their managers when their managers haven’t dedicated specific time and provided a safe environment to communicate freely. This is why many managers are often blindsided when a staff member drops a letter of resignation on their desk.

For managers, one-on-one meetings are a prime time to exercise leadership. Leadership begins with building a relationship that goes beyond the employment contract. “Ultimately,” says Patricia Kaiser, VP of Corporate Development at the BOWEN Group, a search agency, “I’m trying to build trust so that they feel comfortable coming to me to tell me what’s working for them and what’s not and so I can push them and stretch them to be their best. You can’t do that in group meetings, and you can’t do that over email.”

Kaiser was formerly the COO at a mid-sized IT consulting firm. In all her leadership roles, Kaiser meets with each of her direct reports weekly for a minimum of thirty minutes, usually more. She uses her one-on-one meetings to “paint a picture of who they are,” so she can get to know their style, what gets them out of bed in the morning, and how to motivate them. Several years ago a high-potential employee at her consulting firm received an offer from one of the world’s largest technology companies. Kaiser’s firm couldn’t come close to matching the offer. However, because she knew this person loved surfing, Kaiser said, “Although we can’t compete with their offer, we’d love to keep you. What we can offer you is that you can go and buy the best surfboard you want.” This employee ended up staying with the company for many years not because of the $2,500 surfboard the company paid for but because his boss cared enough about him to take the time to find out what he really cared about. And that made the difference.

Craig Blize, COO of Earls Kitchen + Bar, a chain of about 70 restaurants across North America, follows the example of his boss by holding weekly one-on-one meetings with his eight direct reports. Blize says he approaches one-on-one meetings not as a boss but as a consultant who is there to support his employees. “This is your business,” he says. “I’m here to help you prioritize and to help you identify holes in your thinking, not to tell you how to do your job.”

One-on-one meetings are a time for managers to provide coaching and support and to provide each other with feedback. “I generally won’t give them feedback until they ask,” Blize says, “but they ask for feedback a lot because we’ve established a trusting relationship. When I provide feedback, I always try to give it in support of the people who report to me, not in judgement of them.”

One-on-one meetings are a recurring meeting held frequently, not monthly or quarterly. Research and experience show that employee engagement (and by extension, performance) is highest when employees have weekly check-ins with their managers. If managers have more direct reports than they can meet with for 30 minutes each week, they should reorganize their reporting structure. Manager and employee engagement tend to decline with teams of over 10 people.

Benefits of One-on-One Meetings

Building Trust. Having a dedicated time to discuss issues that are important to employees helps create a psychologically safe environment where trust can be built. Craig Blize recalls a time in his career when his boss only met with him every few months. “If your boss isn’t meeting with you regularly, you start to make up stories in your head like, ‘Does my manager not like me?’ or ‘Why do they meet with others more than me?’ If you’re not holding regular one-on-one meetings with the people who report to you, you’re eroding trust and confidence, not creating it.”

If you’re not holding regular one-on-one meetings with the people who report to you, you’re eroding trust and confidence, not creating it.
Click To Tweet

Providing a Reliable Communication Structure. Regularly scheduled one-on-ones provide a system to keep employees and managers informed about important things and reduce the need to interrupt each other throughout the week. Anand Sanwal, the CEO and founder of CB Insights, a data analytics company in New York, describes one of his direct reports as a “rock star.” “We throw a lot at him, and everything he does, he does well.” When he asked this employee what he enjoys most about his work, Sanwal discovered that his rock star employee felt he was being pulled in too many directions and that he wasn’t getting enough career development. Had Sanwal not created a safe and reliable communication structure, he probably would have learned about this employee’s frustrations when that employee was on his way out the door.

Creating Time for Strategic Discussion. Far too much communication between managers and staff is focused on urgent tactical issues, and not enough time is spent on strategic matters. Regular one-on-one meetings create dedicated time and space to focus on the strategic. For instance, my brother, Jay Timms, oversees the Chipotle restaurant chain throughout British Columbia, Canada. “Among other things,” he says, “I use my one-on-one meetings with the GMs who report to me to analyze financial and operational data to identify trends, mitigate potential problems, and exploit opportunities.”

Establishing an Accountability Mechanism. One-on-one meetings are essential to holding people accountable for results in a positive and productive way. A study conducted by the American Society of Training and Development revealed that simply committing to someone that you will achieve your goal increases your chances of success to 65%. However, your chances of achieving your goals skyrockets to 95% when you regularly report your progress to someone else.

Make Performance Discussions Ongoing. Most managers know they should provide their staff with more praise and recognition, but the right time rarely presents itself. And most organizations are coming to the realization that performance feedback should happen more than a few times a year, but many are struggling to make it happen. One-on-ones are the perfect vehicle to regularly recognize employees for their effort, progress, and contributions and to give timely corrective feedback, as needed.

Mitigating Risk. Regular one-on-one meetings keep managers in the loop and reduce the chances of big screw-ups happening. Craig Blize shares the following anecdote: “I recently met with a key employee who shared a challenge he was having. After asking him a few questions, we were quickly able to address the root of the issue—the real issue he wasn’t seeing. Had we not scheduled a time for him to share his challenges with me, he would have been spinning his wheels for a long time. Things like this happen regularly. Weekly meetings make it possible to correct things quickly and to roll out good ideas quicker as well.”

In short, one-on-one meetings are vital to help those in leadership positions ensure that the work is being done well and that the people doing the work are doing well.

One-on-one meetings ensure that the work is being done well and that the person doing the work is doing well.
Click To Tweet

One-on-One Meeting Agendas

Effective meetings have an agenda. One-on-one meetings are no exception, even though they should feel more casual than other meetings. The key is that one-on-one meeting agendas are flexible and collaborative.

One-on-one meetings don’t need to have the same agenda every week. Often, there are far too many important topics to cover with an employee than can fit into a 30- to 60-minute meeting. This is why I suggest creating a rotating agenda schedule. Some things need to be discussed each week, some things only need to be discussed every couple of weeks, and still others may only need to be discussed monthly or quarterly. The key to making a rotating agenda work is to have a place, preferably a shared digital platform such as Trello, to create a list of the important things that you want to make sure to discuss throughout the year. Then you and your employees should decide how often you want to address each subject and schedule your agendas accordingly.

If employees are to feel that one-on-one meetings are a benefit for them, they need to have some, if not most, of the control over the agenda. Again, this works best if agendas are stored on a shared digital platform where both managers and employees can add items they want to discuss.

The Five Elements of Performance Development

No matter how managers and their team members decide to organize their one-on-one meetings, they should address the following Five Elements of Performance Development.

Well-being Check-In. Anand Sanwal asks questions such as, “What’s your favorite part about what you do?” Patricia Kaiser asks, “What’s working well for you and what’s not?” Every few weeks I ask my team members questions about their life challenges and interests. The purpose is to a) stay in touch with your team members’ whole self, not just their work self, b) to demonstrate that you care about them, and c) to allow you to help relieve stressors in their lives before they escalate into crises that blindside you. Take time to ensure your people are happy, engaged, and healthy, or nothing else you discuss will matter much.Review Assignments. Assign, prioritize, and review progress on assignments. This should happen weekly. The purpose of reviewing assignments is to determine if what you wanted to happen actually did happen. If not, what can you do to get better results next time? This is the essence of accountability.Review Longer-Term Goals & Projects. Strategic work can easily fall by the wayside if goals are not regularly reviewed and progress is not regularly checked against established milestones. Most organizations do a poor job of executing organizational goals, and most individuals do a poor job of accomplishing individual goals for the simple reason that they haven’t established a recurring meeting to review them. In fact, only 20% of US employees have had a conversation with their managers in the last six months about the steps they can take to reach their goals. I suggest reviewing longer-term goals every month or two.Discuss Career Development. Developing others is one of a leader’s most important responsibilities. However, like most strategic work, it often doesn’t happen because most people in leadership positions have not carved time out of their calendars to focus on it. Leaders who make a lasting difference in the lives of others make time to help others grow and reach their potential. I suggest managers focus a full meeting on career development at least quarterly with those they lead and mentor. The aim is to help employees make plans to grow and reach their potential and to keep them accountable to those plans.Request and Provide Feedback. Feedback is sure to land badly when it comes from someone who never asks for any themselves. Blize regularly asks the people who report to him, “Am I showing up in support of you, or am I not showing up that way?” “When you get called out,” he says, “you can’t make them wrong about it. If you do, they’ll stop being honest with you and stop telling you what you need to hear.” Requesting feedback is essential to creating a truly safe environment and a high-performance culture because doing so dissolves the power imbalance that suppresses candor and inhibits trust.

As mentioned earlier, not every element of performance development needs to be addressed every week. The key is to establish a habit of weekly one-on-ones so that each of the elements can be regularly addressed throughout the year. This way, check-ins can be brief but productive as they focus on different elements of performance development.

Tips

Here are a few final tips to help make one-on-one meetings more effective.

Set Agreed-upon Expectations. Giving and receiving feedback becomes much easier when managers and employees agree to expectations of one another and when they agree to regularly provide each other with feedback on how well they are meeting those expectations.Don’t Cancel or Be Late. Doing so sends a strong signal that employees are not a priority.Eliminate Distractions. Keep the computer monitor out of view to reduce the temptation to glance at emails or be distracted during the meeting.No Surprise Agenda Items. Put everything you want to discuss on the agenda, so employees know what to prepare for. Blindsiding people with sensitive topics that were not on the agenda creates distrust.Reduce Power Cues. Looking at the boss from across their desk is a visual cue of the power imbalance. Try sitting in a different seating area or in your employee’s office if they have one.

Leadership does not happen spontaneously or haphazardly. Leadership requires conscious effort and discipline. Holding regular one-on-one meetings is evidence of both.

The post Why Every Manager Should Hold One-on-One Meetings, And How To Do Them Well first appeared on Avail Leadership.

Why Every Manager Should Hold One-to-One Meetings, And How To Do Them Well

Throughout the first decade or more of my career, most of my bosses, even the lackluster ones, met with me individually on a regular basis.  This led me to believe that holding regularly scheduled one-to-one meetings with staff was a generally accepted basic management practice.  When I began my consulting work, I soon discovered this was not the case.

Having studied the principle of accountability for many years, I have learned that holding regularly scheduled one-to-one meetings isn’t just a “nice to have” management practice, it is an absolutely essential component of effective leadership and key to getting the right results from those you lead.

For many people, the current pandemic has reduced the amount of one-to-one time with their manager.  And many managers are grappling with how to hold people accountable when they don’t see them as often.  The good news is that one-to-one meetings work just about as well over video conference as they do in-person, and they are the best way to maintain accountable relationships under any circumstances.

Meetings Are A Leadership Lever

Let’s be honest… meetings have a bad reputation.  Poorly planned meetings, and ones where people share information that could have been sent by email, are a waste of time. On the other hand, well-executed meetings have a carefully planned agenda and facilitate discussion and coordinated action.

Meetings are one of the most powerful levers at a leader’s disposal to influence others, and one-to-one meetings are the most potent and personal method.  If those in leadership positions do not hold regular one-to-one meetings with the people who report to them, they are not accessing one of their greatest methods of influencing people and the organization they preside over.

What Are One-to-One Meetings?

For starters, let’s be clear on what they are not.  One-to-one meetings are not a performance review.  They are not a quarterly check-in.  They are not a team meeting and they are not an unscheduled touch-point about day-to-day issues.  I hear many managers say “I talk to the people who report to me just about every day.  Why do I need to schedule a meeting with them?”  Let me explain.

First and foremost, one-to-one meetings are as much for the employee’s benefit as they are for the manager.  It is a dedicated time reserved for employees to get what they need from their manager in order to do their job well.  But more than that, this one-to-one time is set aside for employees to talk about things that are important to them, such as how they are enjoying their work and how events in their life may be affecting their work.  Employees may be reluctant to bring up sensitive issues with their boss when their boss hasn’t dedicated specific time, and provided a safe environment, to communicate freely.  This is why many managers are often blindsided when a staff member drops a letter of resignation on their desk.

For managers, one-to-one meetings are prime time to exercise leadership.  Leadership begins with building a relationship that goes beyond the employment contract.  “Ultimately,” says Patricia Kaiser, VP of Corporate Development at The BOWEN Group, a search agency, “I’m trying to build trust so that they feel comfortable coming to me to tell me what’s working for them and what’s not, and so I can push them and stretch them to be their best.  You can’t do that in group meetings and you can’t do that over email.”

Kaiser was formerly the COO at a mid-sized IT consulting firm.  In all her leadership roles, Kaiser meets with each of her direct reports weekly for a minimum of thirty minutes, usually more.  She uses her one-to-one meetings to “paint a picture of who they are” so she can get to know their style, what gets them out of bed, and how to motivate them.  Several years ago, a high potential employee at her consulting firm received an offer from one of the world’s largest technology companies.  Kaiser’s firm couldn’t come close to matching the offer.  However, because she knew this person loved surfing, Kaiser said “Although we can’t compete with their offer, we’d love to keep you.  What we can offer you is that you can go and buy the best surfboard you want.”  This employee ended up staying with the company for many years not because of the $2,500 surfboard the company paid for, but because his boss cared enough about him to take the time to find out what he really cared about.  And that made the difference.

Craig Blize, COO of Earls Kitchen + Bar, a chain of about 70 restaurants across North America, follows the example of his boss by holding weekly one-to-one meetings with his eight direct reports.  Blize says he approaches one-to-one meetings not as a boss, but as a consultant who is there to support them.  “This is your business.” he says, “I’m here to help you prioritize and to help you identify holes in your thinking, not to tell you how to do your job.”

One-to-one meetings are a time for managers to provide coaching and support, and to provide each other with feedback.  “I generally won’t give them feedback until they ask” said Blize.  “But they ask for feedback a lot because we’ve established a trusting relationship.  When I provide feedback, I always try to give it in support of the people who report to me, not in judgement of them.”

One-to-one meetings are a reoccurring meeting held frequently, not monthly or quarterly.   Research and experience has shown that employee engagement (and by extension, performance) is highest when employees have weekly check-ins with their manager.  If a manager has more direct reports than they can meet with for 30 minutes each week, they should reorganize their reporting structure.  Both manager and employee engagement tend to decline with teams of over 10 people.

Benefits of One-to-One Meetings

Build Trust.  Having a dedicated time to discuss issues that are important to the employee helps create a psychologically safe environment where trust can be built.   Craig Blize recalled a time in his career when his boss only met with him every few months.  “If your boss isn’t meeting with you regularly, you start to make up stories in your head like ‘Does my manager not like me?’ or ‘Why do they meet with others more than me?’  If you’re not holding regular one-to-one meetings with the people who report to you,” he said, “you’re eroding trust and confidence, not creating it.”

If you’re not holding regular one-to-one meetings with the people who report to you, you’re eroding trust and confidence, not creating it.
Click To Tweet

Provide Reliable Communication Structure.  Regularly scheduled one-to-ones provides a system to keep each other informed about important things to be aware of and reduces the need to interrupt each other throughout the week.  Anand Sanwal, the CEO and founder of CB Insights, a data analytics company in New York, describes one of his direct reports as a “rock star.”  “We throw a lot at him and everything he does, he does well.”  When he asked this employee what he enjoys most about his work, Sanwal discovered that his rock star employee felt he was being pulled in too many directions and that he wasn’t getting enough career development.  Had he not created a safe and reliable communication structure, Sanwal probably would have learned about this employee’s frustrations when that employee was on his way out the door.

Create Time For Strategic Discussion.  Far too much of manager and staff communication is focused on urgent, tactical issues and not enough time is spent on strategic matters.  Regular one-to-one meetings create dedicated time and space to focus on the strategic.  For instance, my brother, Jay Timms, oversees the Chipotle restaurant chain throughout B.C., Canada.  “Among other things” he said, “I use my one-to-one meetings with the GM’s who report to me to analyze financial and operational data to identify trends, mitigate potential problems, and exploit opportunities.”

Establish an Accountability Mechanism.  Accountability is the vehicle of execution.  If you want things done well, you must build accountability systems into your organization.  One-to-one meetings are essential to holding people accountable for results in a positive and productive way.  A study conducted by The American Society of Training and Development revealed that simply committing to someone that you will achieve your goal increases your chances of success to 65%. However, your chances of achieving your goals skyrockets to 95% when you regularly report your progress to someone else.

Make Performance Discussions Ongoing.  Most managers know they should provide their staff with more praise and recognition, but the right time rarely presents itself.  And most organizations are coming to the realization that performance feedback should happen more than a few times a year, but many are struggling to make it happen.  Patricia Kaiser uses her one-to-ones to regularly “give them a pat on the back” and give corrective feedback as needed.  She noted that it’s easier to provide negative feedback when you’ve made a habit of recognizing good work and when you’ve invested the time it takes to build trust.

Mitigate Risk.  Regular one-to-one meetings keep managers in the loop and reduce the chances of big screw-ups from happening.  Craig Blize shared the following anecdote: “I recently met with a key employee who shared a challenge he was having.  After asking him a few questions, we were quickly able to address the root of the issue—the real issue he wasn’t seeing.  Had we not scheduled a time for him to share his challenges with me, he would have been spinning his wheels for a long time.  Things like this happen regularly.  Weekly meetings make it possible to correct things quickly, and to roll out good ideas quicker as well.”

In short, one-to-one meetings are vital to help those in leadership positions ensure that the work is being done well and that the person doing the work is doing well.

One-to-one meetings are vital to help those in leadership positions ensure that the work is being done well and that the person doing the work is doing well.
Click To Tweet

One-to-One Meeting Agendas

Effective meetings have an agenda.  One-to-one meetings are no exception, even though they should feel more casual than other meetings.  The key is that one-to-one meeting agendas are flexible and collaborative.

One-to-one meetings don’t need to have the same agenda every week.  Often, there are far too many important topics to cover with an employee than can fit into a 30 to 60-minute meeting.  This is why I suggest to my clients that they create a rotating agenda schedule.  Some things need to be discussed each week, some things only need to be discussed every couple of weeks, and still others may only need to be discussed monthly or quarterly.  The key to making a rotating agenda work is to have some place, preferably a shared digital platform such as Trello, to create a list of the important things you want to make sure to discuss throughout the year.  Then, you and your report should decide how often you want to address each subject and schedule your agendas accordingly.

If employees are to feel that one-to-one meetings are a benefit for them, they need to have some, if not most of the control over the agenda.  Again, this works best if agendas are stored on a shared digital platform where both manager and employee can add items they want to discuss.

The Five Elements of Performance Development

No matter how a manager and their team member decide to organize their one-to-one meetings, I suggest one-to-one meetings accomplish the following five key things:

Well-being Check-inReview AssignmentsReview Longer-term Goals & ProjectsDiscuss Career DevelopmentRequest and Provide Feedback

I refer to these as the Five Elements of Performance Development.  As mentioned earlier, not every element of performance development needs to be addressed every week. The key is to establish a habit of weekly one-to-ones so that each of the elements can be regularly addressed throughout the year. This way, check-ins can be brief but very productive as they focus on different elements of performance development.

Well-being Check-In. Anand Sanwal asks questions such as “What’s your favorite part about what you do?”  Patricia Kaiser asks, “What’s working well for you and what’s not?”  Every few weeks, I ask my team members questions about their life challenges and interests.  The purpose is to a) stay in touch with your team members whole self, not just their work self, b) to demonstrate that you care about them, and c) to allow you to help relieve stressors in their life before they escalate to crises that blindside you.  Take the time to make sure your people are happy, engaged and healthy or nothing else you discuss will matter much.Review Assignments. Assign, prioritize and review progress on assignments.  This should happen weekly.  The purpose of reviewing assignments is to determine if what we wanted to happen actually did happen.  And if not, what can we do to get better results next time.  This is the essence of accountability.Review Longer-Term Goals & Projects. Strategic work can easily fall by the wayside if goals are not regularly reviewed and progress is not regularly checked against established milestones.  Most organizations do a poor job of executing organizational goals, and most individuals do a poor job of accomplishing individual goals, for the simple reason that they haven’t established a reoccurring meeting to review them.  In fact, only 20% of US employees have had a conversation with their manager in the last six months about the steps they can take to reach their goals.  I suggest reviewing longer-term goals every month or two.Discuss Career Development. Developing others is one of a leaders most important responsibilities.  But like most strategic work, it often doesn’t happen because most people in leadership positions have not carved time out of their calendar to focus on it. Leaders who make a lasting difference in the lives of others make the time to help others grow and reach their potential. I suggest managers focus a full meeting on career development at least quarterly with those they lead and mentor.  The aim is to help them make plans to grow and reach their potential, and to keep them accountable to those plans.Request and Provide Feedback. Feedback is sure to land badly when it comes from someone who never asks for any themselves.  Blize regularly asks the people who report to him “Am I showing up in support of you, or am I not showing up that way?”  “When you get called out” he says, “you can’t make them wrong about it.  If you do, they’ll stop being honest with you and stop telling you what you need to hear.”  Requesting feedback is essential to creating a truly safe environment and a high performance culture because doing so dissolves the power imbalance that suppresses candor and inhibits trust.Tips

Here are a few final tips that I and others have learned to help make one-to-one meetings more effective.

Set Agreed-Upon Expectations. Giving and receiving feedback becomes much easier when managers and employees have agreed to expectations of one another and when they have agreed to regularly provide each other feedback on how well they are meeting those expectations.Don’t Cancel Or Be Late. Doing so sends a strong signal that “You are not one of my important priorities.”Eliminate Distractions. Keep the computer monitor out of view to reduce the temptation to glance at emails or be distracted during the meeting.No Surprise Agenda Items. Put everything you want to discuss on the agenda so they know what to prepare for.  Blindsiding people with sensitive topics that were not on the agenda creates distrust.Reduce Power Cues. Looking at the boss from across their desk is a visual cue of the power imbalance.  Try sitting in a different seating area or in your employee’s office if they have one.

Leadership does not happen spontaneously or haphazardly.  Leadership requires conscious effort and discipline.  Holding regular one-to-one meetings is evidence of both.

The post Why Every Manager Should Hold One-to-One Meetings, And How To Do Them Well first appeared on Avail Leadership.

Heroes Look For Explanations, Not Excuses

Everybody loves a great story.  Our favorite stories often involve a protagonist who is dealt a bad hand but who manages to rise victoriously above their circumstances because of their remarkable character and unconquerable spirit.  These are stories of a hero’s journey, and are stories that many famous leaders have lived.

In our everyday life, however, we don’t often see these heroic stories unfold.  This is partly because it’s hard to notice the heroic journeys being played out around us that take decades to unfold.  But I believe another reason why we don’t see very many heroes is because at the time those pivotal moments come in our lives when we could become a hero, most of us have not built the habits necessary to respond to our challenges in heroic ways.

We build our capacity to act more and more like a hero by the way we respond to the daily challenges that aren’t necessarily our fault.  When those times come, we basically have two options.  We can either try to excuse ourselves from the problem, or we can look for explanations to help solve the problem.  Learning to be a hero begins by focusing on what you can do to overcome your challenges instead of focusing on what you can’t do.

We build our capacity to become a hero by the way we respond to the daily challenges that aren’t necessarily our fault.
Click To Tweet

 

The Difference Between Explanations and Excuses

Some people in leadership positions believe that they are teaching others to be accountable for problems by slamming their fist on their desk and barking “Don’t bring me excuses, bring me solutions!”  That’s not leadership and it definitely won’t create a culture of accountability.  What that is communicating is “I don’t care about you, I only care about results.”  True leaders care as much about the people they lead as they do about the results their people produce.

True leaders care as much about the people they lead as they do about the results their people produce.
Click To Tweet

According to global CEO coach, Sabina Nawaz, the “only bring me solutions” approach often prevents problems from surfacing until they’re full-blown crises. Nawaz describes a client who used to lose his temper and raise his voice any time his team members brought problems to light.  Not surprisingly, the CEO’s employees stopped bringing him problems, leaving him blind to potential issues.   Instead, leaders who model accountability teach people that problems can be helpful because they provide an opportunity to learn and become better.

They key to surfacing problems in a way that doesn’t sound like an excuse is to bring them forward with the intention of being part of the solution.

An excuse is a justification for poor behavior and unacceptable results.  An excuse is something someone offers in exchange for bad results in an attempt to extricate themselves from the debacle.  “I can’t deliver what you want” the thinking goes, “so let me offer you some excuses instead.  That should satisfy you.”

A person who provides an excuse has no intention of mitigating the unacceptable results.  They are essentially washing their hands of the situation and saying “I’m out.” An explanation, on the other hand, is an analysis of the problem with the intent to salvage the situation as best they can and turn things around if possible.  Leaders encourage the people around them to bring forward explanations for problems so the team can use them to find solutions or to prevent the same problem from recurring.

Giving excuses for bad results is like losing someone else’s dog and bringing them back the broken leash expecting that to appease the dog’s owner.  “The leash broke” they say, “and your dog ran away.  I hope you find your dog.  See you later.”  In this case, the broken leash is being used as an excuse.

On the other hand, after an accountable person tells the dog’s owner that the leash broke and their dog ran away, she continues, saying, “I have called three of my friends to come help look for your dog.  I need you to come help us and could you possibly ask your husband to start making flyers for us to begin posting if we don’t find your dog by the end of the day.”  In this instance, the broken leash is used as an explanation because it leads to a solution.

The difference between an excuse and an explanation is how you intend to use it.  If you think that providing a reason for unacceptable results absolves you of accountability, then its an excuse.  If providing reasons for poor results is used as the starting point to find a solution which the person using it intends to be part of, then its an explanation.

The difference between an excuse and an explanation is how you intend to use it.
Click To Tweet

Excuse-making has become almost a sport in some organizations.  No matter what problem is thrown at some people, they can find a reason why it’s not their fault.  Excuses like:

“Traffic was brutal today.”

“I didn’t have time to get that done.”

“I told him to do it so I assumed it got done properly.”

There may be an element of truth in each of these statements, but they are excuses because they don’t acknowledge what could have been done to mitigate the undesirable outcomes, nor do these statements imply that the person providing them intends to be part of the solution.

Most people in leadership positions know how maddening it is to be offered excuses instead of results.  But is it possible that those who report to you are learning this behaviour from you?

Exercising Accountability Builds Hero Habits

I once read a story about two fast food restaurant CEO’s who were interviewed by the same news reporter.  The reporter summed up his two interviews with the following commentary “I had a conversation recently with the CEO of [ABC] Corporation, and the entire conversation revolved around how the company is being pounded by the economy. Their CEO spent our entire conversation complaining and crying about their challenging environment. My conversations with their biggest competitor were dramatically different. As I spoke with their CEO, he did not see any problem with the environment in which they are operating. Their entire organizational focus centers around what else they can do to create growth opportunities. That’s why their business is thriving.”  The reporter then concluded with this observation.  “The shareholders of these companies don’t care how the food tastes. They care about how the leaders are leading their companies to achieve results in spite of the current economy.”

To the first CEO’s credit, when he was confronted with the reporter’s reproval, he publicly acknowledged his mistake and vowed to stop offering excuses.  Instead, he encouraged his team to focus on what the company can do to improve results, instead of on what they can’t do.  This courageous act of looking in the mirror marked a major turning point for the company.

Building personal accountability increases your capacity to be a leader and respond to your challenges in heroic ways.  Think of the following three practices as exercises to prepare you to become a hero when those pivotal moments come in your life.

Look For Explanations, Not Excuses. Make a list of all the factors that contributed to your problems, and don’t stop until you’ve listed all the things you did or didn’t do that may have contributed to your problem.Reward People Who Surface Problems. Never punish people for bringing forward problems by labeling them as “troublemakers.”  If people don’t feel safe to bring problems to your attention, you’ll stop hearing about them.  Then you will be blindsided later when the problems are much harder to deal with and when it’s become more difficult to diagnose the root cause.  Instead, teach others that problems are opportunities to become better.  Publicly praise people who bring forward problems and, when necessary, coach them how to turn their excuses into explanations.Model Being Part of the Solution. If you want others to come to you with more solutions, model what being part of the solution looks like.  This includes being willing to invest the time necessary to teach people how to find their own solutions when they come to you with problems instead of solving it for them or unsympathetically saying “Don’t bring me excuses, bring me solutions.”

Heroes rise above their challenges to accomplish great things.  So do great leaders.  Exercising personal accountability is how we build our capacity to act more and more like a hero by the way we respond to the daily challenges that aren’t necessarily our fault.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

For more on this topic, check out my Creating Accountability Workshop Series:

[image error]

[image error]

The post Heroes Look For Explanations, Not Excuses first appeared on Avail Leadership.

Delegating in a Virtual World

Getting things done through others has long been thought to be the primary goal and challenge of leadership. However, the more we learn about people and performance, the more we understand that there is another factor leaders must be concerned with: employee engagement. Ensuring that employees enjoy their work and that they are developing and utilizing their strengths has been shown to dramatically improve performance and output.

A manager who has a singular focus on results will eventually end up hurting results. Those in leadership positions who prioritize results over employee engagement are like the foolish man in the story of the goose that laid the golden eggs: they kill the very thing that will bring them long term results.

The goal of leadership, therefore, is to inspire positive action in others to achieve desired results. That’s it. True leaders have a positive impact on both people and results.

Effective delegation is the key to accomplish both.

“Leaders inspire positive action in others to achieve desired results.”

Delegation in our New Reality

Today as the world adjusts to manage COVID-19, more people are working remotely than ever before. Pre-COVID research has provided convincing evidence that working from home has many benefits.  One study showed that telecommuting employees are substantially more productive, had 50% less attrition, had fewer sick days, and took less time off than their office-working colleagues. Telecommuting employees save on gas, commute time, parking, and other transportation costs.  Meanwhile, employers save on office space and pay less rent and utilities. However, the same research shows that employees who work from home 100% of the time felt too isolated.

Recent out of Harvard has confirmed this finding and found that being forced to work from home is hurting employee motivation and performance. This shouldn’t come as a surprise since people don’t like to be forced to do just about anything and we’re all currently suffering from a lack of social contact.

However, I suspect that there is another, less obvious reason that many people are having a tough time working remotely: the distance is exacerbating their manager’s poor delegation habits.

Fortunately, the fundamentals of effective delegation remain unchanged whether the person you are delegating to is in the next office or on the other side of the globe. The way managers delegate work has a tremendous impact on employee’s motivation to accomplish the task, and determines whether or not the desired results will be achieved.

The following Five Steps of Effective Delegation work just as well over video conference as they do in-person.

 

1 [image error]      Define the Desired Results

Step 1 of effective delegation is to define the desired results and let the delegate choose the methods to achieve those results. Unless there are certain protocols that must be followed for safety or compliance reasons, managers who prescribe how employees ought to do their work squash employee engagement and initiative. In contrast, people who are given the opportunity to use their brains to solve problems often come up with better ways of achieving the desired result than the manager had considered.

When delegating an assignment, managers must communicate four key aspects of the desired results:

What. What needs to be accomplished?When. By when must the results be achieved?Standards. What quality standards must be met?Impact. What will be the impact of accomplishing the desired result? What will be the impact of not accomplishing the desired result?

The last item, impact, is critical to getting the right result. Employees who know why the assignment is important and why they have been given this assignment will be more motivated to accomplish it and will have the context required to make good decisions.

 

2 [image error]      Provide Resources

As the saying goes, “Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn’t have to do it themselves.” Managers who ask for something that hasn’t been done before must be willing to provide resources they haven’t provided before. If they don’t, they’re setting their delegate up for failure.

Providing resources isn’t simply allocating sufficient time and money to accomplish the task; it also involves anticipating roadblocks and clearing obstacles. This includes providing examples and templates, and identifying common pitfalls.

Examples. What are some examples of what the manager is looking for, as well as examples of what the manager doesn’t want?Tools & Templates. Are there any tools and templates that could help? If not, should one be created?Information Sources. Where might the employee look, and whom might they contact, for pertinent information?Budget. How much budget has been allocated to accomplish this task?

 

3 [image error]     Clarify Authorization

The cardinal sin of delegation is to give an assignment without clarifying the delegate’s decision-making authority. Doing so leaves the door open for delegates to make decisions they shouldn’t. And these decisions can result in serious damage to the organization and to the delegate’s self-confidence.

On the flip side, without clarification, some employees might assume they aren’t allowed to make any decisions. This kills their initiative and stalls the process as employees keep coming back to their manager to make decisions that they are fully capable of making themselves.

Effective managers clarify the delegate’s authorization by addressing these questions:

Go Ahead. What type of decisions can the delegate make on their own?Discuss First. What types of decisions must the delegate first discuss with their manager?Spending Limit. What is their discretionary spending limit?

 

4 [image error]      Establish a Reporting Schedule

How many times have you asked someone to do something for you, then left them to do it, then returned to find they totally missed the mark? This is the most common problem in delegation, and it is totally avoidable.

Establishing a regular one-on-one meeting schedule is the most critical aspect of effective delegation. Reviewing progress more frequently reduces the chances of a delegate getting too far off track. What’s more, research has shown that people who regularly report their progress are 95% more likely to achieve their goals.

“People who regularly report their progress are 95% more likely to achieve their goals.”

Regular one-on-one check-in meetings are different than team meetings or the random touch-points managers and employees have with each other throughout the week. Team meetings and unscheduled touch-points are important, but they usually focus on tactical issues and don’t provide an appropriate setting to discuss sensitive issues that can make or break achieving the goal.

Every employee deserves dedicated one-on-one time with their manager to discuss their progress on assignments and any other issues that may impact their work performance.

Managers should consider the following when establishing a regular reporting schedule:

Regularity. What day and time of the week will we both typically be available for a call or video conference?Frequency. Should we meet more often than once a week at the beginning of new assignments?Agenda. What are the most important things we should discuss when we meet?  (Click HERE for a FREE white paper that includes meeting agenda topics)

 

5 [image error]      Conduct an Assessment

In your working life, have you ever carried out an assignment that you felt quite good about, but then never heard back from the person who gave you the assignment? Perhaps the radio silence means the assignment wasn’t that important after all. Or maybe the person who gave you the assignment was so disappointed with the result that they couldn’t even talk to you about it. Who knows?

Human beings need closure. We want our effort to be acknowledged. And more importantly, most of us want to learn from our mistakes so we can improve. Effective delegation ends with assessing how closely the actual results match the desired results set out at the beginning of the assignment, and extracting lessons learned.

An effective assessment answers the following four questions:

Good. What went particularly well?More. What can we do to make sure these things continue to happen on future assignments?Bad. What didn’t go well?Less. What can we do to make sure these things don’t happen again?

Click HERE to receive a FREE Delegation Checklist

Remote Worker Considerations

Once managers have the fundamentals of effective delegation nailed down, they should consider the following while managing remote workers:

Technology Enhancers. Are you using task tracking software such as Trello to stay in sync, or using Google Docs to collaborate on documents?Working Hours. Working from home with kids in the house means there are likely certain times that just don’t work any more.  Set mutually agreed upon expectations about when people will be available for quick calls or quick responses to emails.Contact Method. Is texting still okay, or is email better, given any adjustments to working hours?Emotional Support. Take the time to ask how things are going at home and how employees are coping.  Remind employees of employer benefits such as the company’s Employee Assistance Program, or other counselling services.

 

Delegation is at the very heart of leadership. It’s the primary method by which leaders accomplish their two most essential goals: to have a positive impact on people and results. 

I encourage you to download the Delegation Checklist and simply give it a try to see if it might remind you to nail every key aspect of effective delegation and become the kind of leader you’d like to follow.

[image error]

The post Delegating in a Virtual World first appeared on Avail Leadership.

The Cure For A Different Kind Of Illness

It feels like the COVID-19 pandemic has transformed our lives almost over night. The current global crisis seems to consume our every waking moment. It dominates the news and our conversations. Almost nothing else seems to matter right now.

It has been said that people’s true colors shine through in a crisis. As I have watched the events of the past several weeks unfold, it has become clear to me that there is another illness that is spreading through our society that we must confront very soon.

There seems to be an almost binary division in the way people have responded to the current crisis. The difference between these two approaches is the difference between those who have an individualistic mindset, and those with a collective mindset.

Two Very Different Responses To Problems

Individualistic Mindset
While there is understandable knee-jerk reaction to behave selfishly in crises, some people give into that instinct and focus on fulfilling their own needs at the expense of others.

Recently, the most glaring example of this behavior is hoarders. There have been numerous media stories in recent weeks of people who have bought up essential commodities in order to sell them to others at a premium. These people have put their own interests above the welfare of others who have gone to the grocery store to purchase essential items only to find the shelves bare.

People who think individualistically are primarily concerned about their welfare without regard for the welfare of others. They believe they are an island and fail to see how their individual actions affect the larger group.

Collective Mindset
By contrast, other people resist the temptation to focus on themselves. Instead, they recognize that their actions affect the greater whole, and they choose to behave in ways that produce better outcomes for all.

A good example of this behavior is those who have complied with public health guidelines to physically distance themselves as best they can, and they have done so as much for the safety of the general population as for the safety of their loved ones.

People who think collectively see themselves as part of a system of interconnected moving parts. They recognize that their welfare is inseparably connected with the welfare of the greater whole.

I believe that the greatest single difference in how our world will turn out over the next 20 – 50 years depends on the degree to which we are able to get people to think and behave collectively rather than individualistically.

Social Mindsets Produce Different Outcomes

The distinction between these two mindsets reminds me of Stephen Covey’s teaching about three different social paradigms: dependent, independent, and interdependent.[image error]

Dependent
We are born into this world dependent upon others for our survival. As a result, we have learned to create social connections with others to get what we need.

Most people become less dependent and more independent as they mature. However, we see many examples of otherwise fully capable adults displaying dependent behavior, otherwise known as the ‘victim mentality.’

Dependent people tend to have trouble holding down a job, and in their wake, they often leave a myriad of broken relationships. When they get fired or ‘break up’ with friends and family, it’s always someone else’s fault.

The dead give-way of dependent thinking is blaming other people or circumstances for their problems. Dependent people have an individualistic mindset because they are singularly focused on their own perspective and refuse to take accountability for how they contribute to their problems.

Independent
Independence is often celebrated in western culture. And, in fact, independence is far superior to dependence. Independent people are self-sufficient and sometimes referred to as ‘self-made.’

Individual success is strongly correlated to one’s ability to be independent. Independent people make their own ‘luck’ by choosing to act and taking responsibility for their actions to achieve success.

However, there are limitations to being independent. Research has shown that many successful people fall short of their potential because, while they take accountability for their successes, they resist taking accountability for their failures. Consequently, they don’t learn from their mistakes.

Many successful CEO’s for example, routinely blame a bad economy or ‘unforeseen events’ to explain poor company performance. Many politicians are quick to blame the previous administration for problems they say they ‘inherited,’ when clearly there were things they could have done differently to mitigate the predicament.

Like their less-successful counterparts (dependent people), independent people fail to take accountability for how their actions, or inactions, contributed to the present troubles. They choose to focus their energy on deflecting blame and protecting their egos instead of on solving the problems for the greater good.

In short, the glaring weakness of being independent is selfishness.

Independent people have an individualistic mindset because they put their own ego and interests above the welfare of those around them.

Interdependent
Interdependence is the understanding that your welfare and ultimate success is inextricably connected to the welfare and success of those around you.

__________
To say my fate is not tied to your fate is like saying,
your end of the boat is sinking.
– Hugh Downs
__________

Interdependence requires both the ability and willingness to improve the outcomes of the greater whole.

Interdependence is built upon a foundation of independence. You cannot effectively help others until your own needs are first met. It’s a natural sequence of events. This is why, during airline safety demonstrations, flight attendants instruct passengers to put their own air mask on before attempting to help others.

Interdependent people take full accountability for their actions and accept the consequences, whether good or bad. They have achieved some degree of success and have therefore earned the ability to help others.

The difference between independent people and interdependent people is the latter choose to leverage their success to lift others.

Doing so often requires a certain degree of personal sacrifice.

Leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are remarkable examples of the impact that interdependent thinking and action can have on the world.

Even business leaders can have a profoundly positive impact on society, such as Michael McCain’s handling of the 2008 listeria outbreak at Maple Leaf Foods. McCain took accountability for how his actions may have contributed to the problem, which allowed the company and government officials to focus their energy on solving the problem.

Today, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is demonstrating interdependent character during the current crisis.

Notice a pattern in these examples? They are all leaders. That’s not a coincidence. Stephen Covey once wrote “the moment you step from independence into interdependence in any capacity, you step into a leadership role.”

Why is that so? Because leaders look out for the welfare of others.

However, being in a leadership position does not make you a leader. For instance, Gandhi held no significant official leadership position. It is your ability and willingness to lift others that makes you a leader.

For example, when an owner of a small distillery in Pennsylvania saw a desperate need for hand sanitizer during the COVID-19 pandemic, he decided to act. Chad Butters, shut down his production of bourbon to create hand sanitizer and donate it to his community.

Chad was not responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, but he saw a problem, was in a position to help, and decided to be part of the solution.

The Cure for Individualism

Individualism is a symptom of the virus of low accountability – people who refuse to take ownership of problems and their solutions.

A great mass of people in our western society are infected with the “me” bug—disregarding the impact their actions have on the welfare of the greater whole.

Before the current pandemic shined a light on this great divide, we have all seen abundant examples of people whose selfish behavior hurts the organization they work within. From executives who give themselves pay raises while laying off thousands of workers, to middle managers embroiled in counterproductive turf wars, to factory employees who walk past obvious safety or operational problems without fixing them or bringing them to anyone’s attention.

When companies and societies get enough people who think and behave individualistically, everybody suffers. A selfish CEO’s singular focus on profit over people will eventually backfire when low morale erodes performance. Self-absorbed managers and complacent employees will go down with the ship as they expend their energy pointing fingers instead of solving problems. And individualistic members of society will soon find themselves living in a dystopian world unless more of us begin thinking and acting more interdependently than we have in the past.

The cure for individualism is for each of us to take greater personal accountability for the problems and solutions within the organizations we operate—our families, workplaces and our society.

We may not have created the organizational and societal problems we find ourselves in, but we can choose to contribute to the solutions.

We may not have created the organizational and societal problems we find ourselves in, but we can choose to contribute to the solutions.
Click To Tweet

Discover how to develop greater personal accountability in this FREE WHITE PAPER.

[image error]

The post The Cure For A Different Kind Of Illness first appeared on Avail Leadership.