The Simplest Thing That Works

What Makes a Team Great

Last night, I was reading an article online, and the author (a venture capitalist) started out by saying that he thought a great senior team was more important to the success of an enterprise than a great idea. "Yes," I thought. "I think that's true - I agree." Then he went on to make a pretty good case for it: how an idea without the people who can execute it is just an idea, but a great team can find a great idea if the one they have isn't so great, etc. etc.  I continued to agree.

Then he and I parted company.  He described what he meant by a great team: he had a bullet-pointed list of six or seven things, and I realized they were all thought-based.  That is, each item on the list started with a phrase like "Understands how..." or "Recognizes that..." or "Knows when..." 

And I really disagree. In my experience and observation, there's an enormous difference between knowing something and knowing how to do it.  And then there's often a further gap between knowing how to do something and being able to do it.  Let me give you an example, based on one of his bullet-pointed items.  The author believes that one element of a great business team is, "An execution plan with both strategies and tactics articulated and supported." 

And I say - that's not an indication of a great team yet: that's a good first step.  Having such a plan (knowing that such a plan is needed, and being able to think through it)  is, unfortunately, absolutely no guarantee that the team then knows how to execute it.  And even if they do, that doesn't mean they'll actually be able to do it.  That they'll have the leadership, teaming, communication and management skills and mindset they'll need to make it happen.

So I'd revise it to say that one element of a great business team is "Being able to conceive and successfully implement an execution plan with both strategies and tactics articulated and supported."

What's your experience?  I'd love to hear your stories of senior teams who could talk a good game, but couldn't actually make things happen...and why.  Let's dig into the difference between knowing, knowing how, and doing.

Joy + Leadership = ?

Sometimes I google things just for fun, just to see what happens.

Tonight I tried "joyful leadership": nothing came up. Does that seem strange to you? It does to me. That in all the millions of places on the net that this phrase could exist, waiting to be found by Google's ubiquitous spiders, it doesn't.

Does that mean no one thinks leadership can be joyful? If so, then I beg to differ. Leadership, as I experience it and observe others experiencing it, is often joyful. It's also challenging, frustrating, exciting, at times demoralizing and just plain hard...but there is joy in it.

When you're the leader, and your team rallies around a common goal to achieve something that's beyond their individual capabilities: that's joyful.

When, as a leader, you agonize over and then make a difficult decision that turns out to be the right thing to have done: that's joyful.

When you invite and challenge someone who works for you to step up into a more demanding role, and he or she does it and succeeds: that's joyful.

When you, the leader, envision a future that others don't think is possible - and your passion and clarity are enough to open their minds, and you work together to make it happen: that's really joyful!

Maybe we think there's not supposed to be joy in leading -- but it's there. And it's wonderful not only for the leader, but for everyone else around her (or him). Go for it.

As I Was Saying...

Last week I blogged about how I think Barack Obama has great leadership qualities. I mentioned the six qualities in the Proteus leadership model and I promised to explain them. So here's an excerpt from an article I wrote about our "Chieftains" Leadership model:

"Folk and fairy tales are a wonderful place to look for a definition of the chieftain role. The stories exist in almost every culture and are remarkably similar in certain aspects, particularly in their outlining of what is required for someone to become (and remain) the ruler, the king or queen.

Let’s look at a tale that, with minor variations, can be found all over the world. Three brothers are charged with a difficult task. One, generally the youngest, succeeds. The personal qualities that enable him to achieve “happily-ever-afterness” are consistent.

First, the chieftain-to-be can see beyond his current situation (young, poor, despised, etc.) to his ultimate goal (save his father, win the princess, kill the monster), even when others lose sight of it, believe it’s impossible, or ridicule him for trying. He is Far-sighted.

Moreover, our hero doesn’t just go through the motions. He is deeply committed to his quest. He tells everyone he meets about his quest and tries to enlist their aid; his every action is directed toward achieving it. Nothing dissuades him, even the inevitable setbacks and disappointments attendant on any quest. He is Passionate.

Throughout the story, he is confronted with frightening and difficult situations. He may be afraid and lonely; he may feel like running away, longing for the comfort and safety of home. But he doesn’t turn aside; he doesn’t (unlike his brothers) make the safe and easy choices. He doesn’t wimp out. He is Courageous.

He’s not a cardboard action hero, though. His brain is tested, and he must be able to learn from mistakes. In many versions of the story, he doesn’t initially follow the advice given him by his shaman (don’t look back, don’t let go, don’t touch this or that on your way out), and his mistake creates more complexity and danger. The second time a similar situation arises, he behaves differently and succeeds at his task. He doesn’t deny or whine or blame; he improves. He also often comes up with clever solutions to seemingly insoluble problems, solutions that no one else has envisioned and that harm only the villain. Finally, he uses his powers of discrimination to think through difficult choices and arrive at the best solution (e.g., long-term happiness vs. current riches; the greater good vs. self-interest). He is thoughtful, appropriately humble, clear-headed and moral. He is Wise.

Along the way, the future chieftain meets people or creatures in need, and he helps or shares with them. He does so even though his own supplies are low; even though helping them takes him out of his way or slows him down. In some versions of the story, he actually has to sacrifice his life for those he loves or to whom he owes his loyalty (this always turns out all right in the end). And later on, when he is king, his people are prosperous and happy because he rules with an open hand — the chieftain is not stingy, miserly or selfish. He is Generous.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, his word is his bond. When he tells his dying father that he will find the magic potion to cure him, you know that he will. When he tells the princess that he will come back to marry her, you know she send out the invitations. When some creature says to him, “If I help you, boy, you must free me,” you know the creature is as good as free. The hero does not equivocate or exaggerate. He is Trustworthy.

This tale survives and thrives in almost infinite permutations because it is satisfying; it feels right to us. We are hardwired to expect our chieftains to be far-sighted, passionate, courageous, wise, generous and trustworthy. If we don’t see these qualities clearly demonstrated, we won’t follow whole-heartedly; it feels dangerous to do so.

Of course, we’re not entirely doctrinaire about this; we know that no real, living leader is perfect. If we are asked to follow someone who has four or five of these qualities, we will do it, all the while watching to see if he or she is working to add the missing qualities."

If you find this interesting, let me know, and I'll send you the whole article...

Political and inspiring: Perhaps Not an Oxymoron

Link: Dipdive.com.

Yes, I am a Barack Obama fan. I think he has the potential to be a great leader of this country. At Proteus, we have a leadership model we use in coaching C-level executives that has six elements, and it seems to me Barack may score high on each one. The elements are: Far-sighted, Passionate, Courageous, Wise, Generous and Trustworthy.

I'll explain them in depth tomorrow..till then, check out this video: I found it tremendously inspiring.

What's Toughest

Recently, I asked a question on Linkedin (at the suggestion of my lovely publicist, Nettie Hartsock): "What's your most difficult employee challenge?" One answer that intrigued me:

"Choosing between the "stick" and the "carrot" has been a constant challenge for me. The carrot is always the first priority and a given in my company, and I use it on a daily basis. But you reach a point when you have to make a decision: use the stick (discplinary process) or more carrots (more incentives, rewards...) when previous carrots already failed - I always wonder if my expectations are set at the right level, so I usually involve my team in setting them, but there is always 1 bad seed who never agrees, is always negative... so this is a challenge."

I think lots of managers find this tough: an employee who doesn't really seem to respond to the carrots or the sticks. Managers tend to get "held hostage" to this kind of employee: they keep offering carrots (rewards, incentives, praise, compliments) and hope for the best. When that doesn't work, they show the stick (note the consequences of continued poor performance), but they tend not to actually use it (follow through on the consequences), because the employee immediately starts to perform just slightly better. A certain sort of employee can continue to play this line for years, doing just enough not to get fired. The manager, especially a well-intentioned, hopeful manager, blames the situation on him or herself, and tries to figure out if some other, better combination of carrots and sticks will magically solve the problem.

To help you find your way out of situations like this, I'd like to share with you four basic behaviors I believe you can legitimately expect from every employee:

They are responsive to feedback: Sure, everybody gets defensive now and then, but overall, employees are responsible for listening to your feedback, taking it in and trying to understand and apply it.

They keep their agreements: This may seem blindingly obvious, but think about it—how many times have you said or heard someone say, “I’ve asked her to do that a dozen times, and she keeps saying she will –but then she doesn’t do it!” employees are responsible for doing what they say they’ll do.

They manage their own growth: They may need, and will probably appreciate, your help—but they know it’s their responsibility to develop, and they don’t expect you to make it happen for them.

They are good company citizens: Generally speaking, they don’t make it difficult for those around them to succeed; they’re honest, consistent and respectful in their interactions; they don’t try to accomplish their own goals at the expense of others. None of us are perfect, but employees are responsible for making sure that they’re not doing stuff that makes others dread to come to work with them!

And now, to free the hostages: If you're managing an employee reasonably skillfully and fairly, and the employee consistently fails to fulfill these responsibilities, it's OK to let him or her go. (If you'd like more information about this, you might want to check out Chapters 10 and 11 of Growing Great Employees.)

Why Does This Keep Happening?

Link: Abuses of power | Careers | SocietyGuardian.co.uk.

Here's a great little article in the Guardian, a UK paper. It talks about one of my pet peeves: the fact that people are generally promoted into management with little, if any support in terms of coaching, training or even simple conversation about what's required! Here's a great paragraph from the article:

If all staff feel valued and respected, if they feel they are treated fairly, then the organisation they work for is unlikely to be characterised by bullying, harassment and discrimination. This requires managers to become more sensitive to peoples' needs and to improve their leadership skills by gaining insight into how their behaviour affects the people they manage.

The writer of the article talks about how he and his company provide individual coaching for new managers, based on specific feedback about their strengths and growth areas.

How about your company? Is the place you work good, bad or indifferent about helping managers succeed by providing them with appropriate skills and understanding?

Bad Bosses on Notice

Link: Business: Now the rank and file are ranking.

Articles like this make me so happy. The essence of it is that the internet is providing a way for workers to hold their bosses accountable for their behavior: now, if bosses are control freaks, abusive jerks, or just plain clueless, their employees have a variety of places on the web to "out" them anonymously. (The one mentioned in the article that intrgues me most is eBossWatch.com, where employees get to "rate" their boss on 6 criteria.)

The article also asks why there are so many bad bosses, and concludes that a big reason is the habit of promoting people into management simply because they're good at doing their jobs. Some of you know this is particular pet peeve of mine (I rant about it at some length in my ChangeThis manifesto), so I was pleased to see it here.

The article concludes that people are less willing to put up with bad bosses than they used to be - and that, as the boomers age and there are fewer talented workers available, businesses with poor managers will suffer increasingly from a brain drain of their best workers.

So, my question to you is, do you have a bad boss? If so, what's your plan -- put up with it, try to change him/her, or leave?

A Great Blog Was had By All

Link: carpe factum: accomplishment integration management.

Cool guy, cool blog. If you don't already know this one, check it out. Timothy Johnson is one of my fellow advisory panel members on office-politics.com, and so I've just discovered his blog.

I very much like his writing style and his take on things. He asks excellent, thought-provoking questions, and he'll also send you down the blog-trail to lots of other bloggers who have interesting things to say about management, work, leadership, etc. And here's why he named his blog carpe factum.

What?

Sometimes I find things on the internet that simply astonish me. As I was wandering around tonight I found a blog with some "advice" to managers -- this was meant seriously, mind you -- to the effect that in times
of change, it's important not to let employees know too much, because they may get upset and become less productive.

I really, really, hate it when "gurus" advise people to behave in ways they would never want someone to behave toward them. Really, think about it. What if the person who gave that advice was working in an organization and his boss didn't tell him about a critical change that would affect him. And then, later, when the "guru" found out and objected to being kept out of the loop -- imagine if the boss said, "Well, I was worried you'd get upset and lose your focus." How do you think the guru would feel?

Right. Insulted and angry.

So, why do people give advice like that? I think it's because they see themselves as being different and better than mere "employees." It's a kind of organizational caste system that is simply bad business: my experience is that if you treat people like recalcitrant children, that's how they'll behave.

Generally, as a manager, you won't go too far wrong if your treat people with the kind of respect you'd like to get from them.

Young Employees: Starting Out Right

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about Gen Y employees. In it (it was on May 11, if you want to take a look) I referenced an article that talked about how these new workers (Gen Y is roughly those people born between 1980 and 1990, so they're currently 16 to 27) approach work differently than their older colleagues.

The main point - and I've certainly observed this - was that younger workers simply don't accept the command-and-control style of management that a lot of older managers still use. They see work as a mutual exchange of value: you, company and manager, have some things I want, and I, employee, have some things that you want. As long as we're both getting something from the exchange, I'll work here.

My husband, Scott, and I were talking about this today. He's been on the road a lot lately, teaching a management skills workshop that Proteus offers called Encouraging Excellence. One of the skills it covers is making performance agreements: how to establish clear, two-way, doable agreements about what you expect your employees to do and accomplish.

In a group he taught last week, one participant said, "But what about when people don't do obvious things -- do you still have to make an agreement? Shouldn't they just automatically do it? And can't you just discipline them for not doing it?"

When Scott dug into the situation a little, he found out the manager was talking about a very talented 20-something employee who had very different assumptions about the manager-employee relationship than he did. For instance, one day when he asked the employee to stay late to work on something critical, the employee said, "No, that doesn't really work for me. I'm pretty tired. I might be able to stay late tomorrow, though." The manager was shocked -- simply because he would never had said that to his boss, and it seemed to him completely inappropriate, based on his long-held assumptions about work and management.

As we talked about this situation, and others we've heard about or seen recently, we realized there's something managers could do to save themselves and their employees a lot of pain and suffereing.

Here's the suggestion: before you hire someone in their 20s, take the time to make explicit your expectations about the manager-employee relationship: what you believe to be the rights, privileges and responsibilities of both manager and employee. For example, you might believe that it's your right as the manager to require that employees be at work at a specific time every day, adhere to a dress code, and work on projects as assigned, even if it's something they'd prefer not to do. These things may seem so obvious to you that you might feel almost silly saying them out loud....but you might be surprised to discover that your new employee sees these things as points for discussion -- or even resists the idea the you have the right to determine them!

Much better to get this stuff out in the open before you make the job offer - then you can find out if you have enough common ground to work well together.

It's a new world...