Do You Know The Code?

Each organization, each culture, each leader typically uses some form of ‘code’ when communicating. It’s important to know the ‘code’ you’re constantly exposed to.

A business leader says, “we’re not doing so well. In the meantime, keep doing what you’re doing.”

That’s code for: “hold on while the smart people figure this out.”

Granted, that’s not terribly inspiring—but at least you know the code. At least you’ll know what you’re up against.

We’ve recently added a new category ‘Do You Know The Code’ to this blog. This post, as well as those in the future on this same topic, will be archived there.

If you have examples of ‘code’…please share them…we can all benefit from them.

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.

Doing Their Very Best Work…The Ultimate Example

Being non-judgmental, selfless, caring, responsible…you gotta love people who can get beyond themselves (think: mind-set two—being part of something bigger than yourself).  I’ve regularly observed that people did their best work (and were most fulfilled) when they were a part of ‘something bigger’.

Hey, that describes moms.  Happy Mother’s Day to all you moms out there.

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?

Ain’t Maturity Grand?

Senior citizens may cringe when being referred to as mature, but hopefully the rest of us will take it as a compliment rather than a slight.  I don’t know about you, but I love dealing with people who are able to:

***receive constructive feedback without being defensive.

***be genuinely happy for someone who may not be their favorite.

***learn through others experience.

***say “I was wrong”.

***speak of accomplishments in ‘we’ terms, not ‘me’ terms.

These are signs of maturity—the good kind!  They’re also signs that you’re dealing with a professional.

 

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.

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!

 

 

Status Quo–Part Three

Recently I mentioned that if there’s ever any confusion as to who the leaders are and who the managers are in your organization—just watch how they treat the status quo.  Managers tend to make the status quo more efficient while leaders tend to make a new status quo.

Here’s a few closing thoughts on status quo…lest there’s any confusion from my first two posts on the subject last week:

***the status quo, per se, may not always be a bad thing—especially for a successful company who is dominating their niche.  Growth (an allure for most leaders) for growth’s sake may not prove to be a smart move.  Be aware of what Jim Collins refers to as the undisciplined pursuit of more.  What’s undisciplined?  1) Taking action inconsistent with your core values. 2) Discontinuous leaps into arenas for which you have no burning passion. 3) Launching into activities that do not fit with your economic or resource engine. 4) Investing heavily in new arenas where you cannot attain distinctive capability.  The complete list is contained on page 55 of Collin’s 2009 book How The Mighty Fall.

***consistent with the previous item—sometimes the best decisions turn out to be those so-called opportunities you elect not to pursue.  Instead you chose to focus on those things you believe you can do exceptionally well.  For instance when Steve Jobs returned to Apple as CEO he killed any project that did not fit into one of four categories he decreed as company priorities. The categories were those that Jobs believed Apple could become a leader in. He created a new status quo—in that Apple would no longer chase growth in areas where they had little chance of differentiating themselves.    

***a new status quos (one with BIG impact) isn’t a one-and –done type of thing.  The new status quo of  ‘everyone an innovator’  that was introduced at Whirlpool in 1999 for example, took time before it was fully integrated and bore fruit.  Introducing another major initiative during that time would have created havoc.  It was only after the ‘innovator’ status quo was mature could Whirlpool consider introducing the next one.

***a good manager and a good leader can both introduce change—the difference being in the degree of impact.  Change for the manager is typically more incremental in nature, for the leader it’s more analogous to a breakthrough (because it creates a new status quo…which typically requires a higher level of thinking).  Remember when we say manager or leader, we’re not referring to someone’s title.  Rather, we’re looking at their impact. There are a lot of wonderful leaders out there who have ‘manager’ embedded in their title.

***making the status quo more efficient (what managers do) is analogous to “doing your job really well”.  Creating a new status quo (what leaders do) speaks to a higher purpose, looking at the bigger picture, and creating even more “greater good”. The level of thinking between the two is vastly different.

***we don’t mean to suggest that all change associated with the status quo is good.  Sometimes the proposed change backfires (because it’s fundamentally a bad idea) or muddies the water (because of bad timing—i.e. there’s already too much churn in the organization) or becomes a distraction (a good idea that provides short-term benefit but drains focus, energy, and resources away from an initiative      that’s expected to provide a bigger long-term benefit).

Hope these thoughts help.