Grandpa’s Well Intended Faux Pas—The Doing/Being Transposition—Part One

It’s a holiday scene seemingly as old as time, family gatherings with relatives traveling great distances to be with their loved ones. Grandparents (especially) can’t wait to get reacquainted with their young  grandchildren.  At some point, one of the grandparents (often the grandfather) asks their young grandchild, ‘so what do you want to be when you grow up?”

Teacher, firefighter, musician, forest ranger, nurse, ball player, lawyer are just a few of the responses that the youngster might give.  The grandparent, no doubt, is pleased—sensing their grandchild has given this important question some thought.  Of course, this is all in spite of their young age and the likelihood that they’ll incessantly change their mind.

Yet, the grandparent has unknowingly perpetuated a misconception on the part of the grandchild. The problem started with the question the grandparent asked. Notice that the youngster actually answered a different question than the one posed by the grandparent.

The question the youngster answered was “what do you want to do when you grow up?” In other words, the youngster likely told their grandparent what interested them and how they envisioned earning a living (e.g. firefighter, teacher, forest ranger, etc) pursuing that interest.

The grandparent didn’t catch (or didn’t appreciate) the subtle, but important, distinction between being and doing— let alone point it out to the youngster.  How one earns a living is one thing, but it isn’t who they are—it doesn’t reveal what kind of person they are. Young people would be well served to understand that distinction.

Unfortunately, the experience with the grandparent subtly reinforces to the grandchild that what they do for a living largely defines who they are.  Of course, grandparents have a lot of company when it comes to this phenomenon….it’s no wonder, with all the emphasis on ‘career-mania’ in this country.

The fact that the youngster didn’t ‘get it’ is understandable, predictable really—given their young age.

All together now (in unison)—“what we do for a living, doesn’t define who we are.”  ‘Doing’ and ‘being’ are different!

For all the sacrifice parents (and some grandparents) make to ensure a first-rate education for their children; for all the blood-sweat-and–tears on the part of the diligent student; for all the prestige society puts in performing certain types of work…being is equally important (if not more so) than doing.   

Part two, which will be posted in a little over two weeks, will illustrate how one Southern California school has brought this important point to life.

Mind-Sets Can Take Many Forms—Depending On Culture

An employee purposely slows down their productivity or begins to under perform relative to their colleagues.  That seems inconsistent with mind-set #1 (having a bias for results) and mind-set #2 (being a part of something bigger than oneself), right?

Well, no.  At least if you’re in China!

In China the group trumps the individual.  Anyone who attempts to elevate themselves over the collective interests of the group will likely be ostracized by the group.  In other words, the Western model of the rugged individual (and the gold stars that are earned through the accomplishment of outlandish performance standards) doesn’t translate well in some Eastern cultures. In other words, in China it doesn’t pay to try to stand out.

Thus in China the individual who has unintentionally ‘one-upped’ the group will naturally be inclined to conform to the performance norm of the group.  And–to be clear–the norm of that group may reflect a very high level of performance.  That’s why someone in China who throttles back their production for the reasons we’ve illustrated may very well hold dear both mind-sets #1 and #2.

The point is perhaps obvious.  The two mind-sets we’ve illustrated here are just as valid in China as they are in the U.S.  Yet, because of the difference in cultures, they take different forms. One isn’t right, the other wrong–they’re just different. The difference in cultures can be as dramatic as two differing nationalities or as subtle as two corporate subsidiaries that have the same corporate parent.

That’s important for all of us to remember–whether one works in China or just down the street.

Note: This post was inspired by a terrific article by Sylvia Vorhauser-Smith in the May 2012 edition of Talent Management magazine.

 

 

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.

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!

 

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 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.