The Unpaid Invoice

Last night I was teaching about The Power of Professionalism at one of our local Universities.  An enterprising woman raised an illuminating question about how to best handle—professionally—dealing with a client who had failed to pay her bill. Turns out, the woman was holding some inappropriate assumptions that professionals should somehow avoid conflict.

I dissuaded her of that notion.  This topic was actually something we had covered in an earlier post.

The woman’s assumptions had impacted the types about tactical approaches she was considering using with her client—none of which would likely prove satisfactory in the long run.

I suggested a different approach. Namely, to get the conversation on a higher plane—a professional plane, if you will.

Here’s one way to start that conversation—with someone we’re calling Judy.

“Judy, I trust you’ve sensed my frustration recently with the circumstances surrounding the unpaid invoice. Please know that I enjoy working with you and want you to succeed.  I’ve found that my most impactful (and enjoyable) consulting experiences have been when I’ve had a truly professional relationship with my client.  As a fellow professional, I’d appreciate understanding from your point of view what it means to have that type of professional relationship….one that really works.”

From here, do a lot of listening.  Understand Judy’s perspectives.  You’ll learn a lot….more than you might imagine.

The key here isn’t the well-scripted words that comprise the conversation’s prelude—the words that (hopefully) ‘warm up’ Judy.  This isn’t a script, so don’t treat it as such.  What you’re trying to do is invoke Judy’s identity of herself as a professional—therein lies the key.   Do that and you’ve got half the battle already won.

Lessons From The Debates

The vice presidential debate is tonight here in the US.  Reports are that one of the participants has been sequestered for the past week—preparing. That’s a lot….but of course there’s a great deal on the line with the presidential election less than four weeks away.

The candidates are preparing so as to not get caught flat-footed.  That’s good thinking.  After all, when you know something threatening is likely headed your way…ducking doesn’t seem like such a great strategy.

Preparation is integral to Mind-Set #3—Professionals Know Things Get Better When They Get Better. Make no mistake, preparation isn’t sexy.  It’s rarely fun.  It requires discipline.  It’s subservient to high standards (mind-set #4) and a commitment to results (mind-Set #1).   Preparation usually extracts a personal sacrifice of some sort.  Yet, in the end, sacrifice makes people better.  And when important things are on the line, you want your people at their best.

Take, for example, what Starbucks does for their people.  Starbucks is in the people business serving coffee (think: exceptional customer service). Customers are demanding, sometimes even rude.  Anticipating this (and recognizing how inexperienced some of their newly-hired baristas are in dealing with sensitive people issues) Starbucks trains its people on the very situations that they’ll ultimately face when dealing with the ever-fickle public. The approach has proven to build confidence and develop greater self-discipline in their baristas. As importantly, it has enhanced Starbuck’s customer service.

Starbucks (like the vice presidential debate candidates) doesn’t want to get caught flat-footed.  For Starbucks, there’s a lot on the line—namely great customer service.  Starbucks is all-too-familiar with the types of situations that could really test their baristas patience, good will and people skills.  They’re doing something about it…they get prepared.  Starbucks is one amongst many that do this….it’s a really prudent approach.

People are at their best when they’re prepared—it’s just as important at Starbucks as it is in a vice presidential debate.

Part Two—Is A Moral Compass A Prerequisite To Being A Leader?

Consider:

***the director of an after- school program (think:  Boys and Girls Clubs) is consistently losing kids to a new, increasingly popular, gang in town.

***the senior executive whose ‘killer’ proposal for the company’s strategic direction loses favor amongst her colleagues to a peer whose own proposal is blatantly self-serving

***the forthright and well-intended politician consistently loses ground to a charismatic, but unprincipled, opponent whose policies will (among other things) break the bank

What’s common amongst these three examples?

1)      each leader had a compelling message

2)      each leader was losing ground to an arguably inferior ‘competitor’ and was surprised by it

3)      each leader had become dismissive of their counterpart

4)      each leader assumed that the ‘moral high ground’ they believed they held would count for more than it eventually did

5)      each leader failed to acknowledge their counterpart as a leader

The director, the executive, and the politician each saw their counterpart as unworthy—at least compared to themselves.  By default, none of their counterparts could measure up to the lofty standards they associated with being a leader.  Each leader felt contempt towards their counterpart.  They were dismissive of them—all the while feeling a little victimized.

Of course, all of this is misplaced energy.  Most importantly, each made the classic mistake of disrespecting a worthy opponent.  They didn’t make any of this of this public.  Rather, each kept their feelings and impressions private.

Each of these three were less diligent in advancing their point of view than they should have been. They didn’t work as hard as they needed to.  They assumed (among other things) that the moral high-ground they represented would be a great equalizer. Unfortunately for them, it didn’t work out that way.

The truth is, each leader was facing a formidable opponent—a formidable leader if you will. Their counterparts were people that were creating a new status quo; people who had influenced others thinking.  Yes their counterparts were indeed leaders—even though these people may have had a malfunctioning moral compass.

Being dismissive of one’s opponents (as leaders) because one considers them ‘unworthy’ is a mistake. It  sets in motion a set of psychological conditions that prove to be self-defeating.  For each of these three leaders, their counterparts were leaders –they just weren’t ones that these three had much respect for.

Making a judgment is one thing, but developing a sense of moral superiority is quite another.  And it was largely that sense of moral superiority that undermined these three leaders.  As we mentioned in Part One, leadership is an equal opportunity aspiration for saints and scoundrels alike.

Professionalism ≠ The Absence of Conflict

Consider:

***your client is six months past due on a $68,000 invoice

***your colleague consistently fails to meet important deadlines on your important project

***your supplier has regularly provided irregular sizes of your most popular women’s dresses

You’ve really tried to show up as a professional would, but unfortunately others around you haven’t. Your client, colleague, and supplier need to get their act together.  It happens.

Being a professional doesn’t mean smoothing over important issues.  It doesn’t mean glad-handing people who should be ‘upping their game’.  Most importantly, it doesn’t mean the absence of conflict.

Professionals get results (Mind-Set #1).  That means getting the invoice paid, helping get your colleague back on track, and having your supplier dramatically improve their quality control.

Sometimes these types of situations require confronting people or handling situations that aren’t a lot of fun.  Sometimes that creates conflict.  Doing so doesn’t make you unprofessional.

For most of us, getting results usually involves having crucial conversations that involve conflict.  It comes with the territory.  It’s OK, as long as the conflict is handled professionally.  Respect is the key.  Conflict, when it’s handled respectfully, is rarely experienced as unprofessional.

Sometimes it’s tricky to maintain professional decorum when the individual is someone who hasn’t necessarily earned your respect—like the three people illustrated in the examples at the beginning of this post.

It’s easy to be respectful to someone who has earned your respect. Not so, for someone who hasn’t.  Yet, it’s still important to be respecting.  The key to creating and maintaining professional decorum is to be respecting when it’s difficult to be respectful.  To learn more about the difference between the two, see chapter eleven in The Power of Professionalism.

Bottom line:  professionalism shouldn’t be characterized (in whole or in part) by the absence of conflict; rather professionalism often gets defined by how conflict (inevitable as it is) gets handled.

The Chicken Coop

I recently had occasion to spend some time with Ken Behring.  Ken is an American success story— having transcended his humble beginnings in Wisconsin to become one of the nation’s wealthiest men.    The vast majority of Ken’s wealth was generated from real estate development, although he started out in Wisconsin (in large part) as a car dealer.

Ken’s public profile increased dramatically after he became majority owner of the Seattle Seahawks—perhaps that’s how you know of him.  Behring has since sold the team and has found a new passion—philanthropy. His philanthropic work is both impressive and inspiring.

Ken’s philanthropy has been enabled by his impressive business success. That success (no surprise) is a by-product of hard work and determination.

Ken tells of the time many years ago, while in his twenties, he needed an office for his first car dealership.  Low on resources, he got creative.  He decided to buy a farmer’s chicken coop and renovate it.  Yes, you heard right—his first office was a renovated chicken coop.

The chicken coop stunk to high heaven! Behring spent days scraping caked manure from every nook-and-cranny of the chicken coop.  It wasn’t a pretty sight.  The clean-up was a horrible job—one Ken later said he’d never do for anyone else.  Endless coats of paint, some linoleum on the floor, a few electrical fixtures and voila’ …a new office is revealed.

What drove him, Ken noted, was “the vision of what the coop would become”.   Of course, the coop was a means to an end.  By age 27 Ken had a million dollars in assets—an especially impressive feat in 1955.

Ken was all about results (mind-set #1).  When a chicken coop was called for…he got it done.

The thing that often separates us getting the result we desire are chicken coops—those things that are needful but distasteful.  What are your chicken coops?  Hiring a marketing specialist because you’ve proven you’re no good at it? Going the extra mile to make your new product release ‘just so’?  Forging a  business relationship with someone you dislike (but trust) whose talents are especially important to your company’s mission?

They’re ‘out there’—chicken coops that is!   The question is—will you built ‘em?

Example Three–“I Know”–From ‘Do You Know The Code?’

Have you ever…

***shared with your teenager your concerns about the perils of under-age drinking and driving?

***expressed your outrage to the check-out clerk about the skyrocketing cost of groceries?

***complained to your neighbor about how the country is going to hell?

And how many times have you gotten “I know” as a response?

“I know” is often code for ‘I don’t want to hear it.’ It’s largely a polite response, but one that doesn’t necessarily imply agreement.   Maybe the person is uncomfortable with the subject or maybe they’re tired of your rants or maybe their response has been triggered by something else entirely.

The person isn’t saying ‘shut up’…isn’t telling you to ‘go away!’ — but sometimes that’s what they’re thinking.  The person wants to change the subject or change their circumstance (e.g. like ditching you).

Of course this plays out in the workplace too.

***Your boss says “I know” the moment you open your mouth about why project XX should be an organizational priority.

***Your colleague says “I know” at the end of your explanation for the rational you used in hiring the  non-traditional candidate who turned out to be an all-star.

***Your assistant says “I know” as you recite some arcane of piece of information you gleaned off the internet earlier that morning.

Each of these people is basically saying, “let’s move on…what you’re saying isn’t registering.”

Your boss is already convinced about the need for project XX, she wants to talk about ‘how’ the project moves forward.  Your colleague is annoyed by your self-aggrandizement after hearing you tell the same hiring story (along with the implication of how clever you were) far too many times to count.  And your assistant is basically telling you, “tell me something meaningful  I don’t know”.

“I know” is code.  It’s important to know the code!

What can we learn from this?  When you hear “I know” it should tell you that you’re probably not getting through to the other person.   In other words, you’re probably not having an impact with them.

To regain your interpersonal footing (and often credibility), you’ll need to shift gears.  That might mean  tuning in to the unspoken needs of the other party.  Other times it means turning down our own rhetoric or asking more questions or just being a better listener.   Or a million other things….

It’s true that an “I know” response may be prompted by the other person’s ‘stuff’  (i.e. their boredom, their impatience, their uneasiness, their sense of superiority, or a host of other factors).   In the end, it doesn’t matter…because, regardless of the reason, you’re still not having an impact. 

That said, if you’re on the receiving end of an “I know” response too often, you’re likely doing something that’s prompting it. The desire to change that situation starts with mind-set #3 (things get better when I do).  From there, you’ve got to figure out what it is you need to change to get a different response.  Our next post will share some helps.

 

 

 

Mind-Sets Can Take Many Forms—Depending On Culture

An employee purposely slows down their productivity or begins to under perform relative to their colleagues.  That seems inconsistent with mind-set #1 (having a bias for results) and mind-set #2 (being a part of something bigger than oneself), right?

Well, no.  At least if you’re in China!

In China the group trumps the individual.  Anyone who attempts to elevate themselves over the collective interests of the group will likely be ostracized by the group.  In other words, the Western model of the rugged individual (and the gold stars that are earned through the accomplishment of outlandish performance standards) doesn’t translate well in some Eastern cultures. In other words, in China it doesn’t pay to try to stand out.

Thus in China the individual who has unintentionally ‘one-upped’ the group will naturally be inclined to conform to the performance norm of the group.  And–to be clear–the norm of that group may reflect a very high level of performance.  That’s why someone in China who throttles back their production for the reasons we’ve illustrated may very well hold dear both mind-sets #1 and #2.

The point is perhaps obvious.  The two mind-sets we’ve illustrated here are just as valid in China as they are in the U.S.  Yet, because of the difference in cultures, they take different forms. One isn’t right, the other wrong–they’re just different. The difference in cultures can be as dramatic as two differing nationalities or as subtle as two corporate subsidiaries that have the same corporate parent.

That’s important for all of us to remember–whether one works in China or just down the street.

Note: This post was inspired by a terrific article by Sylvia Vorhauser-Smith in the May 2012 edition of Talent Management magazine.

 

 

Seven Myths About Blue-Collar Workers

My colleague-friend Bill Tomei provided me with great insight and perspective that has helped shape this post.  Thanks Bill.

Myth #1—Blue-collar workers are ‘less than’ than their management brethren.

‘Less-sophisticated’…’less-responsible’…’less-committed’ …these are three of many inaccurate perceptions held about blue-collar workers.  These perceptions are unfortunate—because they’re typically turn out to be self-fulfilling prophesies.  The vast majority of blue-collar workers are intelligent, capable, and responsible.

Myth #2—The core values of blue-collar workers are vastly different than those in management.

People are people. Blue-collar workers want many of the same types of things everyone else wants in their work-life—-competence in a field that they can continue to excel in, work that holds meaning, respect, etc.  There are few major differences in values between blue-collar workers and ‘management types’.

Myth #3—Blue-collar workers are either unable or are unwilling to understand (let alone accept) the truth about the business.

This perception is particularly troublesome—largely because it suggests that blue-collar workers are somehow incapable of understanding the (so- called) complexities of the business.  That’s disrespectful on any number of levels. Through various applications of self-management ,any number of companies have shown the fallacy of this perception.

Myth #4—Blue-collar workers’ self- interests will always take precedent over the interest of the business.

The implication is that blue-collar workers are just in it for the pay check.  This hasn’t been my experience nor the experience of my colleagues.  There endless numbers of examples that put a stake in the heart of this myth.

Myth #5—Blue-collar workers will lose respect for management if managers don’t have all the answers.

This is a common misconception. A manager being unaware of something is OK (assuming ‘being unaware’ hasn’t become a pattern) as long as the situation is looked into and communicated back to the troops.

A manager who, when faced with a serious issue ,says to the troops “I don’t have all the answers” will not be disrespected by the troops as long as that same manager also commits to finding a solution to the issue.  Blue-collar workers (at least reasonable ones) aren’t expecting their manager to be Superman.

Myth #6—The risks associated with blue-collar workers too-frequently out-weigh the benefits.

In many ways, the United States was built by working people—what we might refer to today as blue-collar employees. It’s a disservice to hold the mind-set that the glass is half-empty when it comes to blue-collar folks.

Myth #7—Blue-collar workers aren’t really professionals.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.  Being a professional is an equal opportunity aspiration.  This myth is de-bunked in chapter two of The Power of Professionalism.   As I mention in the book, “being a professional has little to do with the color of one’s collar”.

There are a lot of misconceptions about blue-collar workers.  That’s really  unfortunate—especially since companies like Morning Star, the Contra Costa Times, and (at one time) Saturn have demonstrated first-hand (through various self-managed practices) just what a fallacy these myths are.

It’s been said that, “how we see the problem, is the problem.”   For those holding any of these myths, that couldn’t be more true.

 

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.