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!

 

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.

Status Quo—Part Two

In yesterday’s post we noted that managers tend to focus on making the status quo more efficient.  In other words, whatever changes they make typically are more tactical in nature. These types of folks tend to act as custodians.  The expectations of a ‘caretaker executive’, for example, is to keep things running, minimize risk, and basically not screw things up.

This doesn’t suggest that these types of individuals don’t demonstrate leadership—because they do.  For instance, a manager who defends a company value (rarely a fun experience) is performing an especially important aspect of their responsibilities.  However, an isolated act of leadership doesn’t make one ‘Lincoln-esque’. Regardless of whatever lofty title the ‘caretaker executive’ was given, their basic role is managerial in nature.

Likewise, even the most transformative leader typically has traditional ‘management’ responsibilities. For example, bringing in the operating budget five percent below target is a short term imperative for the director who is accustomed to shaking things up.  Yet even though leaders have responsibility for comparatively pedestrian tasks such as managing budgets, their larger contribution is changing the unproductive aspects of the status quo.  That means forging new policies, breeding expectations for  better processes, revitalizing the culture—all in the name of improving results.

In other words, leaders manage, and managers lead.  What makes them one or the other is determined by the per ponderous of what they do—not by an envious title or by the power they hold.  How they impact the status quo becomes the acid test in determining whether they’re a manager or a leader.

There is nothing so obvious as the manager (labeled as such through their decreed title) who leads effectively by thoughtfully and stridently advancing an agenda that keeps the organization ahead of the curve in a time of dynamic change.  Likewise, there’s nothing more maddening than the leader (that adjective being implicit with a lofty title) who fiddles (i.e. manages) while Rome burns.

If there’s ever any confusion as to who the leaders are and who the managers are —just watch how they treat the status quo.

 

 

Adversity Trumped–Progressive Avoids Its Waterloo

In November 1988 California voters passed Proposition 103 which mandated sweeping reforms within the insurance industry. In effect, it meant 20% reductions in rates and significant refunds were in store for policy-holders.  The Proposition’s passage was California’s voters way of punishing an industry they were fed up with.

Progressive Insurance, which at the time ranked #13 in the American private-passenger auto-insurance market, had a quarter of its business in California. The Proposition’s passage took a big hit on Progressive.

After the initial shock, CEO Peter Lewis called his staff together and challenged them to built a  better company.  What resulted was nothing short of remarkable. Progressive instituted new innovative claims service with roving claims adjusters that work from a fleet of vans and SUV’s which could be immediately dispatched to policy-holders homes or even the scene of an accident. By 1995 80 % of the time Progressive adjusters were issuing claim checks within 24 hours of an accident. This improvement was one of many.

By 2002 Progressive’s industry ranking had risen to #4. Lewis later called Proposition 103 “the best thing that ever happened to this company”.

It would have been easy for Lewis and his people to whine about life not being fair.    They didn’t. Instead they saw it as an opportunity. It proved to be just that. They were committed to results (MS #1) and knew things would only get better when they did (MS#3).  It’s a remarkable story that Jim Collins memorializes in Great By Choice (page 168).

It’s a life’s lesson for all of us.

 

 

Good Meeting? Bad Meeting? Look In The Mirror!

Have you ever been in a meeting when:

***the group’s enthusiasm gets squashed due to a few individuals negativity?

***the group gets stuck in the weeds

***constructive discussion turns into contention as people’s passion spills over

***the group’s energy gets drained upon the announcement of an unpopular decision

***apathy prevails when a less-popular colleague leads the meeting

***a normally rock-solid colleague uncharacteristically belly-flops on a vital presentation

Because negative energy feeds on itself, it’s easy to get sucked into a downward spiral in these types of situations.  Meetings of this sort are painful, often becoming the grist for Dilbert’s mill.  That’s why MS #6 (getting a hold of your emotions) is all-important here.

It’s almost guaranteed that, absent an intervention, the meeting will be a negative experience. For the professional, it’s recovery time. As easy as it might be to join the majority who enjoy whining about the meeting, the professional is unwilling to settle.  The professional asks themselves, “what can I do to help get this meeting back on track?” (consistent with MS #1…’having a bias for results’)

Thus, in responding to the situations above:

***the professional offers a contrarian point of view—one that offers a healthy dose of optimism

***the professional interjects a question or comment that gets the meeting re-focused.

***the professional points out that the meeting has become unproductive and asks the group, “Given  our situation, what do we need to do as professionals to get this meeting back on track?”

***the professional reminds the group of a similar situation years earlier—one in which people’s fears were never realized.

***the professional tactfully points out the group’s dysfunction, reminds them of the big picture, and challenges them to do better.

***the professional who draws the group’s focus to themselves—stalling for time—all the while enabling their flustered colleague to compose themselves and ultimately recover.

To be clear, the professional isn’t being a ‘yes man’, isn’t being pollyannish about issues of substance,  isn’t playing politics.  Rather, they are attempting to make the best out of a sometimes poor situation—in an objective, yet optimistic way. Professionals know that a good meeting—first and foremost–starts with them.

 

 

 

The Fallacy of ‘Walt Just Being Walt’

You may have heard that authenticity is really important.  Obviously, it is—especially in leaders.  It’s important for each of us to ‘show up’ authentically—in a way that engenders confidence in others that ‘what they see is what they’ll get’.  The implication is…. just be yourself.  Of course, being yourself doesn’t ensure you produce the right results the right way.

Absent professionalism, authenticity can be a cruel imitation of the real thing.  Walt—a COO in a $900 million for-profit entity—is ‘just being himself’….just ask his staff.  But he undermines the health of the organization by:

***insisting that all management jobs that are being filled in ‘Operations’ through competitive interview be reviewed through his office. 

(Consequence:  effectively this proved to be a way for the COO to personally control virtually all management hires.  He installs people who weren’t the best qualified and weren’t generally deserving of the opportunity.  He creates a legion of ‘yes men’.   Walt was just being Walt—always acting like the smartest guy in the room. This is what he believed himself to be—consistently so.  Naturally, the COO’s direct reports disengage their thinking and throttle their enthusiasm—just waiting for direction from ‘on high’.  The approach is a disaster.)

***habitually running executive level meetings with no agenda.

(Consequence: absent structure, the meetings turn into bull sessions.  Nothing of substance gets done plus attendees become jaded. Walt insists he’s allergic to too much formal structure. He’s definitely ‘being himself’, but the approach proves ineffective.)

***consistently putting a disproportionate amount of his energies into (what others view as) cozy political connections that have a high probability of advancing the COO’s career.     

(Consequence:  The political gamesmanship turns off a lot of people. In the eyes of many, the COO has abandoned his professionalism for careerism.

The COO ultimately proves himself ineffective.  Many see him as a phony. Many important aspects of the operation suffer—results especially.

Be yourself?  Sure.  But be your best self….as a professional would.     

 

The Dreaded Heart-To-Heart Conversation With A Beleaguered Colleague

A colleague of yours (let’s call her Janet) isn’t meeting expectations—neither performance targets nor cultural norms.   You know it…everyone else does too.  What Janet is doing (or not doing) threatens the organization’s results.  That means a lot of people (you included) will likely get hurt if her shenanigans continues.

Your gut screams for you to have a heart-to-heart with Janet—you know, peer-to-peer.   What do you do?

It’s interesting the things we tell ourselves when faced with a situation like this:

*** ”If I speak up, our relationship will never be the same.”

*** “It’s not appropriate for me to speak up. This is a job for the boss…that’s why they get paid the big bucks.”

*** “I don’t have the communication skills to pull this off.”

*** “Surely, Janet will be offended if I speak up.”

*** “It isn’t my place to judge.”

I’m confident you can think of plenty of additional examples.  Notice what great lengths we will go to in justifying not speaking up.  Certainly, the situation with Janet requires good judgment and a great deal of decorum, but rest assured that many of us are masters at finding ‘cause’ for not speaking up. (And, yes, an organization’s culture can be an impediment to not speaking up.)

Yet, part of the motivation underlying our unwillingness to speak up (e.g. to be direct with people) is often our own desire to be liked—to be thought of well by others.  When that occurs, it becomes all  about us.

Admittedly, this is one of the most difficult things to get people to do in organizations.  Let’s face it…it’s   risky.  Yet it happens.  You see it in team sports, in the for-profit world, etc. The degree to which an organization’s colleagues (as opposed to just the boss) hold each other accountable is often an indicator as to how well the organization performs.

People’s willingness to speaking up to one of their colleagues is also a reflection as to how committed people are to the organization’s results…..in other words, the degree to which they hold MS #1—having a bias for results.  The commitment to the result becomes a lynchpin in helping us overcome our own human tendencies not to act.

Other MS’s help people in speaking up too; namely all the rest— MS #2- MS #7.  That’s unusual, but it just goes to show how it really takes a professional who is secure in their own skin to speak up in an admittedly uncomfortable situation like this one with Janet.

In spite of all the reasons one might conjure up to avoid approaching Janet, the professional speaks up.    The reason is simple—they’re committed to the result (MS #1).  They know it’s not about them (MS #2) and they know that they need to rise above the fray (MS #4).  Ultimately, they commit to do what they know is right (MS #5).  It’s rarely easy, it’s never fun—but, in the end, they do it.

It’s what professionals do.

 

 

 

Accountability Run Amok—When Good Intentions Succumb To Bad Judgment

Think you can’t be fired for being accountable?  Think again.

A string of historic storms leaves hundreds of thousands of utility customers without power.  The collateral damage associated with clean-up and restoration is far greater than the “Type A” utility president either understood or was willing to acknowledge.

The company president, who had never been short of confidence and had a history of micro-managing, chose to be the media spokesman.  While the president’s stated  intentions were honorable (wanting to model accountability to his troops) they ultimately proved disastrous.

The President’s ‘MO’ always was to make things happen.  True to form, he did.  He went on record with an aggressive restoration target with the media.  On the surface of things, he was being accountable.  The target however was missed…badly so in the eyes of public officials.  Media briefings quickly went from cordial to contentious.  The president conducted the media briefings more like an internal utility briefing than one for media types looking for a juicy controversy.  To say that the president proved to be over-his-head in dealing with the media is an understatement.

Compounding the company’s media relations problem, were the prickly relations that had suddenly developed with public officials over delays in clearing roads and such.  One police department threatened to hold the president responsible for fires made worse by the utility’s sub-par performance. Things got so bad, the governor became actively involved.

The media, sensitive to the public outrage over power being out for over a week in several areas, turned their wrath on the president. When the media smells blood in the water they predictably will take full advantage. Rather than reporting on the company’s extensive restoration efforts, the president then became the story.  Editorial writers, public officials, and citizen bloggers alike put a bulls-eye on his back. The company’s reputation and credibility have been compromised. It becomes a nightmare scenario…. exactly what the company didn’t want to have happen.

After the dust finally clears, the president is forced to resign. The outcome was predictable.

Where did this go wrong?

First and foremost was the president’s decision to act as the media spokesperson.  Despite the president’s likely denials to the contrary, he proved himself ineffective with the media….having neither the skills nor the experience.  He became an all-too-familiar figure on television and in newspaper pages.  Each additional briefing generated more questions than answers.  Adding to the difficulty was the pressure-cooker atmosphere.  This event was arguably one of the company’s most critical PR events in its history.  It is little wonder the president ultimately became known amongst the media as the ‘beleaguered spokesman’.

And would the president have made such a bold prediction on a service restoration date (a bad idea!) had he not been the spokesman?  My guess is that he wouldn’t.  The president’s nature was to be “large-and-in-charge” which typically required a big stage. It wasn’t his habit (or preference) to work through a surrogate—especially on an issue of this magnitude.  (Note: not meeting the promised service restoration date proved to be the beginning of the end for the president.)

So what prompted the decision?  Was it ego or his stated intention to model accountability to the troops? We’ll never really know!  For our purposes, let’s assume his motive was to model accountability.  That decision, however well-intended, was a by-product of bad judgment. The President’s skills and capabilities were numerous.  However handling the media wasn’t one of them! Ultimately his poor decision cost him his job.  Plus, it cost the company big-time—in the form of a tarnished reputation.

Accountability is paramount in high performing organizations, but it must be preceded by good judgment.  Charging into the proverbial mine field (being accountable…putting the team on your back)  with inadequate skills and experience is bound to make things worse, not better….just ask the (now former) President!