- I will communicate a compelling vision for what we are trying to accomplish.
- I will translate that vision into a unique and compelling story for each person who is responsible for fulfilling it.
- I will hold people accountable for helping to realize that vision.
- I will help my people achieve things that they never dreamt possible.
- I will give my people open, honest, an on-going feedback.
- I will model the values that I seek from others.
- I will help my low performers improve and will help my high performers stretch into new opportunities.
- I will look at my work through the eyes of my business partners or customers.
- I will make myself and my department easy to do business with.
- I will improve my customer's experience, my people's careers, and my organization's success.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
2010 New Year's Resolutions for Leaders
Saturday, December 26, 2009
What shoveling snow can tell us about leadership
Winter has definitely arrived across the country. People from coast to coast are digging out of some hefty snow.
As my dogs and I try to navigate around my subdivision, I’ve noticed four types of snow shoveling strategies. Interestingly, these strategies line up very well with four different types of leadership.
What snow?
The first type of house is the one with tire marks in the driveway but no clear attempt to shovel. These people are not changing their routine just because their environment changed. Some leaders operate the same way. They go on autopilot and don’t adjust their work, their strategy, or the way they deal with their people based on context. They just plow ahead hoping not to get stuck on the ice. When they do, they often disrupt those around them for a little push to get back on the road.
I can get out
The second type of house is the one that is shoveled just enough to get the car(s) out of the driveway. The walk is left undone as is any area that doesn’t affect the owner’s ability to get around. This is like the lone-ranger leader. These leaders focus all of their energy on optimizing their results – at best without helping others, at worst to the detriment of others. These leaders have a siloed view of their role and relationship to the rest of the organization. I’d argue, they aren’t really leaders at all.
It’s not like I didn’t shovel
Then there’s the house with the fully shoveled driveway and thin path (usually one shovel width) along the sidewalk. These people know that they are supposed to be good neighbors. They don’t want to look selfish so they do the minimum amount necessary to be part of the broader community. We’ve all seen their counterparts at work. They come to meetings, volunteer for the easy tasks and never seem to be around when the going gets tough. In helping those around them, they seem to be more focused on their own well-being (e.g, reputation, political influence, etc.) than in actually helping the organization succeed. In some ways, I prefer the “I can get out” leaders. At least they are honest about their motives.
I’ve got your back
The final house is the easiest to navigate. All driving and walking paths are completely clear. These homeowners are thinking more about just their needs. They are thinking about the kids who need to walk to school, the mail carrier, the neighborhood dog walkers, joggers, and anyone else who is trying to pass by. They realize that their house is part of a larger community and plays a role in that community whether they are directly involved or not. In organizations, these leaders are attentive to the big picture. They don’t just optimize their individual department or goals. They understand that other people inside and outside of the organization might rely on their departments. Most importantly, they are responsive to those needs. They make themselves easy to do business with. They ensure that they do not introduce burdensome processes or obstacles into other people’s work. Some even goes as far as to remove such obstacles. These leaders understand that part of their role (I’d argue most of their role) is to help the organization, its customers, and its partners succeed.
Winter has just begun. As the snow falls and the shovels come out, now is a good time to reflect on your leadership style. Use the extra time that you spend fully clearing your walk to think about how you can fully clear the path to success for anyone who works with you or your organization.
As my dogs and I try to navigate around my subdivision, I’ve noticed four types of snow shoveling strategies. Interestingly, these strategies line up very well with four different types of leadership.
What snow?
The first type of house is the one with tire marks in the driveway but no clear attempt to shovel. These people are not changing their routine just because their environment changed. Some leaders operate the same way. They go on autopilot and don’t adjust their work, their strategy, or the way they deal with their people based on context. They just plow ahead hoping not to get stuck on the ice. When they do, they often disrupt those around them for a little push to get back on the road.
I can get out
The second type of house is the one that is shoveled just enough to get the car(s) out of the driveway. The walk is left undone as is any area that doesn’t affect the owner’s ability to get around. This is like the lone-ranger leader. These leaders focus all of their energy on optimizing their results – at best without helping others, at worst to the detriment of others. These leaders have a siloed view of their role and relationship to the rest of the organization. I’d argue, they aren’t really leaders at all.
It’s not like I didn’t shovel
Then there’s the house with the fully shoveled driveway and thin path (usually one shovel width) along the sidewalk. These people know that they are supposed to be good neighbors. They don’t want to look selfish so they do the minimum amount necessary to be part of the broader community. We’ve all seen their counterparts at work. They come to meetings, volunteer for the easy tasks and never seem to be around when the going gets tough. In helping those around them, they seem to be more focused on their own well-being (e.g, reputation, political influence, etc.) than in actually helping the organization succeed. In some ways, I prefer the “I can get out” leaders. At least they are honest about their motives.
I’ve got your back
The final house is the easiest to navigate. All driving and walking paths are completely clear. These homeowners are thinking more about just their needs. They are thinking about the kids who need to walk to school, the mail carrier, the neighborhood dog walkers, joggers, and anyone else who is trying to pass by. They realize that their house is part of a larger community and plays a role in that community whether they are directly involved or not. In organizations, these leaders are attentive to the big picture. They don’t just optimize their individual department or goals. They understand that other people inside and outside of the organization might rely on their departments. Most importantly, they are responsive to those needs. They make themselves easy to do business with. They ensure that they do not introduce burdensome processes or obstacles into other people’s work. Some even goes as far as to remove such obstacles. These leaders understand that part of their role (I’d argue most of their role) is to help the organization, its customers, and its partners succeed.
Winter has just begun. As the snow falls and the shovels come out, now is a good time to reflect on your leadership style. Use the extra time that you spend fully clearing your walk to think about how you can fully clear the path to success for anyone who works with you or your organization.
Monday, December 21, 2009
What you see is what you get - or is it?
Take a look at the picture below. Which of the horizontal lines is longer?
This picture is the famous Ponzo Illusion. The lines are the same length. How did you respond to that question? Did you
This illusion illustrates a very simple idea: our senses may not be as accurate as they seem. We often rely heavily on what we sense – after all “seeing is believing”, right? It's reasonable to trust our sense. They are a deeply ingrained part of who we are. But, as the illusion demonstrates, senses can deceive us.
Actually, it’s not our senses that are deceiving us, it is our brain. Senses are just input devices just like microphones or video cameras. It's the way that those inputs get processed which creates problems. What we “see” isn't just a simple record of the image that entered our eye. It is influenced by our past experiences and what we’ve seen before. A recent research study showed that when an image enters your eye, two parts of your brain become active. The first is the part responsible for generating the image. The second is the part assocaited with your memory. That's why family resemblances are often more obvious to strangers than they are to family members. Strangers just see the actual features. Family members "see" all of the stories, experiences, and meaning behind those features which makes each family member appear much more unique.
It’s easy to feel certain about our perceptions because they often seems so real. Those lines in the illusion really look different, don’t they? But don't be fooled. Our brain dictates everything that we perceive whether it be through sights, sounds, smells, or even thoughts.
Recent discoveries in neuroscience have shown that by the time we become conscious and aware of anything, our brain has already applied several layers of “meaning” to it. Sometimes that meaning is real, other times, like with this illusion, our brains distort it. And, we can’t stop it. Look at the lines again. You know that they are the same yet you cannot stop your brain from making you see them as different.
So, the next time you feel certain about something that you are seeing, hearing, or thinking, remember that it might just be a very convincing illusion created by your brain. You might want to turn to some external source to validate your perceptions.
This picture is the famous Ponzo Illusion. The lines are the same length. How did you respond to that question? Did you
- trust what you saw and say that the top line was longer
- think back to a similar illusion that you've seen in the past and assume that the lines were the same
- measure the lines to find out for sure
- consider alternative ways to look at and make sense of the image
This illusion illustrates a very simple idea: our senses may not be as accurate as they seem. We often rely heavily on what we sense – after all “seeing is believing”, right? It's reasonable to trust our sense. They are a deeply ingrained part of who we are. But, as the illusion demonstrates, senses can deceive us.
Actually, it’s not our senses that are deceiving us, it is our brain. Senses are just input devices just like microphones or video cameras. It's the way that those inputs get processed which creates problems. What we “see” isn't just a simple record of the image that entered our eye. It is influenced by our past experiences and what we’ve seen before. A recent research study showed that when an image enters your eye, two parts of your brain become active. The first is the part responsible for generating the image. The second is the part assocaited with your memory. That's why family resemblances are often more obvious to strangers than they are to family members. Strangers just see the actual features. Family members "see" all of the stories, experiences, and meaning behind those features which makes each family member appear much more unique.
It’s easy to feel certain about our perceptions because they often seems so real. Those lines in the illusion really look different, don’t they? But don't be fooled. Our brain dictates everything that we perceive whether it be through sights, sounds, smells, or even thoughts.
Recent discoveries in neuroscience have shown that by the time we become conscious and aware of anything, our brain has already applied several layers of “meaning” to it. Sometimes that meaning is real, other times, like with this illusion, our brains distort it. And, we can’t stop it. Look at the lines again. You know that they are the same yet you cannot stop your brain from making you see them as different.
So, the next time you feel certain about something that you are seeing, hearing, or thinking, remember that it might just be a very convincing illusion created by your brain. You might want to turn to some external source to validate your perceptions.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Hot Potato: Great kid’s game, but a bad leadership strategy
Who are the “hot potatoes” in your organization? You know - the people who no longer are performing but have not been told. Instead, they just get passed along from department to department. We all have them.
Having difficult conversations is hard, especially when they involve someone’s performance. Despite this, not confronting poor performers is a problem.
Regardless of how much you try to isolate these people, they touch others. They may manage them, they interact with them, and they occupy leaders’ time and attention often at the expense of others. You can’t contain their influence. Their lowered performance affects all of the people they touch. The pull down morale and productivity.
Not dealing with these people properly also under minds your credibility. Everyone in the organization knows who these people are and what is going on. Any message or vision of building a high-performing team or holding people accountable become watered down with skepticism.
Most importantly, as my friend Ed Quijano once told me, it’s simply not ethical. Withholding information about someone’s performance and not dealing with the issue hurts the person. If someone were unknowingly paddling down a river toward a dangerous rapid, you’d warn them. If they were about to enter a building that had a gas leak, you’d warn them. So, why do we allow people to careen toward a brick wall in their careers?
No matter how hard the conversation might be, you are responsible for having it. You owe it to your organization, your people, and even the poor performer. And, who knows, maybe if you let the person know what’s wrong, he or she might actually fix it.
Having difficult conversations is hard, especially when they involve someone’s performance. Despite this, not confronting poor performers is a problem.
Regardless of how much you try to isolate these people, they touch others. They may manage them, they interact with them, and they occupy leaders’ time and attention often at the expense of others. You can’t contain their influence. Their lowered performance affects all of the people they touch. The pull down morale and productivity.
Not dealing with these people properly also under minds your credibility. Everyone in the organization knows who these people are and what is going on. Any message or vision of building a high-performing team or holding people accountable become watered down with skepticism.
Most importantly, as my friend Ed Quijano once told me, it’s simply not ethical. Withholding information about someone’s performance and not dealing with the issue hurts the person. If someone were unknowingly paddling down a river toward a dangerous rapid, you’d warn them. If they were about to enter a building that had a gas leak, you’d warn them. So, why do we allow people to careen toward a brick wall in their careers?
No matter how hard the conversation might be, you are responsible for having it. You owe it to your organization, your people, and even the poor performer. And, who knows, maybe if you let the person know what’s wrong, he or she might actually fix it.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Leading in the passive voice isn't leading at all
I recently heard a wonderful poem by Jack Riemer. I was struck at how well it captures the essence of leadership and personal accountability.
Leaders shouldn’t hope or wish; they should do. Leadership is an active endeavor. A leader’s job is to draw out the best from his or her workforce, to keep them engaged and empowered, and to create the kind of culture needed to make the organization succeed.
How do you think about (or communicate) the needs of your organization? Are you passive - relying on some invisible force or person to make things happen? Or, do you speak about your responsibility, actions, and influence. If you aren’t sure, ask someone. If you lead in the passive voice don’t be surprised if you don’t see much change.
We cannot merely pray to end war;I often hear leaders speak in passive voice. “If only our people could be more engaged”, “If we could just have a greater sense of urgency”, “I hope we’ll get through this change”. It’s as if those leaders forget that they are the ones leading.
For the world was made in such a way
That we must find our own path of peace
Within ourselves and with our neighbor.
We cannot merely pray to root out prejudice;
for we already have eyes
With which to see the good in all people
If we would only use them rightly.
We cannot merely pray to end starvation;
For we already have the resources
With which to feed the entire world
If we would only use them wisely.
We cannot merely pray to end disease;
For we already have great minds
With which to search out cures and
healings
If we would only use them constructively.
Therefore we pray instead
For strength, determination, and will power,
To do instead of merely to pray
To become instead of merely to wish;
That our world may
be safe,
And that our lives may be blessed."
-Jack Riemer (adapted)
Leaders shouldn’t hope or wish; they should do. Leadership is an active endeavor. A leader’s job is to draw out the best from his or her workforce, to keep them engaged and empowered, and to create the kind of culture needed to make the organization succeed.
How do you think about (or communicate) the needs of your organization? Are you passive - relying on some invisible force or person to make things happen? Or, do you speak about your responsibility, actions, and influence. If you aren’t sure, ask someone. If you lead in the passive voice don’t be surprised if you don’t see much change.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Don’t discard your biases and “gut”, just change the way that you use them
Data-driven decision-making or gut-level decision-making, which is the answer? The pendulum has swung way over to data-driven. But isn’t your personal experience and judgment what got you to where you are?
Your value as a leader comes from your experiences and judgments. If organizations could codify every decision into a predictable formula, leaders would be replaced with statistics packages.
Yet, your personal experiences and judgments, while successful in the past, may no longer be sufficient in a changing world. So, what can you do? The answer is that you need both: good data and a strong gut. However, we need to change the way use them:
Why is it so hard to make an entirely fact-based decision? First, there is always more data. At some point, you have to make a judgment call. You must believe that you have a reasonable amount of data and a sound argument. Otherwise you’ll be searching endlessly. Second, treating every fact equally thwarts decision-making. You must determine which data matters most. This comes from your experience. Finally, few problems have a single right answer. Two people looking at the same dataset can come to vastly different conclusions based on their experience with similar data. And, both might be right. A surge strategy and a withdrawal strategy are probably equally viable ways of resolving the conflict in Afghanistan. It’s not that one is right and one is wrong. Both have their merits and their issues. To determine which is the “right” answer, people must use their experiences, biases, and gut to put the data into a broader context.
In today’s world, the “right” answer isn’t some form of absolute truth. Rather it is the one based on a sound, logical argument that is supported by facts (with the realization that there might be an opposing view that also has a sound, logical argument supported by facts).
This isn’t to say that every decision and every opinion is equally viable. People make bad and misinformed decisions. Good leaders need to learn how to harness their gut and bias. However, they should not blindly follow them. I am not advocating that we swing the pendulum back the other way. My point is just that we can use data to confirm or refute our biases/gut and we can use our gut/bias to put the data into a broader context.
Your value as a leader comes from your experiences and judgments. If organizations could codify every decision into a predictable formula, leaders would be replaced with statistics packages.
Yet, your personal experiences and judgments, while successful in the past, may no longer be sufficient in a changing world. So, what can you do? The answer is that you need both: good data and a strong gut. However, we need to change the way use them:
Ultimately, all of our decisions are gut-based and biased. This is best illustrated in Jonah Lehrer’s book, How We Decide. Lehrer describes a man who after having a tumor removed from his orbitofrontal cortex couldn’t make decisions (at least not quickly and easily). In the opertaion, some of the orbitofrontal cortext was also removed. The orbitofrontal cortex is the part of the brain governing emotion.Instead of using your bias to answer questions, use it to generate questions and let the data provide the answers.
Then, instead of using data to support your gut, use your gut to process the data.
Why is it so hard to make an entirely fact-based decision? First, there is always more data. At some point, you have to make a judgment call. You must believe that you have a reasonable amount of data and a sound argument. Otherwise you’ll be searching endlessly. Second, treating every fact equally thwarts decision-making. You must determine which data matters most. This comes from your experience. Finally, few problems have a single right answer. Two people looking at the same dataset can come to vastly different conclusions based on their experience with similar data. And, both might be right. A surge strategy and a withdrawal strategy are probably equally viable ways of resolving the conflict in Afghanistan. It’s not that one is right and one is wrong. Both have their merits and their issues. To determine which is the “right” answer, people must use their experiences, biases, and gut to put the data into a broader context.
In today’s world, the “right” answer isn’t some form of absolute truth. Rather it is the one based on a sound, logical argument that is supported by facts (with the realization that there might be an opposing view that also has a sound, logical argument supported by facts).
This isn’t to say that every decision and every opinion is equally viable. People make bad and misinformed decisions. Good leaders need to learn how to harness their gut and bias. However, they should not blindly follow them. I am not advocating that we swing the pendulum back the other way. My point is just that we can use data to confirm or refute our biases/gut and we can use our gut/bias to put the data into a broader context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
