This Is The Way We Do It…Part Three

This is the third (and final) installment on “This is the way we do it.”

Two mind-sets, #1 (having a bias for results) and #2 (being a part of something bigger), have the biggest impact on people or organizations in terms of managing change (think:improving things).

Organizations whose cultures have managed to create a strong commitment to results naturally embrace improvements—whether they be central to the enterprise’s core strategy or merely a tactical process change.  The client I mentioned in the last post—the one whose management practices are bench-marked across the world—is a good example.  In that organization, people are maniacal about delivering results.  They know constant improvement is integral to sustaining the superior level of results the organization has become accustomed to.

When there’s a track record of successfully managing change well—which includes committed sponsorship—future change has a much greater degree of taking hold. Unfortunately, most organizations aren’t that good at managing change. Thus, the status-quo lives on to fight another day.

Take the senior executive who is nearing the end of their career.  Many are reluctant to take on major change initiatives. Why? There can be many reasons, but mainly they just don’t want to be bothered.  They may even believe (intellectually at least) in the change effort!  But still, it doesn’t always translate into action.

Before any of us get too self-righteous in judging the senior executive, it’s been my experience that most change efforts are stymied (in whatever aspect) for all-to-human reasons—not for the lack of rational business justifications.  Said another way, sometimes it’s us that doesn’t want to be bothered!  Seeing oneself as a professional can help get us out of that funk.

There’s nothing quite so personal as a job change.  Years ago I interviewed a gentleman for a position in an organization I had stewardship for.  At the time I happened to know this gentleman was 2 years away from retirement.   He was old enough to be my father.  I had seen too many people merely coast to retirement’s finish line.  Often, the outcome wasn’t pretty.  ‘Retired in place’ would aptly describe it.

“Howard, I asked, how do you want to feel about your last 2 years here? You know, as a professional, how do you want to go out?”  Howard didn’t hesitate, “Bill, I want to go out with a bang.  Six months into my retirement I want to look back and feel proud about my contributions here.”

To many people’s surprise, I hired him. Howard indeed went out with a bang.  I couldn’t have been more pleased.  Howard was responsible for the development and execution of two brand new programs—the outcome of which enabled our department to post results that ranked within the top 5% of the company.  Howard probably could have coasted to retirement’s finish-line from his former position.  But that wasn’t Howard.  He wanted ‘in’ on some the promising action we were in the process of cooking up.

Howard was a professional. He held the mind-sets I would later memorialize in The Power of Professionalism. It was never about him.  Rather, it was about what he could contribute.  He wanted to improve things—leaving them better than when he found them.           

Let’s not be pollyannish. Change is tough.  And there are a lot of mandatory ‘head-level’ aspects of the change process that must be accomplished to make the change both compelling and appealing.  Yet successful change is far more about one’s identity as a professional (along with the accompanying mind-sets) that any list of costs and benefits.

This Is The Way We Do It, But…

As we were reminded in a recent post a little over a week ago, being open to new possibilities can be rewarding.  It certainly was for my daughter’s friend who came to realize that by implementing a different approach to food management she would change her overall backpacking experience for the better.  In other words, a seemingly small change can really be a big one in disguise.

Of course, getting to the point where people will consider ‘change’ is key.  Sometimes that’s a tough nut to crack. There are a million reasons why people resist change.  My experience tells me that ‘comfort with the status-quo’ is near or at the top of most people’s list.  That’s why ‘this is the way we do it’ seems like a mantra in some organizations.

I’ve found that there are generally two types of people when it comes to change—those that tend to be open to it and those who aren’t. Here are some characteristics of:

Those who tend to be open to change:  they’re curious, they’ll mess with the status-quo if a new approach holds promise, they don’t mind rocking the boat, they tend to equate change with opportunity, or they see ‘change’ as part of their legacy (a driver for some senior executives).

Those who tend to avoid change:  they’re not terribly curious, they’re confident that the status-quo is sufficient for their needs,  they aren’t ‘boat rockers’, they tend to equate change with risk, or (frankly) they just don’t want to be bothered.

Let’s be fair here.  Life’s experience and personal temperament has influenced many to be risk-avoiders.  Many have gotten burnt after having stuck their neck out.  Others just don’t have the stomach for it.  And sometimes the proposed change doesn’t make sense—the timing is wrong, there are bigger fish to fry, the proposed change is ill-conceived, or a myriad of other perfectly good reasons.

Let’s face it, leaders and managers (especially in organizations steeped in hierarchy) who are risk-adverse will throw cold water on most change efforts.  That’s unfortunate, but it happens.  If you’re in one of those organizations, it makes your efforts to improve things that much harder. (Note: Chip and Dan Heath’s book Switch is a thought-provoking treatise on change—personal, organizational and everything in between. Chip and Dan share several experiences of those who faced great odds—including resistive bosses or cultures—and made a difference.)

I’m currently working with an organization that is world-class in their management practices. Their approaches are reflected in a myriad of best-practices lists around the world.  Yet, they strive for perfection.  In learning about how they approach things, their people will explain (in effect) “this is the way we do things, but….”   Virtually everyone in their organization thinks about it this way.

This organization has ‘proved’ many of their approaches.  In other words, their approaches work.  They get great results.  If ever a company would be a candidate for complacency it would be them.  Yet, they realize they’ve got a ways to go.  They aren’t about to rest on their laurels.  That’s why you hear the word ‘but’ as a qualifier when they explain how they do things. They want to learn from others.  They want to recognize their blind-spots—to the extent they exist.   In short, they want to get better.

What a different approach from those who hold a bias for the status-quo!  Being open to new possibilities is important—especially in today’s current business climate. Great companies think differently.  This is one such example.  In my next post I’ll explain how the mind-sets play into all this. As you’ll see, they do—prominently!

 

Professionalize Teaching ?—A Duke University Senior Speaks Out

‘We must become more professional’ is a mantra I regularly hear amongst both the for-profit and non-profit sectors. For instance, many have argued that management should have the same types of standardized professional requirements that law does.  Whether you agree or not isn’t the point.  Rather, it’s symptomatic of some level of dissatisfaction of the profession itself.

Recently in the Contra Costa Times another such article “Educating Under Oath”, surfaced. It’s about teachers–written by Matthew Straus, a Duke University senior. Check it out.  And notice the thinking that is foundational to the oath Straus proposes teachers take.  To me, it’s clear that Straus holds several of the mind-sets we write about in The Power of Professionalism.  Am I surprised?  Not at all!

Can We Tolerate Working With You?

In 1999 Whirlpool began a quest to go from one-product, one-customer manufacturer of washing machines to being the global leader of marketing and manufacturing major household appliances, with revenues over $10 billion. Today the Whirlpool brand is the top-selling appliance brand in the world.

Many contributed to Whirlpool’s remarkable success story—but arguably none more than Chief Innovative Officer—Nancy Snyder.   Nancy was the chief architect of this remarkable transformation.  She tells the complete story in her 2009 book Unleashing Innovation.

Nancy would be the first to tell you that there was an endless array of people who deserve credit for this remarkable transformation.  That said, amongst those that were closest to the work itself, there’s an especially important group.  Nancy calls them iHeros.   Without the efforts of the iHeros many of the remarkable commercial innovation successes would have never come to fruition.  In addition, these people were the catalysts that enabled the organization to institutionalize (culturally) innovation at Whirlpool.

These are people who took out-of-the-ordinary personal risks, made personal sacrifices, and constantly ‘took one for the team’.  In the end, their ‘reputational capital’ was off-the-charts. It goes without saying that they were respected—but people also liked them.  They were iHeros because their peers recognized them as such—not because the organization issued them an award.

There were those within Whirlpool that were almost singularly responsible for some remarkable commercial innovation successes at Whirlpool.  Yet, they weren’t recognized as iHeros by their peers. Why?  Because they were perceived to be more about ‘me’ than ‘we’.

Whereas iHeros weren’t self-glorifying, these individuals tended to be. General Richard Myers once told me that self-aggrandizement was just about the worst character trait one could have in the military.  Turns out, it’s one of the worst at Whirlpool too—although fortunately they don’t seem to have much of it!

Recall in The Power of Professionalism I advocated that professionals are defined by how, not by what they do.  Here’s yet another example of that at Whirlpool.    

‘Can we tolerate working with you?” This is one of only three key questions that several respected executive recruiters tell us need be asked in hiring interviews.  (The other two are:  ‘can you do the job?’ and ‘will you love the job?’)  While it’s more important to be respected than liked, the Whirlpool experience reinforces how important it is to be liked as well.  Ask yourself, everything else being equal, who would I rather work with—someone I like or someone I just tolerate?   Kind of a no-brainer, huh?

Applying The Mind-Sets To Tough Meetings

Got a tough meeting coming up—one in which involves critical problem-solving, or one in which emotions may run high?  If you’re like me, you’ll need all the help you can get.  Here’s a tip.

Assuming you’re dealing with a group that’s familiar with the seven mind-sets, at the beginning of the meeting ask the group two questions:

*** “Which mind-set is most critical in ensuring we achieve our desired outcome?”

*** “Which mind-set (or its absence) is most likely to trip us up?”

If the two questions are properly facilitated, a lively discussion will ensue.  Ultimately the group will settle on a mind-set that pretty much fits the bill for each question.  Post the questions and answers on a white board or on a flip chart where they can be seen over the course of the meeting.  Don’t assume everyone will agree with the mind-set that ultimately gets chosen for the two questions.  In the end, it doesn’t matter.

This brief exercise (which should probably take less than five minutes) will have accomplished three important things:

1)      By default, it provides an invaluable review of each of the seven mind-sets…so in the meeting the mind-sets become top-of-mind.  It informally nudges people to be their ‘best-self’ in an atmosphere that may well prove to be highly-charged.

2)      It provides a great prevention that materially aids in keeping the meeting on-track.  The group will naturally circle back to the two questions (and corresponding answers) should the meeting tend to get off-track.

3)       It reinforces a laser-like focus on the desired outcome.  Of course the meeting’s desired outcome is—by definition—a first-cousin to mind-set #1 (having a bias for results).  Mind-set #1 was chosen to be number one amongst all the mind-sets for a reason…namely, that when people hold this mind-set, a lot of good things naturally follow.

I’m confident that this approach, if well executed, can help you.  The point isn’t what mind-set gets chosen in conjunction with the two questions.  The point is that this process appeals to people’s ‘best-self’ —largely because of their desire to ‘show up’ as a professional would.

How Old Are Your Stories?

Great communicators are, in large part, storytellers.  There’s nothing like a great personal story to make an important point memorable—cementing it into our hearts and minds.  While repetition is important, it’s less-so when people share their personal stories until they are thread-bare.  In other words, repeatedly telling stories about experiences you had 5 – 10 years ago can date you.

Managers and leaders can fall into this trap.  To be clear, there may be nothing wrong with the individual’s story.  But when I hear a leader repeatedly tell a story that’s 10 years old, it makes me wonder if they aren’t lacking any new experiences that, when converted into stories, would have help them make the same point.  Stale stories can make it appear that you’re not in ‘the game’…relying too much on what can feel like ancient history.

Leaders are most effective when they’re acting in the ‘here-and-now’.  Stale stories don’t cut it. If you need better (more relevant) stories, create some new experiences!  Both you and your people will be better off for it.

Do We Need A Statue of Responsibility?

It was the renowned scholar Viktor Frankl (who wrote the amazing book Man’s Search For Meaning) that recommended that a Statue of Responsibility be erected on the west coast to compliment the Statue of Liberty on the east coast.

Politicians regularly pass laws that (so they believe) create new rights. Marketers regularly insist that we have a right (i.e. we deserve) to their products.  Lawyers incessantly remind us of our rights.

Trouble is…great countries, great companies, great families didn’t get that way by  emphasizing ‘rights’.  Rather, they became great by emphasizing ‘responsibilities’.

Frankl was on to something!

‘The Best Five Players’…Congratulations To The University of Kentucky

Richard Kovacevich, the retired chairman of the board of directors
and former CEO of Wells Fargo (who was also an avid athlete) , once noted that, “You learn very quickly playing sports that it’s all about team. It’s the best five players that win the basketball game, not the five best players.”

The University of Kentucky certainly demonstrated that this evening–winning yet another NCAA national championship.  Congratulations to the Wildcats and coach Calipari.

The Right People…Do You Have Them?

A great organization is dependent on great people. Yet, even someone who is ‘great’ may not necessarily be right for your organization.  Jim Collins reminds us the right people:

***fit in with the company’s core values

***don’t need to be tightly managed

***understand that they do not have ‘jobs’, they have responsibilities

***fulfill their commitments

***are passionate about the company and its work

***display “window and mirror” maturity (e.g. they shine a light on others while taking little credit themselves)

This is a great summary–whether you’re hiring or evaluating your organization. For many of you, this is a reminder–hopefully a helpful one.

For those of you familiar with The Power of Professionalism you’ll notice a gazillion correlations with the seven mind-sets amongst Jim’s list. Again, that’s not surprising–after all, the book is all about personal leadership!