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.

.

 

 

More About ‘The Code’

When people use code they’re being less than forthright.  Consider:

The potential recruit who says, “I’m interested” when asked about their impressions of the position they’re interviewing for.  ‘Interested’ in this instance is code for, “it’s true I’d consider your position, but I’m really considering a number of options.” To assume the recruit is actually committed would be a mistake.

The senior officer who says, “here at ACME we’re always looking out for your success” when speaking with a new analyst in her department.  It’s a much weaker thing to say that the company (e.g. ACME) is looking out for the analyst’s success than for the senior officer to personally commit to the analyst’s success.  In this instance, ‘we’re’ is code for the senior officer to hide behind ACME (an oft-time nebulous, faceless organization) and avoid making a personal commitment to the analyst.

The hiring manager who says “we’re looking for fresh perspectives” to the 55 year old job applicant.    That’s code for “we’re looking for younger workers”.  The applicant shouldn’t be mislead, there is a snow ball’s chance in a very hot place they’ll be hired.

Authenticity is the anti-thesis to code.  Most organizations would be well served by increasing authenticity and decreasing code….largely because code is less-than-forthright, it can mislead, it breeds cynicism…and, most importantly, it undermines trust.  Until authenticity increases, know the code.

Expert ≠ Professional

Want to stir people up?  Get them talking about the group projects they worked on (or are working on) while in business school!  You’ll likely hear comments like:

***”Boy oh boy, that Judy was a piece of work! She never ever carried her portion of the load.”

***”I got so sick of Tony, he was so full of himself.”

***”Once, just once, I wish Audrey would have something of substance to share.”

There are lots of reasons for the frustration (e.g. lack of established processes, misunderstandings, inexperience, conflicting cultural norms, etc) but most of the comments you’ll likely hear about center on faulty interpersonal dynamics.

Take, for instance, the marketing project that a fellow student (let’s call him John) hijacked when I was in grad school.  Turns out, John was an expert marketer.  Plus, he was an impressive guy.  Trouble was, he hijacked the project.  There were five people on the team, but practically speaking, there was only one brain.  And there was only one way—John’s.

John didn’t really learn anything, he merely executed what he already knew.  The only thing the four others on the so-called team got was a big dose of frustration—as their potential learning experience had been wasted.

Oh sure, the project received kudo’s from the professor (who was unaware of what had transpired). And , of course, John  received the acclaim he had hoped for.  Plus, every member of the group received impressive grades.  Still, this begs the question, “in this instance did John (the expert) conduct himself as a profession would?”   (to ensure clarity and intent, note that I’m not asking if John was unprofessional.)

For my money, the answer is no—John didn’t conduct himself as a professional would.  Despite the appearance of a positive outcome for the project, it was really a failure.  No one really learned anything—which, after all, was the purpose of the exercise.  And the project wasn’t intended to act as a platform for any one individual’s ego.

John’s colleagues felt that John was out for John.  From that point forward, they distrusted him.  This isn’t surprising as John had violated four mind-sets (#’s 1, 2, 6 and 7).

As we advocate in The Power of Professionalism (page 41) technical competence is important.  But technical competence, even when demonstrated by someone considered ‘expert’, doesn’t automatically equate to ‘professional’.   That’s just as true in the workplace as it is in business school study groups.

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.     

 

Getting Out Of Your Own Way

Mind-set #1 is about having a bias for results. Get results and you’ll be trusted.  Simple.  Naturally,    people say they hold this mind-set…after all, that’s what they feel others expect them to say.  But saying you’re committed and demonstrating it are two different things.  It’s when one’s buttons get pushed, when one’s comfort zone gets invaded that you really find out whether the commitment is real or faux.  Turning up the heat acts as the ultimate stress test…as you’ll soon out if you’re committed to really delivering results or not.

What happens when:

***the entrepreneur with a great new idea seriously questions whether they are the right person to bring the idea to fruition.

***the senior officer in the Fortune 500 realizes she’s about to hire someone smarter and perhaps more capable than she is.

***the managing partner who willingly steps aside to aid the ensuing merger with another firm.

Sometimes getting out of our own way is the very best thing we can do in bringing forth the best possible results.  It may require that we put our ego aside or lose control to a third party.  It may result in being relegated to the shadows, instead of the spotlight.  It may mean taking a short term financial hit.  It may just break our heart.  Know in the end it’s always few who take this less-traveled road.  They may not like it, but they do it anyway.  After all, it’s who they are—namely professionals.

Where’s The Professionals When You Most Need Them?

Sad, but not surprising, news—Americans’ distrust of government is at its highest level ever. 89% say they distrust government to do the right thing. 84% believe the country is on the wrong track.  We’re in uncharted waters here.

A democracy depends on trust.  Without it the country suffers in a big way–just as it is now.

The answer?  Professionals who happen to be politicians…not professional politicians.

Professionals: Not What, But How

In our August 30, 2011 post we illustrated why it’s a bad idea to think an organization should automatically be considered ‘professional’ because it produces technically sophisticated products developed by really smart people. A recent article in Fortune couldn’t have been more timely or effective in complimenting that earlier post. The story–based at the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer–is outstanding.  It’s one of the best business articles I’ve read in a really long time. Here’s the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/28/pfizer-jeff-kindler-shakeup/

There is perhaps no greater threat to an organization than dysfunction in the top team. And when that top team leads the world’s largest drug company, the potential consequences are huge. ’Inside Pfizer’s palace coup’ is the title of the article. Trust me–it’s aptly titled. In terms of bad behavior, these people had nothing on Machiavelli. Revenge, betrayal, power-grabs…it’s all there. If this story would have taken place in the military, it would have been described as ‘behavior unbecoming’.

Pfizer’s historical performance has largely been impressive….they make technically sophisticated stuff….they have exceptionally bright people. Yet ‘professional’ is a term that most reasonable people would find hard to use in describing Pfizer’s top team after reading this article. And, of course, the whole organization takes a big ‘hit’ because of that. It’s simply unavoidable. Remember—most people define an organization as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers but by how they go about their business. Pfizer’s experience should always be a reminder of that.

Should I Say What I Know?

That’s a question that some of us constantly ask ourselves.

Most of us wouldn’t:

  • tell our friends how the new blockbuster movie ends.
  • speak up in a meeting on an arcane point if we believed doing so would derail the meeting.
  • share an innocent, but little-known, fact about a colleague that, when revealed, might be used against them.

Sometimes knowing when (and when not) to speak up is a matter of judgment. In other instances, it’s a matter of character. Either way, the fact that we’re asking ourselves the question as to whether to speak up or not is evidence that we should tread carefully.

I once had a manager who always ran in the right circles.  He hung out with the ‘big dogs’—the ‘A’ list crowd. He was always “in the know”.  And he couldn’t wait to demonstrate that he was “in the know”.  Initially, it was just awkward…the information he’d tell me about.  I initially suspected he was revealing information he shouldn’t.  After awhile it was obvious that was exactly what he was doing. It seemed he just couldn’t help himself—revealing confidences that is.

It’s really tempting to be ‘in the know’….tempting to say what we know. In most business cultures,  the more information we possess, the greater our standing in the eyes of others. For some being ‘in the know’ is a (self) validation of one’s own self-importance.  Being ‘in the know’ can be intoxicating, because with knowledge comes a form of power–perceived or otherwise.

It also means that someone has taken us into their confidence…they’ve extended trust. That’s the trouble…my manager was violating confidences.  He had broken the trust that had been extended to him.

When this happens it’s typical:

  • for people to share only the information that’s absolutely essential with the offender (especially if that person is higher up in the food chain than we are).
  • that the offender develops a reputation for having ‘loose lips’ …which translates to a blemish on their character – eventually undermining their own effectiveness.
  • for the offender to lose the respect of others – the polar opposite of the enhanced ‘standing’ they may have originally hoped for.

So when you’re tempted to say what you know…remember, discretion is the better part of valor.