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 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.

 

 

 

When Unique Knowledge Trumps The ‘Wisdom’ Of Crowds

Our Nov 3rd post—Ask The Right Person The Right Question—pointed out that for us to be confident in the answers to our questions,  it’s imperative that the person(s) be ‘in a position to know’.  Perhaps that seems obvious, but too often questions are asked of people that aren’t really informed on the subject in question.   This is especially true when it comes to surveys.

Consider the sample survey we use to assess the strength of the mind-sets within an organization.  A seven point scale is assigned to each of the seven mind-sets—seven is great and one is terrible.  An organization may score consistently high (6.3) in mind-set #1 (professionals have a bias for results) across the entire enterprise.  Mind-set #2 (Professionals realize (and act like) they’re a part of something bigger than themselves) may also score well (5.4).

The score of 6.3 for mind-set #1 seems like a natural in light of the organization achieving 110% of its annual revenue goal—the organization’s most important objective for the year.  Across all departments, no department scored mind-set #1 lower than 6.0—showing great consistency across all departments.

Mind-set #2 is another story.  Every department scored mind-set #2 at least a six—except for one.  The CFO’s office collectively scored mind-set two a 3.1.  It was the scores from the CFO’s office that brought the overall score for mind-set two down to 5.4.  Was there unique knowledge contained within the CFO’s office that prompted the 3.1?  Turns out, there was!

In light of the great revenue year, the company was sitting on a pile of cash. Instead of paying down the company’s extensive debt, the organization’s leaders (by way of a contentious 60%/40% vote) elected to take generous bonuses instead.  This ultimately proved problematic as creditors later came with saber’s rattling.

Those in the CFO’s office had unique knowledge.  In turn, they scored mind-set #2 poorly—deservedly so.  Had the rest of the enterprise known the same, no doubt, they too would have scored mind-set #2 poorly.  What initially looked like a pretty good score for mind-set #2 turned out to be a false-positive.  This was caused by the lack of good information…people were simply ill-informed.

Sometimes what looks like a survey aberration is really an important by-product of unique knowledge.  It would have been a mistake to become confident about the survey results associated with mind-set #2 from the raw numbers alone.   Confidence should stem from informed choices….and reinforces the point that people aren’t necessarily ‘in the know’ as much as we assume.

 

Lessons From Baseball’s Playoffs

Baseball’s playoffs are upon us. The teams are all exceptionally talented. With rare exception, it’s tough to differentiate one team from another–at least in terms of their respective capabilities. Often the difference between a winning and losing playoff team are a lot of little things….things that some would dismiss as merely ‘intangible’. But those intangibles often make all the difference…they build commitment by infusing energy into the team.

Consider:

  • the hustling outfielder who makes a brilliant highlight-reel catch, saving an important run….this despite risking a head-long crash into the wall.  (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)
  • the pitcher who methodically mixes up his arsenal of pitches, playing havoc with the hitter’s most precious commodity (his timing) and guaranteeing himself an early shower due to a high pitch count. (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)
  • the light-hitting journeyman who consistently and methodically works elite pitchers to full counts—frustrating the pitchers, sapping the life out of their arms, and shortening their all-important ‘innings pitched’—all the while putting his own numbers at risk. (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)

These, admittedly, are little things. But they are the types of things that help win championships. They are emblematic of the Mind-Sets held by the finest professionals among us. And when these mind-sets are predominate within an organization–the organization wins.

Want your organization to win its own championship? The Mind-Sets are often the secret ingredient!

When Sacrifice Isn’t

A wide receiver throws a great block, springing his running back teammate around the corner for a 15 yard gain. The announcer in the booth (a former wide receiver himself) sings the wide-out’s praises–finally paying him the ultimate compliment by commending him for how he ‘sacrificed himself’.

Huh?  Last time I checked football was a team sport.  Suggesting that the wide receiver (a ‘skill’ player) was ‘sacrificing himself’ by performing a skill with less prestige (blocking)…or by suggesting that he did it begrudgingly (because he dislikes it)…or by suggesting it’s especially admirable because it’s out of his comfort zone is myopic. It’s a team sport. People are expected to do what’s required to achieve the desired result. He’s not sacrificing himself, he’s attempting to help his team win!

I’ve noticed that managers are sometimes like the announcer…they think that when one of their ‘skill players’ performs a ‘lesser skill’ (something ‘beneath them’) they consider the ‘skill player’ to be making a sacrifice. Regretfully, these managers haven’t caught the vision of mind-set #2 – being a part of something bigger than yourself.

Consider:

  • the busy rainmaker at the law firm who takes their precious time and shares their considerable influence to open an important door for a colleague.
  • the mechanical foreman who takes 20 minutes out their day to provide encouragement and technical advice to a second-year apprentice who has run into a particularly vexing problem.
  • the theme park GM who– one day a month–works ‘the front lines’.
  • the Marketing VP who willingly gives up 5% of their departmental budget to R&D as a result of an unexpected new research breakthrough.

Neither the rainmaker, the foreman, the GM, nor the VP, consider themselves to be ‘sacrificing’. They, like the wide-receiver, realize they’re a part of something bigger than themselves. They’re a part of a team – they do what is required for the team to succeed.

People on winning teams constantly do things that may be out of the norm or that stretches them but they are rarely seen as a ‘sacrifice’. It’s just not how they see things.