When Identities Compete

Some of our toughest (and often best) decisions are by-products of competing identities we hold.  For example, a politician courageously acts in the best interests of the nation—rather than acting in the best interests of their political party.

What competing identities, you ask, were in ‘play’ for the politician?  Namely, being an American versus being a Republican.  (NOTE: The example of being a Republican is for illustrative purposes only.  The politician could have just as well have been a Democrat).  In this particular instance, the politician felt the ‘tug’ of being an American outweighed being a Republican (their revered political party).  Thus, the politician was willing to take an unpopular stand—unpopular, at least, from members of their own party.

Recall Stanford Professor James March’s research on decision-making wherein he theorized that our choices are strongly influenced by one of two factors: 1) the consequences one is subject to–what one gets versus what it costs OR 2) an especially important aspect of one’s identity.  The former is quite calculated, the latter is quite intuitive.

Yet, decisions aren’t always rendered exclusively by a comparison between March’s two factors. Sometimes the decision is rendered as a result of a comparison within only one of March’s factors. In the politician’s case, the defining struggle became one of identity.  Which identity (being an American versus being a Republican) was more important?  In the end, the politician made a value judgment in putting the country first, their political party second.

It’s not unusual for one’s most difficult and consequential decisions to be influenced by an especially important identity they hold. That shouldn’t be surprising—given the inseparable correlation between identity and one’s personal values.  And it also shouldn’t be surprising that an identity-based decision is one that, while difficult, is often one that the individual is especially proud of.  After all, it frequently reveals their very ‘best-self’.

The Ultimate Paradox— When A Leader Voluntarily Steps Down

President George Washington started a precedent, Pope Benedict XVI broke one—both stepped down.  Both did so on their own volition—neither was pushed (think: fired).

Relinquishing one’s responsibilities at the height of one’s power goes against the grain of human nature.   In fact, many may believe that stepping down is a sign of weakness in a leader. That’s not always the case.

I chose to believe that Washington and Pope Benedict did so for the greater good of the entities they led—Washington for the United States; Pope Benedict for the Catholic Church.

In Washington’s case he believed that over time the country would be best served by having a number of people serve as the country’s leader—rather than one person serve indefinitely (as a King would in a monarchy).  Washington was revered; he could have served far beyond his initial two terms. Yet he chose not to.

In Pope Benedict’s case the Catholic Church currently faces many substantive issues.  To effectively deal with those issues, the church’s leader must be both focused and energetic.  It’s no secret that Pope Benedict’s health has deteriorated—largely due to his elevated age (85) —at the time of his resignation.  Today Emeritus Pope Benedict turns 86 with some reporting that he is suffering repeated falls and is nearly blind in one eye. His energy is reportedly waning.  Is it any wonder he chose to step down?

Did these two leaders shirk their responsibilities in stepping down? Not from my perspective! Rather, they did what they felt was in the best interests of the entity they had been entrusted with.  Both were willing to withstand the inevitable second-guessing and criticism that came with their decision.  Isn’t that what we’d expect from someone who realized that “it wasn’t all about them”—consistent with mind-set two?

The (Sometimes Maddening) Need For Precision

A manager is presenting in an important meeting.  He is in the process of making a critical point, yet goes blank as he has forgotten the date he last met with the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO).  The CMO is someone who had played an integral role in the breakthrough the manager is reporting on.  “Let’s see I think I met with the CMO last Wednesday”.  Backpedaling, he painstakingly recants, “no it was Thursday”.   After confusion ensues amongst the group, he changes course once again.  “Wait, it was probably Tuesday”.

The manager has taken nearly a minute attempting to sort this out. That’s an eternity for someone who has been allocated only 15 minutes on the agenda—with five of those minutes committed to Q&A.  The manager seems oblivious to the side-show he has created.  Yet he’s especially pleased with himself when he finally figures out that it was indeed Wednesday when he met with the CMO.  He’s a man who has a high need for precision–someone who (among other things) prides themselves in getting the facts 100% right every time.  To him it’s a badge of honor.

Here’s the problem with people’s need for precision: too often in group settings (think: meetings, teachers instructing, etc) it detracts more than it helps.  This gentleman, for example, ultimately got his fact right but in the process lost his audience.  Plus, the group ultimately lost its momentum after the manager had trouble regaining his mojo.

The irony is that the meeting date with the CMO was inconsequential to the point the manager was attempting to make.  It simply didn’t matter.  Yet the manager seemingly had more invested energy in identifying that arcane fact than his all-important proposition.  The manager got lost in the weeds.  The culprit?  His own need for precision.

Precision, as important as it is, is essential only when it has direct bearing on a desired outcome you’re trying to achieve.  Otherwise, it’s noise.  There are exceptions, but not many.

The opposite also occurs.  How frequently do you see this happen?

A manager is attempting to share an inspiring story about Judy —the company’s promising new COO.  Early on in the manager’s comments to the assembled group of front-line supervisors the manager says,  “Judy was a supervising engineer for only two years before she was promoted to Director.”   Dan, a seasoned front-line supervisor, interrupts, “…actually, it was three years.”

Turns out, Dan was right—but his point added no value to the manager’s insightful perspective about Judy.

A human resources director is reporting on the results from the annual employee satisfaction survey to the company’s top officers.  She is pointing out the implications from the unmistakable downward trend in employee confidence across the entire enterprise.  Arthur, the company’s newest officer, unexpectedly chimes in.  “Yes, but look at the high level of confidence amongst the officer corps.”

Turns out, Arthur was right—but the high level of confidence amongst the officers was clearly an anomaly when contrasted against each and every other group in the company.  Arthur’s comment unfortunately distracted his fellow officer’s focus away from the all-important need for them to understand the dramatic decline in employee confidence.

Brett, a twenty nine year old chemist, makes a recommendation to his GM about how to remove the unwelcome deposits on the company’s boiler tubes. Betty, a twenty four year veteran of the steam generation department, asks Brett during an important group meeting: “what makes you think, after a short six months with this company, that you are in a position to recommend on such an important  issue?”

Turns out Betty was right—Brett was a short-timer, someone who was seemingly ill-equipped to make  such a recommendation.  But Brett had experience.  Turns out, he had helped solve a very similar problem with his last employer.

Each of these latter three examples are variations on people’s need for precision: the first is always representing the facts correctly, the second is never letting an exception go unnoticed, and the third is being unforgiving to those attempting to lead (i.e. expecting perfection).

All three of these are admirable and (usually) well-intended. Yet, it’s not helpful for the group when someone shares an arcane fact that adds no value.  It’s not helpful for the group when someone’s clever observation (think: exception) sidetracks the group from weightier matters.  And it’s especially not helpful for the group when those that attempt lead it come under constant cross-examination as a means of passing someone’s self-appointed credibility test.

Precision is a good thing—it enabled Man to send astronauts to the Moon and return them safely.  Yet, precision isn’t always our friend…no more so than when it becomes maddening to our colleagues!

 

Two ‘Motivating’ Questions For Leaders

As a leader, which question do you think is more important 1) how do I motivate my staff? OR 2) how do I stop de-motivating my staff?

In my experience question number two has frequently proven to be more important.  If you find that surprising, keep in mind….

….motivation is largely intrinsic—it emanates from within.  There is only so much leaders can do when they press the ‘motivation lever’. People really motivate themselves.

…..there is seemingly an endless number of ‘de-motivators’.  Consider: knee-deep bureaucracy that slows decision-making to a stand-still, incessantly long and ineffective meetings, senseless time-consuming reports that no one pays attention to, regularly ‘carrying’ non-performers on the payroll,  wrong-headed resource allocations, inadequate  training, irregular or ineffective communication from leadership, unclear or ever-changing organization priorities.  I could go on, but won’t.  You get the idea.

Perhaps it’s obvious, but the de-motivators are poison to leaders attempting to create a truly professional environment for their organization. When these de-motivators are present, ‘professional‘ is not an adjective people would use in describing their organization.  When that occurs, you’ve in trouble!

Frequently the de-motivators are connected to the structural building blocks of the organization—policies, processes, and programs.  People are smart, they’ll find ways to motivate themselves.  But people can’t always change the environment of which they are a part. In those instances where the environment needs changing, leaders must do so.  That means removing obstacles, providing essential resources, and otherwise protecting their people from the debilitating aspects of the organization’s politics.

Few leaders knowingly set out to de-motivate their people.  Yet it happens far more frequently than we know.  That’s why it’s critical for leaders to know what’s bugging their people.  Left unattended, the dark cloud surrounding de-motivated employees will eclipse whatever motivational glow that would otherwise attempt to emerge.

Mind-Sets Trump Skill-Sets–Exhibit ‘A’–Gabby The Bartender

As people get a deeper understanding (and appreciation) of the mind-sets, they inevitably start to see things differently.  Robert Cloutier of San Diego is one such person.  Here’s a note Robert sent to me last week and encouraged me to share:

“I ran into a busy brewery last night (Valentine’s Day) at 9:45 PM and sat at the bar for roughly thirty minutes.  I had one cocktail while I waited for a to-go order.  Luckily, the Lakers versus Clippers game was on the television in front of me, so I got to watch the continued changing of the guard in Los Angeles regarding which basketball team is relevant (look no further than Dwight Howard’s lack of professionalism when searching for reasons for the Lakers broken culture).”

“Once I sat down, the bartender immediately greeted me.  She asked my name and introduced herself as Gabby.  Then, she pointed to the other two bartenders at the other end of the bar and told me their names as well.”

“As I was looking over the menu Gabby offered suggestions and was especially helpful.  I told her I was ready to order, but I actually wasn’t.  As I sat there and stalled, she smiled and told me that she was there all night and that there was no rush.  After I finally decided, she advised me on how to take advantage of the happy hour prices and save a little money.”

“I finally ordered and set my sights back on the basketball game.  However, I couldn’t help but notice that Gabby treated everyone in the same polite manner.  I noticed that Gabby used other patron names in addressing them and treated her coworkers warmly.  In the busy bar atmosphere, there were a few times when she reluctantly had to shout to the other end of the bar for communication.  Even then, she started every sentence with ‘please’ and ended every sentence with a ‘thank you’.”

“She checked on me a few times and each time addressed me by my name.    Once my food came, Gabby came out from behind the bar and put my items in the to-go bag, rather than just handing them to me.  Before she put my food in the bag, she opened up each of the boxes to show me what I had ordered.”

“To say it was busy that night would be a large understatement.  It is one of the few open places on Valentine’s Day in a city of close to 200,000 people—it was a mob scene.  As I watched Gabby move with efficiency and grace, I thought, “there is a total professional.”  As far as mindsets, I saw all of them and was reminded again of what continues to build momentum in my brain—when the mindsets are present, ANY technical competence can be learned.  In other words, I will take Gabby with her professional mindsets and train her from scratch in regards to technical competence over some other person with high technical competence without the professional mindsets.  I was truly inspired watching Gabby behind the bar.  She’s one of the few that really ‘get it’.”

Gabby was obviously amazing…to the degree that Robert (a super busy guy) felt compelled to write about it. The story is especially rich.  What do you take from it?

A Well-Intended, Yet Misguided, Question Professionals Should Stop Asking

You’ve heard it on Oprah, you expect it from psychologists, emphatic managers are sometimes encouraged to ask it.

“How does that make you feel?” It’s an oh-so-common question.  On the surface, the question seems innocuous–even well intended.  Someone has a ‘bad’ experience; empathy gets marched out as an anti-dote.   On the surface, it all makes sense.

But it’s a question that makes my head explode.

Why? Because the implication is that the person has no control over how they feel.  That’s just wrong.  Taken to its logical conclusion, it enables people to abdicate responsibility.  It breeds victimhood.

Events trigger emotions. This is an automatic reaction—or that’s what most people believe. But that’s not really the way it works. Rather, emotions are determined by what we think about the event, not by the event itself. In other words, our interpretation of an event ultimately becomes the precursor to the emotion we experience.

For instance, the mandatory overtime Saturday work-day unexpectedly gets canceled by management. Tom is thrilled (he gets to play golf); while Mary is bummed (she needs the extra money).   Same event— two completely different emotions.  The event/circumstance didn’t make either one of them feel anything.   It was Tom and Mary’s interpretation of the event that ultimately produced the emotion they assigned to it.

Don’t misunderstand, empathy is a very good thing. By all means ask folks how they feel….that will help them.  Just don’t ask them how an event or circumstance made them feel.  Good intent, bad question.

NOTE: this topic is covered in greater detail in chapter eleven of The Power of Professionalism and in chapter six in The Big AHA.  Both reference the terrific work of Professor Seymour Epstein at the University of Massachusetts.

Every Hand Went Up! —Part Two–From Grandpa’s Well Intended Faux Pas

NOTE: This post is Part Two (and a continuation) from ‘Grandpa’s Well Intended Faux Pas’ post on Jan 3rd.

_____________________

The Director asked the students, “how many of you would recommend the approach taken by Rob in the way he instructed your imaging course?” Every hand went up!

At the Southern California vocational school where Rob taught there was a gap in how prepared the students were to enter the working world.  Rob knew it, employers did too. Technically, the students  knew their stuff.  In other words, their skill-sets were fine.  The school had done a good job in training their students to be masters of an ever-increasing complicated technical universe.

Yet, increasingly employers realized the technical alone was insufficient. Purpose and values were  important. So was taking responsibility.  Like the employers, Rob believed that pouring in buckets of knowledge into student’s brain (as important as that was) was proving incomplete—after all, the school wasn’t preparing robots to enter the workforce.  The school, in effect, was preparing technicians to enter the workforce.  And traditionally that had been fine.

But today more was needed. Professionals were needed. Employers didn’t explicitly say so, but when you listened to their needs, professionals (the adjective, not the noun) is precisely what they were looking for.

Rob made the commitment to graduate professionals—not merely technicians. He did this on his own. He is to be commended. The implication? For students to meet the ‘professional’ standard they need both skill-sets and mind-sets.  Thus, he married the mind-sets from The Power of Professionalism with the well-established technical curriculum.  He upped the ante in a big way.

What did the students think?  They whole-heartedly recommended it.  Remember, every hand went up when the Director posed her question.

And if you’re wondering why the Director was asking that question, it was because the school’s owner was so impressed by the change in the students she asked the Director to look into expanding the approach to the rest of the school’s population of 1,000 students.  It’s an exciting prospect.

We promise to keep you updated as the story unfolds….

What Each Of Us Can Learn From Lance’s Disclosure

Full disclosure: I didn’t watch Oprah’s interview with Lance Armstrong, nor did I seek out articles regarding such.  My exposure to the subject was limited to one article I accidentally happened on through my ISP.

This article points out that Armstrong finally comes clean with his oldest son Luke about his indiscretions after he witnessed his son defending him in front of others.  In other words, Armstrong made an arguably tough decision after seeing the adverse impact on Luke.

As we’ve learned through Stanford Professor James March’s research on decision making, these types of tough choices are most strongly influenced by either one of two factors: 1) the consequences one is subject to—what I get versus what it costs OR  2) the choice is influenced by an especially important aspect of one’s identity.   The former is quite calculated, the latter is quite intuitive.

In Armstrong’s case it appears he finally fessed up to Luke because of the  identity he held of himself as Dad.   As the article points out, Armstrong became the most emotional when the subject of his son came up….this contrasted against the subject of all the sponsorships (and money) he had lost.

In his role as Dad, Armstrong no doubt had certain expectations of himself—to do right by his kids, to protect them, to teach them properly, etc. For those of us who are parents, our identity of ourselves (as either mom or dad) is one our most powerful.  Thus, we shouldn’t find it too surprising that Armstrong told Luke after he saw the damage the situation was having on him.

That’s the power that identity had on Armstrong—as it does for each of us. Our best decisions–especially the tough ones–are by-products of situations when we’ve been willing to be influenced by our identity.

Is it any wonder then that within The Power of Professionalism  we put such emphasis on being a professional—the ultimate workplace identity?

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Shanahan–What’s Behind Your Question?

Ask any major league starting pitcher with a high pitch count how he feels in the late innings of a game, and 99 percent of the time he’ll tell you that he feels great. In fact, he probably doesn’t feel great. He’s probably trashed. The pitcher responds the way he thinks he’s supposed to.  After all, he’s a warrior!

This was essentially what Mike Shanahan (football coach of the Washington Redskins) did with quarterback RG3 (rookie phenom Robert Griffin III) on Jan 6th in a playoff game against the Seattle Seahawks. RG3 was clearly hobbled—barely able to defend himself. He was gimping around on the same leg (knee really) that he had severely injured earlier in the year.

‘You OK?'” Shanahan asked.  “And he [RG3] said, `I’m fine.'”   This exchange was late in the game.  At that point, even a grade school kid could tell RG3 wasn’t right. RG3’s response was no surprise—he was responding the way he was expected to. After all, even as a rookie, he was the face of the franchise and its unquestioned leader.

RG3 stayed in the game.  Minutes later he mangled his knee trying to recover a botched snap from center. RG3 was not only out of the game but possibly next season as well due to, among other things, a torn ACL.

Shanahan tempted fate.  He lost.

Shanahan’s assertions that he left RG3 in the game because RG3 said he was fine are ridiculous.  Shanahan has been coaching for—what—a gazillion years? He knew better. He knew that RG3 would say just about anything that would keep him in the game. In other words, RG3 responds the way he thinks he’s supposed to.

Even if the question came to mind, it should have never left Shanahan’s lips. In the end, however, RG3’s answer to Shanahan’s question proved to be the justification Shanahan used to keep RG3 in the game.

Let’s call this what it is, a lapse in judgment—a very costly one.  RG3 shouldn’t have been on the field—even if he’s our best player in the year’s most important game.

The lesson:  We’ll learn far more about ourselves as a result of asking this type of self-validating question than anything the person ever tells us in return.

Monday’s Pleasant Surprise

Trust Across America is an organization dedicated to improving the level of trust within the business sector.  Founder Barbara Kimmel has done a tremendous job growing the influence of the organization.

Earlier today Trust Across America published their top thought leaders for 2013. I’m pleased (and humbled) to have been included. The list has many notable (and impressive) people.

I can only hope this honor helps advance the important work we’re doing here at Wiersma and Associates.

.