In conversation with “Silence”!

 

Reet comes out of a business meeting. She is surprised, as otherwise lively part of the meeting, question and answer session, did not receive expected participation. What worries Reet more is, workforce somehow preferring to remain silent and it’s gradually becoming a trend.

Are you also experiencing the same? What is causing this transformation?

Possible reasons for this change are:

1. You are managing business extremely well, which gives no reason to complain about and resulted in satisfied workforce.
2. You have become predictable and participants can predict your response.
3. Your workforce is not empowered to participate and voice their opinion.

You can ignore this non-engagement provided your meetings are not meant for attendees’ participation or if one way communication is a preferred method for your business.

Nevertheless, corrective actions are unavoidable, if you are pursuing an active involvement from workforce, as this behavior depicts lack of proper training and workforce empowerment efforts.

You might have mastered the art and economics of conducting successful meetings with no or planned participation but workforce’s withdrawal from discussion is a negative sign. You need to train, empower and motivate your employees to not only voice their opinions and issues but also for seeking solutions via constructive conversations.

It does not really matter if silence is forced upon workforce or they opted for it. As a leader, it’s your duty to listen sound of the silence and help your workforce to come out of it so that they can contribute towards the success of your business.

Check out the May Leadership Development Carnival!

If you haven’t read it already, you’ll find many excellent posts related to leadership. Dan McCarthy has assembled contributions from 27 different blogs into one post, providing a brief description of each. All of the contributions are high-quality and provide valuable insight, advice, and challenges to everyone, but you might be tight on time, so these descriptions help you spot that ones that seem most relevant to you and your organization.

If you’re really short on time, here are a few that I found particularly interesting:

• Art Petty’s The Cruel, Bitter And Crushing Taste of Dump Truck Feedback does a great job pointing out the danger and damage that can be done in withholding feedback until performance review time. He also prescribes things that both managers as well as employees can do to correct this terrible practice.
• Sharlyn Lauby makes a great case for What Creates a High Performing Organization. While I am admittedly biased in that I already think that continuously sharing information is one of the key contributors to superior organization performance, Sharlyn brings together a nice set of succinct facts and arguments that solidify that position.
• Chris Edmonds presents an intriguing concept in Out-of-the-Box Thinking About Corporate Culture. The specific approach to work itself that was covered might not be for everyone, but it certainly shows how every organization has within its power to rethink how their culture and how work gets done interact and can either support, or undermine, each other.
• Carol Morrison doesn’t just go over old ground with Executive Leadership: Trending Toward Trouble. It’s easy to get discouraged and cynical about how bad the examples from recent headlines have been about executive leadership, but Carol offers fresh and inspiring examples of what some organizations have been doing to address the issue.

 There’s a diverse set of ideas, opinions, and findings presented in this Carnival. Who knows, you may discover a blog you never knew before that you’ll want to follow.

The New Crucible of Leadership

A crucible is used to burn off the unwanted materials and leave behind the stuff you want. Today’s world has the potential to transform leadership into more what it should be by burning away the old trappings that undermine its real purpose.

In today’s fear-dominated world, some people ask, “Where are all the leaders?” One answer was provided by James S. Rosebush in his March HBR post: Why Great Leaders are in Short Supply. Rosebush makes some excellent points about leadership and what has been eroding the ability for there to be “Great Leaders”, but I took issue with his premise, or at least felt he was misdirecting us a bit with the term “Great.”

For there is no shortage of leaders in the world. We are certainly witnessing the utter failure of “Great” leaders, and it doesn’t look like there are many alternatives fit to replace the current crop. So, yes, you could say there is a shortage of “Great Leaders.” But how much do we need, let alone want that kind? History shows us that at the very least, it’s been a high stakes game for the general population. That’s why there is hope for the future, I think, which comes from us growing away from needing “Great” leaders as much as we did previously.

Be careful what you wish for

The reason Rosebush gives why great leaders are in short supply is that in the past, they had the advantages of:

• Privileged access to information
• The reflected glory of their institutions
• Broadly shared foundational principles

All I can say is, thank goodness those “advantages” are (hopefully) in decline. We don’t need, nor want, leaders who rely on those artifices to get into or stay in power.

Yes, there is still privileged information out there, and it could actually be growing, since all information is growing at an incredible rate. But it does appear that more information that was once privileged is now becoming publicly accessible. Of course, the information is a complete mess, but that’s always been the case throughout history – anyone who thought they had a lock on what was really going on was usually proven wrong. We now need leaders who can help us figure out what the information means and what questions to ask next. Hint: it won’t be the leaders who tell us.

Rosebush asks if it’s the institutions themselves, or their leaders that have caused such a decline in respect and trust of institutions, and as a result, the leaders. The answer is yes – the institutions shape the leaders and vice versa. Once corruption sets in, it’s very hard to extract and no matter how much an institution claims they’ve weeded out the bad apples, it takes a long, long time to regain public trust. To me, that’s the time when you should consider literally putting the institution more in the public “trust.” That is, close the separation that grew over time between the institution (whether actually public or “private”) and the public it was supposed to serve. This is where more leaders throughout the public can step up to make that happen.

Nothing riles up a discussion more than identifying “shared foundational principles”, especially in a world where diverse cultures and norms have more and more interaction. However, if you look at it more as a process as opposed to an event, it helps us see where leaders are really needed. It’s not about appeasing those whose values differ from yours, but it’s also not about extremism, unilateral actions, and ultimatums. Those are the crutches of demagogues, who shroud themselves in the “will of the people.” Again, it’s the leaders we are *all* capable of being that are called for here. We are responsible for our own thinking about personal and shared values – not some “Great” leader who tells you what to believe because all your neighbors believe it. Everyone is the world is your neighbor now, so how can a “Great” leader make that claim anymore?

We don’t get fooled again?

No, all of these “advantages” of the past were frequently nothing more than mechanisms for those in power to stay in power. So, good riddance, as those advantages really weren’t doing the public very much good. They were the Emperor’s New Clothes that are now getting stripped away by increased access to information, rethinking the relationship between institutions and the public they are supposed to serve, and how it’s up to the people of this planet to get to broadly shared foundational principles.

It won’t be easy, but it’s the kind of leaders that help create positive change in these transitioning areas that we need. The good news is that there are many out there already doing it and plenty more who can. What can we do to help encourage them?

Who is setting goals for you?

 

Your ability to accomplish or outperform predefined goals at workplace determines your success. Goals can be your performance appraisal goals or your divisional performance goals; it can be organization wide product delivery targets or sales target. Whether you are celebrating your success or striving to achieve one, it’s important to retrospect your goals-setting process  and your role in the process.

Three most commonly observed patterns at workplace are:

1. You set goals for yourself as well as for others, either due to your authority, influence or charisma but you don’t believe in considering suggestions from others.
2. You set goals for yourself as well as for your team and you are open for ideas; you not only involve others but also adopt meaningful suggestions from them.
3. You barely get involved in goal-setting process. You are happy to take whatever comes to you.

Where do you fit in? If you find yourself aligned with the first or third pattern, it’s advisable to reconsider your strategy.

It’s very likely that you are pushing someone to adopt behavior as in pattern one because you don’t want to come out from third pattern. As a leader, you need to participate and voice your opinion in goal-setting process at your level, to make your organization a better place to work. Moreover, your willingness to listen to others without being cynical is also critical.

Keep in mind, all the three patterns mentioned above may bring you success, but if you are aspiring for success that lasts, you need to make serious endeavors to move towards the second pattern. Being a dictator or a silent observer on all the occasions doesn’t work but working together works most of the times.

Bill Kutik Radio Show hosts Steve Miranda

I’m sure you are all big fans of Bill’s radio show already.

I’m sure you have subscribed on iTunes and listen for all the most important news (and gossip) in our industry.

If you are like me, and a bit behind on your listening, I’d suggest you skip ahead to this week and then catch up on all the other great shows in between.  True to their respective brands, Bill does not shy away from the hard questions and Steve is candid and open with his responses.

Topics about the Taleo acquisition, the cloud, Oracle for smaller businesses and how Lake Larry is bay water, are all covered.  Really something here for everyone.

Check it out.

A Heartfelt “Thank You” to Fistful of Talent!

We here at TalentedApps are always trying to bring value to the Talent and HR community by sharing our thinking about how we can create positive change in the way employees and companies work together. We’re a very diverse team, with a lot of different perspectives and interests, shaped by our wide range of experiences, but we all write posts here because we share this common goal.

Part of the reward from doing this is to be recognized by our peers, of whom we have the utmost respect as they also work hard to make the world of talent in work a better place.

So it was wonderful and gratifying to see our blog make the FOT v.8.0 Talent Management Power Rankings – Top 25 Blogs list. This list is a terrific starting point for anyone interested in how to improve the way talent can help create value in organizations.

Thank you very much for this honor!

Sustainable Means More Than Recycling

In a world where almost everyone is considering the question of whether the notion of capitalism is obsolete, if you do think it’s still the right notion, then what is it that needs to change?

Part of the answer has been touched upon in whether profit should be the object of single-minded focus. Profit is of course a big factor in investor decisions, but every investor doesn’t think the same way. Some investors value the vision or purpose of a venture in combination with return on their investment, and to varying degrees. The bigger picture of profit is that it enables the continued existence of the venture to pursue its broader goals and the various investors have different perspectives on profit and those goals.

But there are also more than just capital investors.

More than one kind of investor

Society is also an investor in just about every capitalist endeavor, either directly or indirectly, either actively or passively. This might be through government activities such as taxes and tax breaks, subsidized loans, and contracts.

Consumers are investors as well, through the decisions they make on whether to buy a product or service that entails an ongoing relationship with a firm in order to get the most value out of the purchase.

Employees are also investors, through their commitment to see projects through tough times, to forego another job offer (even taking into account innate risk aversion), and investing their time into gaining experience and development in areas related to their organization’s vision or purpose.

Each of these investors has a stake in the organization just as much as the capital investor. So what happens when management loses sight of the bigger picture of the whole range of investors that exist and thinks only in terms of “increase shareholder value”?

Capital investors who were initially attracted to the vision and purpose of the venture start to see it fade and become muddled in a “race to the bottom” for profit or lost in generic, “be the best” platitudes.

Customers start to see no reason to keep buying the product or service. There’s no value in the brand and if switching costs are high for now, it just builds resentment, further reducing the value the customer sees.

Employees not only start to see all the previous things happening, and how it affects their future prospects in staying with that organization, but they are very likely on the receiving end of a poor work environment. In addition to long hours and low pay, the lack of vision and purpose take away even the semblance that their sacrifices might have some meaning to them.

Looking at all the investors, together

So, what to do? What’s key is to see that when all the different kinds of investors are considered together, the organization’s ability to deliver value to each is improved.

Think in terms that go beyond simply making your organization “a great place to work”, or “an environmentally friendly company”, or “good for society”, or “making the best product or service” – those can be just as narrow as “best risk/return record in the industry” if viewed as siloed, separate things.

Think instead about how all the pieces do fit together – how customers value your products/services is affected by your impact on the earth’s resources and environment, what your employees think about what their work means affects delivering a superior return to your investors across all that they value. These factors all interact in the outside world, as more people are beginning to understand, so your organization must also determine how it fits into that web of interaction.

An excellent book that focuses on the “how” with well-researched examples, is “Management Reset” by Ed Lawler and Chris Worley. It describes what the authors refer to as “Sustainably Managed Organizations”, in contrast to the long-standing “Command and Control Organizations” and the more recent “High Involvement Organization.”

Sustainably Managed Organizations (SMOs) weave together all the aspects of the organizations relationships with economic, social, and environmental stakeholders (not just “shareholders.”) They break out their approach to how SMOs operate into the major components that every organization must attend to if it really wants to achieve any meaningful change: Strategy, Structure, Talent, and Culture.

Leadership impact

Leadership is needed in all four of these components if the change effort is to have a chance of success. Most of all, leadership can have the largest positive impact through talent – the way people are treated, and culture – how behavior is guided…if it would only put the needed focus there.

Think about it – the places where organizations have gone off the rails and landed in the headlines on topics such as corruption, environmental disaster, and financial collapse of outrageous origin have been due in large part to culture and how certain behaviors were encouraged, tolerated, or rationalized.

Now think about how those negative outcomes affected the broader set of investors and their future decisions regarding those organizations.

We’re way past getting by with “Our people are our most important asset.” Organizations must now be able to explain how they manage their talent to generate value and create superior business performance – most of all to their people. Executives must be the primary talent managers, understanding how the workforce capabilities enable/constrain strategic options and impact execution.

Think what can happen when leadership is focused on how they manage talent and shape behaviors to the same extent it is focused on strategy and structure.

Photo by nickwheeleroz

The art of appreciation at workplace

Achievers believe in pushing the boundaries, setting the stretched goals and delivering the sustainable results. If you have these achievers in your team, they must be making you shine, but don’t forget to appreciate them in a meaningful way to keep their spirits alive.

You need to practice effective communication to convey the appreciation message without any ambiguity. Just saying that you appreciate their efforts is not enough till you show same by your actions too.

Appreciation can be anything which matches the degree of achievement, e.g. an award, a formal email, a certificate, a bonus, or a promotion. Don’t forget to taste your own pill before you give it to workforce. You can predict their reaction by placing yourself in their shoes and it will help you to choose the correct form of appreciation too.

Appreciation should be on time, every time. If you have a system, which forces achievers to pass through a queue before receiving any appreciation, you need to make sure that people don’t get stuck in that queue.

It’s human nature to expect an appreciation. And as a leader, it is your job to make sure that you know and practice the art of appreciation. An appreciation, which comes late or lacks in the value, is as good as no-appreciation.

 

Having trouble with execution?

It is always so wonderful in the beginning. We have the perfect vision of what we can achieve, and we are raring to go. Then, we get to the middle, and we can only see the dry, boring hard work, the compromises that sully our vision, and our energy wanes. We are taught to keep at it, and stay determined.

Unfortunately, big goals are not accomplished by gritting our teeth, and working through the middle. Big goals are accomplished by keeping the passion alive. The key is learning to finish midway, so you can start often.

A good singer knows to complete each musical phrase.

A good comedian knows to deliver each punch line.

A good dancer knows to end each spin, face to the audience, so she can start the next.

Are you focused on finishing your turn, or finishing your dance?

Leadership and Thinking – What’s the Catch?

It would be nice to know that the two go together, right? And they usually do, but…

The catch is that thinking tends to occur in two forms: “Fast,” or System 1, and “Slow,” or System 2. “Fast” thinking is what we are talking about when we have a “gut feeling” about something or someone or when we are going with our “intuition.” “Slow” thinking is what we are talking about when we “work things out” or “think things through.”

Quick example: When I ask you to answer 2 times 2, your answer comes from System 1. If I ask you to answer 17 times 24, you have to think it through – that’s System 2 doing its thing.

You’re thinking, you’re thinking again

How does this fit with leadership? Leaders can fall into the trap of relying on one type of thinking exclusively. This might come from wanting to have a “leadership style” and a desire for consistency in shaping that style makes a leader feel they need to always be seen as either quick or deliberate in their thinking. It might also be as simple as they’ve had more favorable outcomes with one or the other (or at least that’s how they remember it.)

CBS This Morning had a 5 minute interview with Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow (which I recommended here). The interview happened to bring up the subject of how George W. Bush and Barack Obama are pretty good examples of the two different Systems. Bush was known for, and prides himself on, being a quick decision maker who often “went with his gut” (System 1.) Obama is known for being more deliberate, for looking at both sides of the argument, etc. (System 2.)

What was interesting and important to note was Kahneman’s comments that one type of thinking is not always superior to the other – they both have their respective advantages and disadvantages. When asked when is it better to use one vs. the other, he nicely summed it up this way:

1. If it’s a routine situation and the stakes aren’t too high, it’s usually fine to go with System 1 (i.e. save your energy/time for when you really need it.)
2. If the stakes are high or the situation is unusual, you are usually better off taking the time to think things through (i.e. turn to System 2.)

Now, you look at that and you could say, “I could have told you that – I must be as smart as a Nobel Prize winner!”

Under pressure

But that’s where the pressures of leadership come in. Kahneman also made the observation that the pubic is often looking for “decisive leaders” and that often equates to being “quick on your feet”, ready to handle the next crisis at a moment’s notice in this world that seems to be moving and changing faster and faster, with danger lurking around every corner.

So the stakes are high, right? Both for the people of a country, and the whole planet for that matter. And with the way presidents, prime ministers, and CEOs are unceremoniously tossed out if things don’t go well, their personal stakes are quite high as well, correct?

Now, how often are circumstances (in our ever-changing world, that keeps moving faster and faster, with new threats around every corner) routine?

Let’s see. Stakes are high and the situation is very rarely routine. That points to System 2. But everybody wants a leader that acts like System 1. Got it.

For you leaders out there, the takeaway is this: sometimes the pressure you feel to “go fast” is a sign to “slow down,” while other times you simply do not have that luxury. Your mission is to get good at knowing when it’s the right time to make that call and when it’s not. Just remember that each type of thinking is valuable and make use of both when you can. Don’t get stuck in a pattern of using just one or the other.

Photo by toddeemel