Are you using your org goals to channel innovation?

As you can imagine, in my job I ponder innovation a lot.  Innovation is so critical to success in technology and frankly it’s the fun part of what we do.

The tricky bit about innovation and leadership, comes in channeling it toward your business objectives.  When you innovate in ways that make your business better you win.

So often I find that individuals want to innovate to help the business, but lacking proper clues from the business they tend to innovate where they think makes sense.

The concrete suggestion here is to make sure that your organizational goals are not just saying vague things like “increase shareholder value” but instead are giving your innovative workforce clues where to innovate.

In having useful organization goals, you provide pointers on where innovation might be valued.  If you don’t do that, you’ll probably find yourself with a lot of self operating napkins.

No good deed goes unpunished

Have you ever noticed the unique corporate irony that can happen to high performers?  That universal truth that tends to take people who get work done and give them more work.

What the heck is that all about?

And before you say you would never do that in your team,

I suggest you remove your self-delusion layer that is so helpful for self-esteem, but may not be completely honest.

If you are a high performer the odds are this has happened to you, and if you are a leader you probably have done this to others. 

Why?

When important stuff needs to get done you are likely to give it to people you trust.  Who do you trust? The high performer.  That person who has gotten stuff done for you in the past.

So, if we acknowledge that those who can do more, will be called upon to do more, we now need to figure out how do we make that fair.  Not equal but supporting a general sense of integrity.

As a leader, you need to make sure that the opportunities you are giving your high performer are those that are supporting their general career goals — sometimes additional work, while painful, might come with visibility that is critical for getting to the next level.

As a high performer, you need to make sure you are working for someone that understands and respects your career aspirations and core values.

How do you know if that is the case?

You make sure you’ve had the discussion.

If you have not had a candid and honest discussion about what you hope to achieve with your career, and what you expect to contribute, than odds are you will continue to do more work than others while wondering why this keeps happening to you.

The key  is that you hit the right balance for you. That you are achieving the results that matter to you on purpose,  not just letting things happen to you.

Having found myself on every single side of this equation, I have to say that this is something you need to think about before you find yourself the workhorse of the organization.  If you get it wrong, you could find yourself in the emergency room wondering why half of your face is numb (completely random and not-at-all autobiographical example, that turned out to be  a migraine, I mean if that had happened).

If you get it right, you can find yourself able to accomplish more than you might have imagined possible, while getting great visibility and  recognition for your flexibility, capability and unique skills.

In the end, the choice really is yours.

What’s So Funny ‘Bout Tweets, Posts, and Understanding?

So where are the strong, and who are the trusted?

How much has your experience with social media like blogs and networks helped you understand things better? I’m not saying you had to agree with someone else, just that you had a better idea where they were coming from. Didn’t that help you have a more complete picture of the overall situation? Didn’t that improve your thinking and as a result, your ability to get things done or come up with a better solution?

Just as how your experience with networks outside of work can help you understand more about others, so too can your experience with your network at work help you understand more about what other folks in your company are doing, what they are up against, their frustrations, as well as their vision. Again, you don’t have to agree with them; it’s about understanding them more so that you can be better in your thinking, consider more perspectives, etc.

So how to foster that understanding? The challenge is that this understanding requires looking at your connections as more than just nodes on a network; you also must factor in their humanity.

If it’s about humans, it’s about relationships

What makes it hard and keeps a lot of folks unwilling to factor in the other person’s humanity, particularly in business, is that humans are complex. Roles, expertise, functions, etc. are not nearly as complicated. Most of the complication people try to avoid is around that most human of attributes: emotions. Sometimes, as Jason Seiden just pointed out, you don’t even know what emotion you are observing in the other person. Are they mad? Frustrated? Distracted? Then, you don’t know what the context of the emotion is. Are they mad at me? Someone else? Are they frustrated about some larger issue they see? What does it mean?

So unsurprisingly, a lot of people just give up and say, “You know what, I’m just going to do my job, get the info I need, tell folks what I think needs to be done, and that’s it.” Just get in, get what you need, and get out seems the simplest approach and least likely to cause problems. Here’s the catch – using that approach with your social network can just as easily cause the problems you’re trying to avoid. People aren’t dumb and they will see what you are doing and they wouldn’t be out of line to at least resent that you are using a social medium to basically use or manipulate people.

Besides, you are also missing out on getting a better understanding of the people in your network, where they are coming from, and how they see things are. Which means: you’re also missing the bigger picture.

Core Concerns, not Kumbaya

What if you had a way to still acknowledge emotions and what if that also helped you get a better understanding of the people in your network and as a result, get you what you wanted? I’m going to pull in some advice that’s primarily directed to negotiators, but also applies to relationships*, both personal as well as business, and will serve you well in your social network at work.

This advice comes from Roger Fisher, of “Getting to Yes” fame, and his colleague Daniel Shapiro, from their book, “Beyond Reason.” They suggest that rather than trying to stop having emotions, ignoring them, or attempting to decipher them directly, instead try to address what boils down to the Five Core Concerns that give rise to many of the emotions we see. This way, we can still acknowledge the impact of emotions (and maybe even benefit from them – think excitement, hope, etc.) and enrich our relationships as well as our understanding.

Here are the Five Core Concerns to consider, and by doing so, will help your relationships in your networks, both inside and outside of work. In turn, you’ll get better understanding:

1. Appreciation: Really find merit in the other person’s thinking and then show it. They will see that and that will raise your credibility with them immensely. Guess what? You might come away with better understanding by looking at things their way for a minute.
2. Affiliation: Find common ground or interests that you can be colleagues on, rather than adversaries. This is about finding where you both agree so that you can get motivated to help each other in that area at least, which promotes more understanding.
3. Autonomy:  Recognize and respect that the other person doesn’t have to do what you say or agree with you. Applying pressure to change that will backfire at least in the long run. Besides, if they can’t express their opinions or say what they would do if they could, etc. you miss out on the bigger picture.
4. Status: Show each person, that while perhaps not having as much “prestige” as everyone else, or as grand a title, they are nevertheless important in their own right. They have a particular expertise, some knowledge, function, thinking, or opinion that is unique and valuable. Understanding this in order to communicate it to your network gives you (and them) a better understanding of the bigger picture.
5. Role: In addition to the above, make sure people in your network know how what they are doing matters to you and what you’re trying to do. Figuring this out gives you (and your network) a better overall understanding.

*Think about it, unless a negotiation is very, very quick and you’ll never deal with that person (or people they know) ever again, then it really *is* about relationships.

Photo by volume12

Be fluid in your thinking, but concrete in your communication

I have realized lately that a big part of what I offer to most situations is my core need to make things concrete and specific.  I can’t seem to help myself but fill vague empty space with concrete plans.

Whether it is converting business data to strategy,  technical vision to product plans, or vague concepts to use cases, I am all about being specific.

Somehow that is how my brain works.

Amongst friends, I refer to this as my brain “dumbing down” information.

So whether it is something like FASB /GAPP rules, or AICC compliance or CPIM best practices,  I tend to create a specific example as part of the process of comprehending the topic.  Once I’ve got a simple story in my head, I can re-assemble these examples into more complex solutions on demand.

The complex is no longer complicated, it’s specific.

As I think about key success factors for my own career, I see this ability to be concrete as a big part of the value I bring to an organization, and I often wonder why this is so unique?

Not to steal my own competitive advantage or anything, but anyone can develop this skill.  There are two [concrete] steps to mastering concrete communication.

They are not hard but they do take effort.

First: Think in terms of use cases and examples not just concepts.  It’s ok to start with concepts if that is easier for you, but quickly get to an example.  Most of us understand examples better than concepts.  The more banal your example, the better.

Second: Communicate your ideas and examples in the language and the form that your audience prefers.  That’s right, you need to get over yourself and think about others, for this to work.

Bonus points: If you can frame your communication with emotion vs. just facts you will get more results with the communications you deliver.

What tricks to you use to make your communication effective?

Does your email make you look like a 3rd grader?

I love the convenience of modern technology – including text messaging and instant messaging.

While I still enjoy phone conversations, I tend to text people when my reason for contacting them is short and sweet, such as “C u in 5 @ XYZ”. I find texting wonderful because it is less intrusive than a phone call and I don’t need to beat around the bush especially with people I know very well.

But it’s one thing to use shorthand and abbreviations in a text message, it’s another when you to use them in official business emails.

Today I received an email from a candidate I interviewed last week. Let’s call him “Fred”. Fred  interviewed well but his email today did not leave a positive impression on me:

“Hi Vivian,I hope you have reached a decision for the job posting. Do u have any updates either way for me?? pl. Let me know. thx”

This is the very first email Fred sends me, and he can’t be bothered to spell out “you”, “please” and “thanks”?

I couldn’t help but wonder if Fred has adequate written communication skills?  Does he code the same way he writes his emails? Fred could very well be a top notch employee, but his “half and half”  email-text message made him look sloppy.

Perhaps I am just old fashioned and prefer business emails to look like… well business emails. Not text messages.

What about you? What do you think about sending or receiving “text message like” business emails?

What are you doing to make it better?

Here’s the thing.  Good employees do their job, great employees make their jobs better.

When I think about goal setting with my team, I am always asking them to set themselves a goal that will make something better than it was six months ago.  Without this kind of thinking, you can easily get stuck in quarter-by-quarter survival and find yourself running in place, making no progress at all.

Of course, there is no affordance in your job description to make this easy.  What I’m saying is that the system is rigged to keep you in the same spot, solving the same tactical issues, the same way, year after year.   Your job is to not let that happen.

When you find a way, against odds, to make things better, you are able to get more done.  When you get more done than your competition, bazinga you have found your way to greatness.

I’ve said this before, you are responsible for your own career.  If you are not having the impact you could, find a way to fix it.  If you don’t, someone else will, and you will always be wondering why you got left behind.  The war for talent* strikes both ways, it is not exclusively a sellers market.

If you need help figuring this all out, get your team to help.

_______________________________________

* Was that really more than a decade ago?!

2 Avatars: My work self and my personal self

Do you share work secrets with the whole world?

The line between work and personal worlds is blurry.  This is particularly the case for knowledge workers – we tend to think our work is interesting enough to talk about at a cocktail party (though our spouses and partners might disagree) and I’ll be the first to admit that, despite my occasional surge to re-connect with high school and college pals, most of my Facebook friends are work colleagues.  I like people in my industry and I’m interested in their personal lives.

Is there a difference between work and personal?

There is a difference, but it’s not about who I connect with, rather the context in which I engage in conversation.  My work colleagues expect me to share pictures of my kid and rave about my husband’s latest cooking venture on Facebook.  They expect me to ask for help on my (top secret) research project or share a quote from a ravingly positive customer internally – typically email at this stage.

Could I share work information on a network rather than email?  Absolutely.  I used to send pictures and updates to friends via email.  Now I put it on Facebook.  It took some time to get used to it and a critical tipping point of friends on the network, but the shift happened.  This same shift is due to happen with work networks.  Rather than send an email to a group, invariably leaving off someone who would have benefited from the information or could have provided the feedback I need, I could leverage my work network in much the same way I leverage Facebook.

Why not put work updates on Facebook and direct it to work colleagues?

Security is the obvious answer (oops!  I didn’t mean to send that to everyone! … makes the “reply to all” to the whole company look benign doesn’t it?), but I think it’s also about context and purpose.  Even though the mechanics and the overarching concept is the same (connect, share, learn), the purpose is to get work done and the context is that it is valuable to my work.

Is Facebook a waste of time?

I just said that the purpose of an internal network is to get work done and the conversations that occur are valuable to my work.  Does this mean that external networks are not valuable to my work?  First of all, I believe that personal conversations are valuable to one’s work.  They set a foundation for trust, respect, and shared enthusiasm.  That said, the purpose of Facebook is not to facilitate work collaboration.   I do occasionally share a work triumph – a well received presentation, a blog I’m particularly proud of – for the purposes of building my external reputation and brand.  So that brings me to my next question …

Is my external brand different than my internal brand?

This gets into even blurrier territory, especially since so many social media players are actually external workers.  Independent analysts, marketers, consultants, for the most part, do not have internal, private work lives.  Their work brand and reputation is completely external.

This is not the case for most knowledge workers.  Many are starting to dabble in the world of an external presence or brand, but for the most part, their career is based on their reputation and identity within their company.  Finance, IT, R&D, even Sales do the majority of their work inside the company.  Why can’t they enjoy the benefits of network collaboration - innovation, productivity, engagement – inside the work environment?

Where does LinkedIn fit into this?  And Twitter?  I don’t know.  What do you think?  I’d love to hear your thoughts on this …

The Leadership Development Carnival – Anniversary Edition is up!

Go check out the new Anniversary Edition of the Leadership Development Carnival. Sharlyn Lauby has gathered together over 50 top posts, grouping them by how long the contributor has been blogging (one has been at it for more than 10 years!). Sharlyn introduces each submission with a brief description to help you decide if you want to read it.

Some notable posts include:

• Jason Seiden’s Indispensable? I doubt it. You’re simply not that important.
• Tom Magness’ Persistence pays!
• Michael Lee Stallard’s The Science of Employee Engagement.
• Becky Robinson’s Are Homogeneous Groups Better?
• Mike Henry’s Your Friends and Your Future.

This is a terrific opportunity for you to get a great sample of a variety of perspectives, thinking, and just plain good writing. Who knows? Maybe you’ll discover a great blog you never heard of before.

How Can Your Network Help Your Inner Homer?

Homer: Just give me my gun…
Gun Shop Owner: Sorry, the law requires a five-day waiting period. We’ve got to run a background check.
Homer: Five days? But I’m mad now!

Your two brains

You’re probably familiar with the idea that we all have two systems of thinking – a thoughtful, logical system and a impulsive, emotional system. Richard Thaler* has a great model for thinking about them: Mr. Spock and Homer Simpson.

Mr. Spock is what Thaler calls your “Reflective System”, i.e. the part of you that stops and thinks of consequences, re-checks calculations and assumptions, etc. Homer is your “Automatic System”, i.e. your “gut reaction,” “fight or flight, “lizard brain,” etc. It’s the part that came in very handy when your prehistoric ancestor was strolling across the Savannah and wished to not be eaten by predators lurking in the tall grass.

Doughnuts. Is there anything they can’t do?

As civilized folk, we try to ignore our inner Homer and be upstanding Mr. Spocks when it comes to making decisions. We’re taught that making decisions rashly or under emotional stress should be avoided.

When angry, count to ten before you speak; if very angry, swear.    – Mark Twain

That’s wonderful advice, but while we can identify obvious situations where we know we need to wait to cool down or spend extra time doing research, we are still incredibly vulnerable to subtle tricks that cause us to make faulty decisions, even when we think we are being quite logical. Homer may be dense at times, but he also can be quite sneaky. For even while our inner Mr. Spocks are supposedly making cool, logical decisions, our inner Homers are influencing them by how we weigh certain risks, how we look at future needs vs. immediate wants, etc. These all impact how we decide no matter how hard we try to cut off that influence.

This is where your network can come to the rescue. We typically see networks as a way we can not only find out things from others, but also as a way to perhaps influence others. Well, it works in both directions. It turns out that while our inner Homer is pretty powerful in prioritizing his own immediate reactions for reasons to do with survival, so is our inner Homer’s tendency to need the acceptance, praise, attention, approval, etc. of others. Our prehistoric ancestors that lived in cooperative groups increased their chances of survival and hence the passing of their genes to future generations.

Put your inner Homer to work!

So when, for whatever reason, we’re still on a path not in your best interests (e.g. can’t quit smoking, downplaying project danger signals, floundering in a fulfilling job, discounting marketplace trends, etc.) and personal motivation doesn’t seem to be enough, use Homer’s need for approval to help you alter your behavior.

Here’s the catch: you need to have built a network that can really help you, not one that will just reinforce your biases. Just as having diversity in your network for working on “logical” issues helps you reduce your blind-spots, so it is with working on these “emotional” issues. For instance, it won’t do you much good to help you quit smoking if your network is entirely made of smokers. Likewise, it doesn’t help you spot and take seriously trends that threaten your competitive position in the marketplace if your network is made up of carbon copies of your experiences and outlook on trends.  But also keep in mind that you are more apt to be influenced by your network the more you share in common with those members. So you have to mix it up a little: common interests and beliefs in some areas along with different beliefs in other areas with certain folks, plus different common interests and beliefs with other folks.

——————————————————————

*Check out “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Thaler and Sunstein. Richard Thaler is well-known for his work in behavioral finance.

The Carnival of HR: American Red Cross Edition is up!

Lexi Ruben over at the Precept Employee Benefits Blog has posted the American Red Cross edition of the Carnival of HR. She has assembled 26 posts from around the blogosphere. They cover a wide range of topics, but Lexi has made it easier to find the ones you might be most interested in by providing a brief description for each entry.

Some of the notable posts include:

• Mark Vickers’ admonition: Don’t Plan Succession, Manage It.
• Jason Seiden’s observation on Why Corporate America Can’t Build a Training Program Worth Squat.
• Gautam Ghosh’s advice that Employee Engagement Should Not be Your End Goal.
• Lisa Rosendahl’s caution that If Your Sky Falls, It Won’t be Because of Social Media.
• Laura Schroeder’s insightful Just One Teeny Weeny Criticism.
• Mark Stelzner’s reminder that You Have All the Answers!

Go check out the carnival! It’s a great way to get a sample of the best and you might discover a blog you weren’t aware of before.