Given my love of words, I subscribe to Thinkmap’s Visual Thesaurus. Each day, I look forward to an email from Thinkmap’s Word of the Day. (Yes, I’m that geeky.) Today’s word is “erudite”.  It means “having or showing profound knowledge”. Don’t you just love how it trips off your tongue? Say it with me: erudite.

Beyond being fun to say, the roots of this word are cool too. The word erudite is related to the word “rude”.  My Word of the Day email informed, “erudite is from a Latin verb that means instruct, which is, in essence, to get the rudeness out”.

I love this! As a corporate trainer, my goal is to help facilitate learning rather than be a Sage on the Stage, offering up my volumes of wisdom.  In an adult learning environment, there’s nothing ruder than an arrogant person at the front of the room, pontificating. The same goes for leadership.  People learn a lot from their leaders, whether the leaders is conscious of doing the “teaching” or not. Every day, leaders have the opportunity to instruct their employees, whether in a coaching role, or as a role model demonstrating the company values. It’s up to the leader in how he or she wants to teach: with humility or with arrogance.

I’m going to turn the “word of the day” into a “thought for the day”— at work, would someone describe you as “erudite”? Are you seen as someone who is constantly striving to help others learn, while keeping the rudeness out?

Perfection Messing Up Your Corporate Mojo?

Have you ever noticed how pervasive “perfection” is in our language?

• The phrase “perfect storm” is used to describe a “rare combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically”.
• Last month, ump Jim Joyce ruined a “perfect” game for Detroit Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga.
• Recently, corporate success coach Ann Farrell ruminated on striving for the “perfect” life.

Perfectionism isn’t limited to solely to our language, either. As a practice, The Quest for Perfect shows up on a regular basis in the workplace, most typically as a byproduct of a company’s culture.

When thinking of how workplace culture shapes employee behavior, a senior leadership work team that I consulted with comes to mind. The team was comprised of the top six leaders of a small manufacturing company and they were grappling with trust issues..  We were working offsite, trying to come up with some workable operating guidelines to ensure a more trusting, productive environment.  At one point, a Vice President bravely stepped out and said, “We are so demanding of each other, there’s absolutely no room for mistakes.” We explored this issue for a few minutes, with several people contributing their perspectives.

Finally, the leader of the team (who held the title General Manager) blurted out in frustration, “Jennifer, you simply don’t understand!  Quality is one of our company’s core values.  We’re at nearly zero defects per million on our products.  We live and breathe perfection. It’s who we are.”

Yes, indeed, Mr. General Manager. Your Culture of Perfection, while admirable for creating superior products, is eroding the relationships of the senior management team.  Our discussion then took a very interesting turn in which I was able to share an alternate perspective on perfection:

Strive for perfection in process and grace with people.

A process doesn’t have feelings, but people do.  When team members demand relentless perfection of one another in the workplace, they create unrealistic expectations for both work output and interpersonal effectiveness.  This is not a call for tolerating mediocrity.  On the contrary, in the workplace people should continually seek process improvement. All the while, they must be mindful: The creatures in charge of the process are human. Mistakes happen.  People misjudge situations.  Tempers flare. As humans, it’s what we do. Expecting perfection in the way humans relate to one another is like expecting every golf game to have a hole-in-one shot. It’s unrealistic.

Back to our struggling leadership team— we invested time defining areas in which “perfection” was an appropriate goal, and situations in which we should encourage a more forgiving stance. We also discussed that pesky gray area of “good enough”. As you might expect, there were varying opinions on when something should be deemed “good enough” to pass inspection— be it a process, a document or an interpersonal relationship.  All in all, it was a fruitful discussion.  Even though we didn’t create the definitive list (there’s no “perfect” list, after all!), we did bring this issue out into the open and develop some perspective around it.

Here’s the rub. . . this company was “successful” by nearly every measure: commitment to its core values, profitability, steady growth, quality products and employee satisfaction.  The company’s culture highly influenced achievement in these metrics. That’s a good thing. Even so, this company still wasn’t perfect. All workplaces, even the highly productive and positive ones, have their downsides because corporate cultures, like the humans that comprise them, are dynamic, influential and yes, sometimes flawed.

The General Manager in my example had his eyes opened that day. He realized that the culture he helped to create, while enviable, still had it drawbacks. His company’s culture of perfection wasn’t so much a problem to be “fixed” so much as it was a dynamic to acknowledge and direct. Leaders of organizations who recognize this and create interpersonal practices that allow some slack are the ones who create vibrant, sustainable corporate cultures.  Imperfections and all.

Photo credit istockphoto.com © Robert Hadfield

Always flocking to the same network?

Have you noticed that when people attend meetings, go to networking events or participate in training classes that they tend to sit with people they already know?  In academic circles this is known as homophily - the tendency to associate with people of “similarity” or familiarity. This is sometimes called the “birds of a feather” phenomenon.

When it comes to social media use, I will occasionally fall into this trap as well, tending to read the same authors and bloggers that I know well and whose work I’ve enjoyed in the past. Today, with the publishing of Dan McCarthy’s July Leadership Carnival at the Great Leadership blog, I decided to break out of that mold and seek out authors with whom I’m unfamiliar.  Happily, my foraging uncovered some excellent reading.

Meg Bear (@megbear) blogs for Talented Apps (@talentedapps). She’s a self-described Talent Management aficionado and has recently written a couple of great posts that explore gender in the workplace.  Check out When Understated Becomes a Liability and Are Your Leadership Competencies Biased?

Alice Snell (@Taleo_Corp) blogs for Taleo, a Talent Management solutions provider. As Taleo’s VP for Research, Alice is at the forefront of all things Talent Management.  I’m definitely going pay attention to her professional expertise and opinions.

Bob Lieberman (@bob_lieberman) who blogs at Cultivating Creativity, specializes in helping companies be more creative. (And what company couldn’t use a little more of that?!)

So, do yourself a favor and check out a different flock this week. There are 36 featured authors in Dan’s Leadership Carnival round up.  There will be plenty of great reading—both from familiar favorites and some new voices as well.

Photo credit istockphoto.com © Greg Nicholas

Both of my kids are really into the stretchy bracelet craze. On the way to the grocery store today, my nine year old son remarked that one of his bracelets looked liked Medusa.  Feigning ignorance, I said, “Medusa? Who’s that?”  He replied, “You know, Mom, the mythological character who had snakes on top of her head.”

Of course, I know who Medusa is, but I wanted to know if my kid knew. Later, I realized that this conversation represented a technique honed during my years as a corporate trainer. I think of it as the “low-key testing for understanding.”  This method isn’t a new concept, of course. Greek philosopher Socrates is credited with creating a method to help people form their own conclusions by asking questions.  As a more contemporary example, Dave Meier, founder of The Center for Accelerated Learning, says “never do for the learners what they can do for themselves”. His point is that people know a lot more than we give them credit for.  Given the right tools and encouragement, people can usually figure things out for themselves.

Leaders can use this approach too. The primary objective of leadership is to bring out the best in one’s contributors. When a contributor has a procedural question or is facing a dilemma the “test for knowledge” technique is an excellent way to demonstrate a collaborative leadership approach. Leaders don’t develop others by being the “sage on the stage”; they help their contributors figure it out for themselves.

Back in my supervisory days, whenever my direct reports had a question about how to do something, I’d draw on this “test for knowledge” approach.  Instead of immediately launching into an explanation, I’d start by “testing” for what they already know with a question like, “What have you already tried to solve this problem?” or “Tell me which parts you’re clear about and which parts need clarification.” Doing this accomplishes two things. It: a) Saves time by avoiding a rehash of something the contributor already knows and b) Models open-ended questioning, which the contributor can in turn use with their colleagues.

After discussing the answers to the low-key understanding test, I would then follow up to help the contributor think through their options and uncover answers.  Some of my favorites inquiries:

• Do you know where to find the answer on the company intranet? Let’s go take a look and find it together.
• What part of the process is unclear to you?
• What are the pros and cons of this situation?
• If you decide on taking this action, what’s the worst thing that can happen?
• What’s your gut telling you?
• How can I support you in this decision?

Some say a leader’s job is to remove the barriers to their contributors’ performance. While this is true, a leader must resist the temptation to jump in to “fix” problem so that people can quickly move on with their day. By taking a few extra minutes to fully explore a contributor’s knowledge base, a leader will actually save time in the long run.  Beyond time-saving benefits, employee engagement will get a boost too. Contributors who are involved in solving their own problems gain confidence, which leads to future positive contribution.

Whenever you’re tempted to take the short cut, remember this: it’s not what you know, it’s what they learn. Do Socrates proud and use the low-key test for understanding.

Photo credit: istockphoto.com © Hans Laubel

Are you a business coach or an internal training and development professional that uses a 360° feedback process for professional development of your clients?  In general, I like the 360 process and have had good luck implementing them for clients.  However, it’s not all peachy-keen. A few of the “beefs” I have with the process is:

• The written comments from some raters are not constructive, are poorly written or are just plain snarky.
• It takes too long to complete a response form—sometimes up to 2 hours!
• Some of the 360 reports are too hard to interpret, or are an endless list of numerical ratings with little interpretive narrative.

I just finished up an informational webinar offered by Inscape Publishing to its authorized distributors (of which I’m one) on an exciting new product they are launching July 13, 2010. It’s a 360° feedback tool for leaders called Everything DiSC® 363™ for Leaders.

“363” = 360 process + 3 personalized strategies to improve leadership effectiveness.

Granted, I have a reason promote this tool*, but here are a few ways this new tool addresse the issues listed above.

• Even though the research is based on the DiSC model, readers don’t need to have a knowledge base of the DiSC model. The report feedback has a unique, stand-alone leadership model that stands apart from the DiSC model. So, if your company uses another “styles” program, you can still use this tool for professional development.
• It takes the “sting” out of traditional 360 feedback, by offering a proprietary “CommentSmart™” tool—a library of constructively worded comments in a pull-down menu that raters can choose from.
• It doesn’t take a lifetime to respond to the online form: It only takes 20- 30 minutes for the leaders and 15-20 minutes for raters to respond.
• It’s been heavily field-tested with 500 leaders and 3000+ raters.

This is hot-off-the-press information; I just finished the webinar 15 minutes ago.  If you are interested in learning more, check out the following resources and or/email me: jmiller@people-equation.com:

 Everything DiSC 363 Preview Brochure

Everything DiSC 363 for Leaders Sample Report

Take a peek.  Let me know what you think.  How does it compare to other 360’s you’ve used?

*Disclosure: SkillSource, the consulting company owned by me, is an authorized Independent Distributor of Inscape Publishing products.

This morning, while preparing for the work day, I had a random thought and quickly posted it to Twitter:

Props to Joan Koerber-Walker for starting the #BeOriginal hashtag on Twitter.

Judging by the number of retweets, I’d say this tweet had legs!  Or should I say “wings?”  To go beyond the 140 characters with that quote, here are the thoughts that led to that particular tweet:

1. If there’s no resistance, it doesn’t mean the proposed change is a bad idea.  Maybe what you propose is something employees have been secretly waiting for. (Thank goodness, the company is finally making that change!) Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’ve upped the bar all that much further.  You haven’t.
2. You need to expect a certain amount of push-back.  It’s a normal part of the change cycle. However, if the resistance is swift, powerful and nearly universal, it’s time to re-think the change you’re proposing.  It’s either off-target or too severe for what the organizational system (be it human or process) can handle at this time.
3. Wild ideas just to “get the juices flowing” aren’t always a great use of time. In the book Linchpin, Seth Godin talks about how “artists” (people highly skilled at what they do) “don’t think outside the box, because outside the box there’s a vacuum.”  He says that in order to “ship” (get the work out the door) “artists think along the edge of the box, because that’s where the work gets done.”( p.102.) I agree. The most effective leaders are those that stretch people’s boundaries, not snap them clear in half, like a severed rubber band.

So, that’s what was on my mind when I posted the game-changer tweet.  What do you take away from that quote?

I just returned from a quarterly management meeting being hosted by a client.  It’s a two-day meeting being held offsite for 30 mid- to senior-level managers of a business unit.  During the meeting, Pete, head of a 1200-person business unit, unveiled his brand-new blog.  I really admire Pete. He’s been taking risks and encouraging his staff to do the same.  When he revealed the blog today, his group gave him some good natured ribbing– “So, can employees ‘write on your wall?’ ” and “Yeah, SURE they can post anonymously.”  And: “What? Are you going to go on Twitter now too?!” Pete openly admits that this experiment may not work.  In general, efforts to use social media have not taken hold in his company.  However, Pete remains undeterred. He wants to fully explore the opportunities that a social media platform can bring to his workforce.

Now, I’m not a social media expert.  I’m not specifically advising Pete on his social media use.  But if I can help him somehow figure it out, then I’ve helped him in his larger goal, which is to communicate with his employee base.  And he did hire me to do that. 

So, I’m doing a bit of informal research on Pete’s behalf.

First, I posted this tweet before I left the meeting:

I chose to do so discreetly, as nobody in the room is on Twitter.

So far, I’ve had this suggestion from colleague MaryJo Asmus:

I’m also going to check in with my LinkedIn and Facebook networks to see what they have to say.

Are you a part of a large corporation that’s incorporating social media into its business practices?  In particular, are any executives or senior managers doing an internal blog?  If so, what advice would you offer to Pete so he can make this endeavor a success?

I’ve been watching reruns of the Ken Burns series The National Parks  on PBS. It’s an in-depth look at the birth and evolution of our country’s national park system.  Called “America’s best idea” by writer and historian Wallace Stegner,  men both famous ( Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir )and lesser-known (Stephen Mather , Charles Young) were called upon to leverage their leadership skills to help preserve our nation’s rich landscape.

The other night, I watched Episode 3 which chronicles the years 1915 – 1919. As I watched, I was struck by the difficulty of the decisions National Parks advocates faced. For example, Stephen Mather, the National Parks Service first director, faced stiff opposition to the idea of naming the Grand Canyon as a National Park.  As an observer 90 years removed from the situation, it seems clear: of course, we should save The Grand Canyon for future generations.  But for those leaders who were tasked with setting aside land for conservation, the decision was anything but easy at the time.

The passage of many years certainly gives the gift of perspective. I’m reminded of my friend Pete’s dad, Wally Smith (not their real names). Mr. Smith was famous amongst his family members for an assortment of witticisms, which over time became known as “Wallyisms”. One of Pete’s favorite Wallyisms related to decision-making. Evidently, when Pete was young and grappling with a difficult decision, he would seek out his father for sage advice.  Pete would present his dilemma to his father, asking, “Do you think it’s the right decision?”  Pete’s father would gravely respond:

“Well, you’ll know in a 100 years.”

Gee, thanks, Dad.

But you know what? Wally was on to something.

Those tough decisions, the ones that keep us up at night— eventually we (or our successors) will  have the benefit of history to help judge whether or not we made the right choice.  But for now, in this moment, we need to decide. Or, perhaps, make a choice not to decide, at least for the time being.  In either case, we must have faith that we know right from wrong, good choices from bad.  We must have the character to stand up for inequities, and to put the greater good before our immediate self interests. This is especially true if we are in positions of leadership that require the stewardship of precious resources.

Which brings me back to the leaders featured in The National Parks series.  The passage of 100 years hasn’t changed the core of what it means to be a leader. Leaders back then grappled with the implications of big decisions, just as they do today.  Sure, there are differences (telegraph vs. smart phones) but the human factors that drive the decision remain largely unchanged. A person with character is a person with character, whether he or she lives today or lived a century ago.

Leaders—are you currently faced with a tough dilemma? Ask yourself: what will my decision mean 100 years from now? Who knows, maybe a Wallyism from the late 20th century will help you set the stage the 21^st century.

Incidentally, I thought this topic would be a fitting one, given that this is The People Equation’s 100^th blog post. Do you have a mentor or family member who’s famous for his or her sage advice?  Care to share?  We’d love to hear it.

Photo credit: istockphoto © DSGpro

Sometimes a tweet just sums it up perfectly.  Ben Eubanks tweeted:

“Verbal Spam”.  Creates quite the mental picture, doesn’t it?

How often are you subjected to verbal “spam” in the workplace?  Probably more often than you’d like.  My first reaction to Ben’s tweet was to imagine people who blather on, saying nothing of value.  But then, I had a thought of how maybe there is some measure of value to some people’s “spam”.  Ever heard the saying “one person’s trash is another person’s treasure?”  I think this saying could apply to the communication process as well. Maybe some people are just droning on and on, but what if they are simply at cross-purposes with their listener? What equates to trashy spam for you as the listener may indeed be another person’s golden treasure.

Here’s an example.  When I conduct my Listening Skills for Leaders webinar, we discuss the following graphic:

Let’s say the woman on the left is a supervisor who is explaining a new company policy to the person on the right who is an employee.  The supervisor is very carefully explaining the details of the new policy—when the change will go into effect, the specifics of the change and what the employee needs to do to adhere to the policy.  It’s her job as a supervisor to communicate these details; therefore she believes she’s delivering a treasure-trove of information.

Now let’s look at it from the employee’s viewpoint. Perhaps this policy change will require some type of change in the way the employee handles his day-to-day work.  Maybe the change is extensive enough that he may have to learn something new, or re-think how he handles other related company policies. Maybe those changes are daunting in some way.  In the graphic above, the employee is listening for the emotional content of the supervisor’s message—and isn’t hearing it.  He’s only hearing the logistical details, which he may translate as “unhelpful” or even “spam”.

So, what’s a supervisor to do?  Supervisors are constantly communicating—everything from the  mundane (“cookies in the break room, eat up!”) to the life-changing (“We are going to have do lay-offs for fourth quarter”). The key is to think about the expectations of the listeners.  Supervisors skilled in verbal communication will think about the following before they communicate their message:

1. What’s my intent in sending this message?
2. What does my listener expect from this communication?
3. How will I check for understanding?

Answering these three simple questions will help supervisors stay focused in their communication, thereby reducing the chance that their employees will run their communications through the mental spam filter.

Have you ever led a high-visibility project that has crashed and burned? I have and it taught me a powerful leadership lesson. Read on . . .

The Back Story

Many years ago, shortly after I joined a Fortune 500 company, I was assigned to manage a project called the “Institute”. The Institute was an annual, week-long conference that the company offered to the sales force of its distribution channel. Planning the Institute was an intensive, 10-month project. In addition to coordinating the week’s curriculum with 7 product managers, the project also required full conference logistics planning (meals, facility tours, lodging, etc.) on the part of the Project Manager. It was a huge undertaking.

Lessons Learned— the Hard Way

So, why did the project go so badly? In a word: expectations. I didn’t fully understand the expectations of my customers (the conference participants), and as a result, there were some very angry, disappointed (and vocal!) people in attendance. It was a nightmarish week as I struggled mightily to appease demanding customers and keep the conference logistics on track.  Not everything was a train wreck, but the aspects deemed “unacceptable” by many of the group were enough to cast a negative vibe on the entire conference. At the end of working an 80-hour week, I drove home, exhausted and demoralized. I wondered what the following Monday would bring . . . reprimands from my boss? A demotion?

Astonishingly, my boss did not reprimand me.  She had managed a few Institutes herself and was therefore able to take the incident in stride. So, I took inventory of the very difficult lessons learned and then did my best to put the assignment in the past.  I also breathed a sigh of relief—the Institute project was a grueling assignment, and therefore it was rotated amongst the four Project Managers on my team. It would be someone else’s problem next time around.

A Second Chance

Fast forward two months. . .  

It’s time to start planning for the next Institute and the team is discussing who will be the project lead.  My boss Mary tells me I will be the project lead for the next Institute. Wait— no! That’s not how it’s supposed to work. I’m panicked.

In private, I pleaded with Mary to assign someone else to the project. I told her I didn’t have it in me to endure the intensity of that project for a second time in a row. Mary looked me straight in the eye and said, “Jennifer, you need to manage this project again, because you need to prove to yourself that you can do it—and do it amazingly well. I know that the next Institute that you manage is going to be a success.”

At the time, being told I had to manage the Institute for a second time in a row seemed like a huge punishment. In retrospect, I now see if for what it truly was: a gift. It was a chance to redeem myself. Mary gave me the opportunity to prove to myself that I had what it took to manage a complex, demanding project. And, I’m proud to say that seven months later, I hosted a highly successful, well-attended Institute. It wasn’t easy getting to that point, but without Mary’s decisive leadership action, I wouldn’t even have had the chance to do so.

A Leader’s Choice

When projects go awry on a team, a leader has several choices: coach, reprimand, or remove. In my case, it would have been easy for Mary to “remove” me by assigning the Institute project to someone else. After all, that was the standard procedure and I was clearly not interested in jumping in again. However, Mary knew that if I didn’t get “back on that horse” immediately, I would forever doubt my ability to handle such a large scale project.

How leaders respond to mistakes or failures on their team shapes the way team members will respond to challenges. Team members who know that there will be “hell to pay” if something goes wrong will play it safe. I was trying to “play it safe” by not managing the Institute again. Luckily for me, Mary didn’t buy into that mindset. Mistakes happen and savvy leaders know that in order to get the best out of their people they need to create a culture that allows a bit of room for the occasional slip-up.

A little bit of redemption goes a long way.