As a leader, you must understand that your followers are watching you, most every minute, most every day.
And they’re learning.
They’re learning if you care about them.
They’re learning if you believe in them.
They’re learning if you believe in yourself.
They’re learning if you believe what you’re saying.
They’re watching to see if you walk the talk or just crawl a little.
They’re waiting for you to slip up and reveal the man behind the curtain, or the phantom behind the mask.
Because they’ve been taught not to trust leaders lately.
Enron, WorldCom, Steroids and Corked Bats, American Idol, Sarbanes-Oxley, all the fine print, the word “virtually.”
All lies and manipulation, clouding their heads and wounding their hearts.
So they’re desperate for truth. Which is why they’re watching and listening.
Everything you say and do and write communicates. Everything you don’t say and don’t do and don’t write communicates.
So, yes, they’re watching you.
And, yes, it’s an awesome responsbility.
But, if you want to be a leader, you know all about responsibility.
They’re watching you… and learning.
Be aware of that.
And then forget it and just be yourself. Someone who cares. Someone with courage. Someone who gets it.
They’re watching… and I’m guessing they like what they see.
Jim Warda
A woman from the audience followed me into the hallway. “I think we’re married to the same man,” she said. Successfully fighting the urge to fire off the snappy reply, “Could be. I travel a lot,” I simply smiled back. I’d heard this before.
I’m introduced as a change-management expert – married to a man who refuses to change anything. So, during my speech, I tell humorous stories about the resistance my husband puts up – and how I learned, from managers I’d interviewed, different ways to handle his protests.
After every speech, audience members come up to me to comment on my husband. Many people recognize their co-workers or loved ones (or themselves!) in him, and some (like the woman who’s own spouse’s behavior so resembled mine) jokingly commiserate with me. The thing I find most intriguing about this phenomenon is that in my twenty years of professional speaking, no one has ever approached me after a program to say they most appreciated my fifth point. That’s because they don’t remember what my fifth point was. But they do remember my husband and the lessons about handling change resistance that they learned through my stories.
As a communicator, stories can be your most potent allies.
Social scientists note that there are two different modes of cognition: the paradigmatic mode and the narrative mode. The former is rooted in rational analysis; the latter is represented in fairy tales, myth, legends, metaphors, and good stories. Good stories are more powerful than plain facts!
That is not to reject the value in facts, of course, but simply to recognize their limits in influencing people. Stories supplement analysis. Facts are neutral. People make decisions based on what facts mean to them, not on the facts themselves. Facts aren’t influential until they mean something to someone. Stories give facts meaning.
Here is the difference: Trying to influence people through scientific analysis is a “push” strategy. It requires the speaker to convince the listener through cold, factual evidence. Storytelling is a “pull” strategy, in which the listener is invited to join the experience a participant, and to imagine herself acting on the mental stage the storyteller creates. Stories resonate with adults in ways that can bring them back to a childlike open-mindedness – and make them less resistant to experimentation and change.
Compared to facts, stories are better for building community, capturing the imagination, and exerting influence. Stories about the past help employees understand the rich heritage of an organization, stories about early adopters offer successful examples of dealing with change, personal stories are powerful leadership tools for building trust, humorous stories can ease tension and, if you interview key staff, stories can capture their wisdom.
Stories can address universal human themes
Michael LeBoeuf, author of How to Win Customers and Keep Them for Life, illustrates the power of making people feel important with the following story:
Jane, recently married, was having lunch with a friend, explaining why she married Bill instead of Bob.
“Bob is Mr. Everything,” Jane said. “He’s intelligent, clever and has a very successful career. In fact, when I was with Bob, I felt like he was the most wonderful person in the world.”
“Then why did you marry Bill?” her friend asked. Jane replied, “Because when I’m with Bill, I feel like I’m the most wonderful person in the world.”
Stories can show how to approach your work
I once asked Sanjiv Sidhu, the CEO of i2 Technologies, what kind of attitudes he encouraged in his work force. Although his is a high-tech company, he told me a story about cleaning houses. It’s the same story he tells employees.
“Most people would think that cleaning houses for a living was a pretty boring job. But I believe that if you had the right attitude, cleaning houses could be intellectually stimulating. Let’s say it takes you four hours to clean a house, and you’re doing three houses a day, six days a week. That’s 72 hours of really boring work and a pretty sure recipe for burnout somewhere down the line. But if you redefined the job, said to yourself that you were going to do each house in two hours, there’d be an innovative component in the work suddenly. You’d need to do a study that asked, for example: ‘Am I going to vacuum the whole house first and then go back and polish the furniture, or am I going to do everything in one room before moving on to the next?’ And if you added to that goal the goal of being the best house-cleaner ever, then you really would be stretching your mind, the job wouldn’t feel boring anymore and you probably wouldn’t burn out because your own innovative thinking would keep you interested.
But then suppose you shifted gears again and said, ‘Okay, now I’m going to clean each house in ten minutes!’ That’s where the real fun would begin for someone like me because I’d know I couldn’t hit that target by merely tinkering with spatial tasking. I’d have to start thinking about new kinds of house-cleaning equipment–or maybe even new kinds of houses that cleaned themselves. That’s the kind of thinking we’re encouraging in our employees all of the time.”
Stories can make values come alive
Nordstrom is one organization that does a remarkable job of using anecdotes about its sales force to communicate its value of impeccable customer service. There is, for example, the often-repeated tale about the saleswoman who took her lunch hour to drive from downtown Seattle to the airport to make sure that her customer received his new business suit. The customer had purchased the suit that morning to wear at a meeting in another city the next day — and then discovered the garment needed alterations. The Nordstrom saleswoman had promised to have the suite altered and delivered to him before he left town. She kept her promise.
Stories can become the symbol of change
There is a story I tell in the book, “This Isn’t the Company I Joined” – How to Lead in a Business Turned Upside Down: Buckman Laboratories has been in the specialty chemical business since 1945. Under the leadership of Robert H. (Bob) Buckman, it also became a world-class, knowledge-sharing organization. Bob would tell you that converting a command-and-control organization into a networked one was not without its challenges and setbacks. Still, by 1994, Buckman Labs had jumped into full-bore knowledge sharing: new software and connectivity had been installed, most of the associates were equipped with laptops, and online Forums were up and running. To honor and reward the top 150 people from around the world who had done the best job of sharing knowledge with the new technologies, a “Fourth Wave Meeting” was held in Scottsdale, Arizona. The meeting was three days of fun, celebration and work – specifically, critical discussions about business trends and strategies. It was also the setting for the following story:
Through the entire conference, a man wearing shorts, a T-shirt, and sandals sat at the back of the room, chronicling the meeting on his laptop and sending live messages onto the Forum for the rest of the company to read. His name was Mark Koskiniemi. About midway through the meeting, one of the organizers (a manager) approached Mark and asked him to stop sending out notes on the meeting. Mark refused by saying he didn’t feel that was appropriate. When the organizer suggested that the request to cease came from the top, Mark countered by saying he’d appreciate hearing it personally.
A few minutes later, a break was called, and Mark found himself face-to-face with Bob Buckman. Here is how Mark recalls the conversation:
Mark: Hello, sir.
Bob: Mark, I understand that you have been posting notes from the meeting on the Forum. I have to say that I have not read them, but are you sure that is such a good idea?
Mark: Do you trust me?
Bob broke into a big smile, nodded slightly, and nothing further was said about Mark’s continued reporting of the events.
As Mark later said: “If knowledge sharing is built on trust, then to me this moment over any other demonstrated that Bob Buckman really trusted the associates of Buckman Laboratories to take the company forward.”
There were two results from Koskiniemi’s reporting:
1. In all, he sent more than 50 Forum or e-mail messages related to the reports coming from the meeting.
2. Koskiniemi (who is now head of Buckman’s operation in Australia and New Zealand) told others the story – and it came to symbolize the desired culture change.
I talk with many companies each year, and have found that high-performing organizations (the “agile” ones) manage people differently. They have embraced the new definition of work:
1. They reward results and expertise, not position.
Accenture rewards its consultants based on a 7-level capability model, which people are expected to focus on over many years of their career. People are evaluated based on the “internal demand” for their skills, not just their manager’s assessment of performance.
Intel regularly rewards and moves top engineering talent around the company to promote and build their expertise.
2. They break down functional silos and facilitate work across business functions.
One of Pfizer’s greatest organizational breakthroughs was the company’s focus on “science teams” which collaborate and share information on various body systems, organs, and molecules – across different product teams.
IBM regularly creates global action-teams which take people from functional groups and brings them together to work on large client projects.
3. They reward continuous learning and “learning agility.”
The Federal Reserve and even the IRS now reward people for contributing knowledge to others becoming better teachers and learners. Some academics call this a push for “serial incompetence,” meaning people are regularly moved into new roles to expand their breadth of experience.
The best tool for leaders of change is to understand the predictable, universal sources of resistance in each situation and then strategize around them. Here are the ten I’ve found to be the most common.
Loss of control. Change interferes with autonomy and can make people feel that they’ve lost control over their territory. It’s not just political, as in who has the power. Our sense of self-determination is often the first things to go when faced with a potential change coming from someone else. Smart leaders leave room for those affected by change to make choices. They invite others into the planning, giving them ownership.
Excess uncertainty. If change feels like walking off a cliff blindfolded, then people will reject it. People will often prefer to remain mired in misery than to head toward an unknown. As the saying goes, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.” To overcome inertia requires a sense of safety as well as an inspiring vision. Leaders should create certainty of process, with clear, simple steps and timetables.
Surprise, surprise! Decisions imposed on people suddenly, with no time to get used to the idea or prepare for the consequences, are generally resisted. It’s always easier to say No than to say Yes. Leaders should avoid the temptation to craft changes in secret and then announce them all at once. It’s better to plant seeds — that is, to sprinkle hints of what might be coming and seek input.
Everything seems different. Change is meant to bring something different, but how different? We are creatures of habit. Routines become automatic, but change jolts us into consciousness, sometimes in uncomfortable ways. Too many differences can be distracting or confusing. Leaders should try to minimize the number of unrelated differences introduced by a central change. Wherever possible keep things familiar. Remain focused on the important things; avoid change for the sake of change.
Loss of face. By definition, change is a departure from the past. Those people associated with the last version — the one that didn’t work, or the one that’s being superseded — are likely to be defensive about it. When change involves a big shift of strategic direction, the people responsible for the previous direction dread the perception that they must have been wrong. Leaders can help people maintain dignity by celebrating those elements of the past that are worth honoring, and making it clear that the world has changed. That makes it easier to let go and move on.
In a recent post, 12 Common Traits of Companies With Successful Corporate Planning, we examined common patterns of companies experiencing success in their corporate strategic planning efforts. This week and next, we will will examine 12 common mistakes made in corporate strategic planning.
This week, let’s look at the first six common mistakes.
1. The timeframe of the plan is too long
While business strategies should be expected to be steady and relatively unchanged for a longer period of time, strategic plans need to remain sharply focused on accomplishing strategic priorities in a timely manner. The plans also need more frequent refreshing to keep them from becoming stale and to keep the organization energized on plan execution. Long-term planning certainly has its place in a corporate world, but shorter operational plan horizons, going only 12 months out, allow organizations to utilize valuable current information and remain engaged in delivering to the plan milestones. A rolling 12-month plan that is updated on a quarterly basis offers more value to the organization in several ways. As long-term plan goals are partially or fully met, the operational component of the plan moves forward and is refreshed with more accurate and updated information for the coming 12 months. New objectives and sub-initiatives move up as others are completed and move out. This provides actionable data for managers to work from during budgeting and gives executives a more realistic sense of actual plan momentum and progress.
2. Too many strategic goals
Organizations often have a long wish list of goals, ranging from pie-in-the-sky to mundane. Dreaming up goals is generally not an issue. Instead, the issue is having the discipline to narrow down prioritized goals to a manageable and achievable level. Five goals is a good number to consider as a maximum. When you consider that each goal will lead to a sequence of programs, initiatives, activities and deliverables that will need to be managed and implemented throughout the organization, it’s easy to see how a long list of goals can inhibit implementation success.
3. Goals not tied to measurable outcomes
Organizational goals should be constructed in terms of outcomes that will mean something tangible to customers, employees and the organization’s markets served. Likewise, goals should be defined in such a way that they can be measured and managed throughout the layers of the organization. Goals should help propel action and achievement from the managers and workers who will be involved in accomplishing them.
4. Employees are unaware of the goals
Believe it or not, this can be a huge problem in many organizations. When the corporate planning process fails to consider the individuals who will actually implement the plan, breakdowns happen and desired outcomes are rarely attained. Detailed plans of action are needed for each initiative and goals should be carefully communicated throughout the organization so that everyone knows and understands not only the “big picture”, but what is expected specifically of them.
A colleague of mine can do wonderful things on a computer – except fix it when it jumps up and bites him. That’s why a trusted associate is often needed. More often than not, his co-workers hear a wailful “Dominick!” when the biting, or crashing, or whatever else a finicky computer decides to do, occurs. I can relate to my colleague, well aware of my own technological shortcomings and the fact that both of us – perhaps a great many of you, too – still use only a fraction of our computers’ potential.
Along the same lines, I see very few organizations using more than a fraction of their employees’ creative potential – and fewer still that really understand how to nurture corporate-wide innovation.
The problem starts with the definition of creativity. Often innovation is thought of as the bold new invention that wins fame and fortune. But creativity isn’t only about coming up with the “next big thing.” The thousands of small improvements that come from successfully tapping into the organization’s collective creativity are the sustaining source of competitive advantage.
Take Technicolor Corporation in Detroit, for example. They use Quick and Easy Kaizen – a system designed to encourage creativity by empowering all employees to submit and then implement two improvement ideas each month. This past February, 1,320 employees submitted suggestions and within 48 hours half of them were already being implemented.
One employee built a cutting box that both prevented people getting cut while splicing tape and also reduced the spoilage on wasted tape. A small improvement, sure, but little things can add up. The new cutting box was estimated to save the company $27,000 per year. Imagine the accumulated savings when virtually everyone in the company is submitting and implementing two ideas a month!
In today’s economy, creative ideas aren’t just good for business, they’re essential for success. Then why do so many organizations falter when trying to encourage company-wide innovation? Because it means taking these four big steps:
Step 1. Have faith in the creative potential of all employees. Often the people you expect to be the innovators aren’t the ones who come up with the best ideas. Everyone in an organization – from accounting to operations – has innate creativity just waiting to be tapped. At American Airlines, two mechanics in Tulsa, Oklahoma invented a drill bit-sharpening tool that saves the company $300,000 to $400,000 annually. Another worker idea saved $675,000 by reusing the parts of obsolete DC-10 coffee makers from other AA airplanes.
Step 2. Assess the current state of creativity in the organization. If you really want to know what inhibits creativity, ask your employees. Guidant, Inc., a Silicon Valley and Midwest manufacturer of medical equipment, used focus groups to identify barriers to innovation behavior. (Obstacles included too many people involved in every decision, failure too risky, company leaders not listening, etc.)
Step 3. Benchmark organizations with a reputation for ongoing innovation and compare your company’s C.Q. “creativity quotient” with theirs. (Sony, 3M, Disney, W.L. Gore, Fresh Express, Dell Computer, and Cirque du Soleil are among those frequently cited as highly innovative enterprises.) Although these companies have various structures and business models, they share similar strategies for encouraging creativity:
* Reducing unnecessary controls
* Encouraging fun and playfulness
* Fostering an environment of experimentation
* Expressing and embodying values
* Focusing on the larger goal or mission
* Encouraging risk and learning from failure
* Communicating candidly about business obstacles and opportunities
* Publicizing, recognizing, and celebrating innovations
Step 4. Invest in training for everyone. A culture for innovation requires new roles and accountabilities at all levels. Guidant developed a series of seminars, attended first by senior leaders, then by the next 450 managers. The programs were designed to help change leadership from command and control to creative collaboration – asking for, listening to, and implementing the ideas of others. Additional seminars involved everyone in a particular business group learning to take responsibility and to think more creatively.
There is tremendous latent energy in the imagination and dreams of your people. Find ways to tap into your organization’s collective creative potential – and you will blow the competition away!
The social network – those ties among individuals that are based on mutual trust, shared work experiences, and common physical and virtual spaces – is in many senses the “true structure” of an organization. Because leaders are beginning to realize the economic implications of these networks, organizations are having them analyzed and mapped.
Capital: Accumulated wealth, especially as used to produce more wealth.
Social capital: Wealth (or benefit) that exists because of an individual’s relationships. The value created by fostering connections between individuals.
Xerox Corporation in the 1980s was looking for a way to boost the productivity of its field service staff. An anthropologist from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) traveled with a group of tech reps to observe how they actually did their jobs — not how they described what they did, or what their managers assumed they did. The anthropologist discovered that the reps spent more time with each other than with customers. They’d gather in common areas like the local parts warehouse or around the coffee pot and swap stories from the field. An old model company manager would have viewed the time spent socializing as a “gap” to be eliminated for higher productivity, but the anthropologist saw the exact opposite.
For Xerox, the informal gatherings didn’t represent time wasted, but rather money in the bank. For it was here, within these self-organized communities of practice, that the reps asked each other questions, identified problems, and shared new solutions as they devised them. And it was through conversations at the warehouse — conversations that weren’t part of any formal business process or reflected in any official organizational chart – that people really learned how to do their jobs.
The Xerox story is an example of social capital in operation. Here is another that Tom Stewart, the editor of Harvard Business Review, likes to tell: In a customer service call center, a new software was installed to help employees fix problems. When the call-center operator typed words spoken by a customer, the software searched its memory bank of diagnoses and then offered a variety of possible solutions. Trouble was, employees weren’t using the new software. So management held a month-long contest in which employees earned points whenever they solved a customer problem, by whatever means. Managers were hoping that the benefit of using the new system would become self-evident. That wasn’t, however, what happened.
The winner of the contest was Carlos, an eight-year veteran with loads of practical experience who almost never used the software. And, while his success might have been expected, the second-prize winner was a real shock. Trish was so new to the company that she didn’t even have the software – and she had no personal experience to rely on. But she did have one unique advantage: She sat next to Carlos. Trish overheard his conversations, she took him to lunch and asked questions, she persuaded him to help her build a personal collection of notes and manuals about how to fix problems. Trish won because she utilized her social network.
The social network – those ties among individuals that are based on mutual trust, shared work experiences, and common physical and virtual spaces – is in many senses the “true structure” of an organization. Because leaders are beginning to realize the economic implications of these networks, organizations are having them analyzed and mapped.
A social network analysis consists of a survey of the individuals in a “network” (a group or an organization) asking who they rely on for information, for learning, or for specific knowledge needed in decision-making. Then visual maps are created showing who goes to whom – revealing knowledge flow, powerful connections, and potential blocks.
But you don’t have to map social networks to realize the importance of personal connections. Every work group or team has potentially two positive outcomes: 1) achieving the team’s objective and 2) building the social capital of team members. That’s why the most successful offsite meetings encourage participants to socialize at meals, during breaks, in the workout room, and at the bar. The “war stories” and insights shared informally build trust and nurture relationships, and that in turn foster a more creative, successful, and engaged work force.
them?
In some circles they’re also called “Millennials,” and today’s Gen-Y’ers come to the workplace with a markedly different perspective than past generations. Having grown up during the dot-com boom and the “war for talent,” they recognize the potential to make a significant impact in the business world. At the same time, as eyewitnesses to the corporate, institutional, and even journalistic scandals of recent years, they are also highly skeptical.They have in common many other shared experiences that will create bonds among them – and distinguish them from your current workforce. Consider, for example, that television was the defining technology for Baby Boomers and drove a culture of homogeneity. For this new generation, the defining technology has been the Internet – which drives diversity.
They’ve grown up in a digital, networked, mobile world. They’ve been in school when kids were killing kids at other schools. From Blackberry to Bluetooth, from cell phones that are cameras to eyeglasses that are cell phones – for this techno-savvy generation, these will continue to be “must haves.” They’re hip, they’re aware, and long familiar with AOL, IM, ATMs, PCs, VCRs, and DVDs. Toss in TCBY, for that matter.
They’re pragmatic. They’ve witnessed organizational restructuring and layoffs, often involving their own families, which means they don’t believe security is guaranteed. They want to acquire the skills and networks that will make them more marketable now – and in the future. And they’re idealistic. As they search for meaning, volunteerism among 16- to 24-year-olds is way up. Family and religious values are central, and “jobs that matter” hold great appeal.
There’s more you should know about them. They have a high tolerance for change and innovation and aren’t afraid of being fired. They’re more afraid of being bored. The high number of college graduates among them don’t expect to stay with their first employer for more than two years. They have been told they will have many jobs in a variety of organizations over the course of several different careers.
They represent the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in history. They come, as well, from a different social and cultural environment than past generations. One in four comes from single-parent homes. Three in four have working mothers. And forget about that long-gone era when children were “seen and not heard.” Members of this generation had their own cell phones – and credit cards – as pre-teens. Their opinions were regularly sought in family decision-making (especially when it came to buying and setting up the latest technology).
From scholastic tutoring to music and sports, Gen-Y’ers have been overscheduled by parents trying to keep them out of trouble and make up for time lost to the family by working parents.
They have, in short, become older younger.
All of this is important information for Gen Y recruiters, who would be wise to follow several tips.
Tip #1: Be candid. Gen-Y’ers come to interviews prepared. They’ve been “sold to” all their lives and their “BS barometer” is finely tuned. They also tend to believe one another, which is why some companies are using satisfied Gen-Y’ers as resources whom candidates can talk to.
Tip #2: Recruit to the culture. It’s amazing how people want to join an organization whose culture reflects their own values. That’s why companies like Disney and the University of Colorado Hospital have applicants watch a video that explains their standards, rules, dress code, and expected behaviors – and, even before filling out an application, are asked, “Can you uphold our values?”
Tip #3: Upgrade internship programs. IBM’s Extreme Blue internship program makes sure that interns don’t end up making coffee and photocopies. Instead, it mixes MBA students with computer developers in research labs around the world.Tip #4: Use your website. A well-structured and easily navigated web site is a must for recruiting.
Tip #5: Mind your CRM. Candidate Relationship Management (CRM) is a mindset that understands the importance of the relationship between the recruiter and the potential recruit. The way a candidate is treated by recruiters sets the tone for his or her initial impression of the organization. CRM tactics include responding quickly, making each candidate feel unique, and keeping them informed.
So if you get them, how do you keep them? Here is what research says Gen-Y’ers most want in a job:
Want #1: Great bosses and relationships. They want people who will get to know them personally as well as professionally and care about them as individuals. And encourage personal relationships between employees. This generation thrives on them, and people are reluctant to leave companies where they have friends.
Want #2: Frequent feedback. The days of annual performance reviews are over. Gen Y employees want constant, informal assessment of how they are doing.
Want #3: Recognition. “Catch people doing things right.” Instantly recognize and reward outstanding efforts, build reputations within the company, show people that you appreciate their contribution.
Want #4: Collaboration and teamwork. Command and control tactics don’t work with the Gen-Y’ers, who are looking to exchange knowledge and be treated as a valuable team member. Bring employees into the planning process of anything that affects them. Address their concerns and co-create goals and strategy.
Want #5: Access to information. Computers have given this generation the experience of always having information “at their fingertips,” and they are adept at using different data and technology to blend seemingly unrelated elements when solving problems.
It should come as no surprise that they want much more, as well. Gen-Y’ers put great store in education, and they want to be encouraged and supported to create personal growth and development plans. They want the challenge and excitement of getting on board and getting up to speed quickly. The worst thing you can do is leave them sitting around waiting for something to happen. Give them a task or responsibility they can own and offer a wide range of projects to work on.
They work to live, not live to work. Younger employees want control of their time, whether it involves organizationally structured arrangements such as flex-time or contractual work, or management philosophies and practices that stress results over “face time.” They’re also looking for meaning in their lives, so help new employees make a “values match” between their personal values and the organization’s vision/mission. Let individuals know specifically how their work fits in and contributes to the goals of the enterprise.
Competitive salaries and benefits? Of course they’re part of the equation. But as one executive told me, “If they come just for the bucks, they’ll leave for the bucks.” Retaining Gen-Y’ers will depend more on building their engagement – with challenging work in a nurturing environment – than it will on salary.
They’re ready for you. Are you ready for them?
Recently, I have been quite close to a few major change initiatives and I’ve noticed how certain basic principles associated with making change work are routinely overlooked.People support what they help to create – Here’s a basic question for the leaders of change: Have you consulted the people who will be most impacted by the change? Leadership experts like Meg Wheatley and others have taught us that “people support what they help to create.” A simple and powerful truth about human nature. If you want the buy in of people in your organization, you must treat them with respect by inviting them to discuss the change. Listen to their concerns, and to their ideas. There’s a great quote from Warren Bennis on this: “Good leaders make people feel that they’re at the very heart of things.”
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater – How often have you seen this scenario? A CEO gets fed up with something in his organization that he perceives as dysfunctional and says “Shut it down.” No discussion, no debate, and certainly no consultation with the people working in the system. The reaction of the people? Surprise, dismay, anger, hurt. When such organizational bathwater is tossed out, the baby often goes out the window too. Is it any wonder people resist change? Ask yourself, What gets lost?
Be careful to preserve what’s working now – The “baby” we were just referring to represents what is now working well, even in a process or system that needs major change. There is always something that is working well now. This is where change agents would do well to study Appreciative Inquiry and use its methods to find out the current strengths of the as is process. If change makers are not careful to preserve what’s working now, the intended improvements may actually cause setbacks.
Ironic, isn’t it? Here we are, smack in the middle of the Information Age, discovering that our greatest advantages aren’t coming from what we know but rather from whom we know – and that the high achievers of today are not so much a product of superior expertise as they are a product of superior networks.
Not that it should have come as a surprise to those of us who study organizational behavior. Flattened hierarchies and virtual enterprises have increased workplace complexity while reducing institutional support. We’ve gone from relying on org charts to depending on social networks. So now, more than ever, successful professionals must leverage their relationships.
Which makes me wonder about the connection between personal networks and organizational change . . .
In the pursuit of “hard skill” competencies and formal strategies we may have failed to notice that the most effective change agents are those individuals who have placed themselves at the center of intricate webs of relationships. How to help employees build and maintain these unique relationships may be the most effective change-management “technique” a leader could learn.
The new business fundamentals include an increasing focus on knowledge, trust, relationships, and communities. And social networks – those ties among individuals that are based on mutual trust, shared work experiences, and common physical and virtual spaces are in many senses the true structure of today’s organizations. Anything you as a leader can do to nurture these mutually rewarding, complex and shifting relationships will enhance the creativity and readiness for change within your team or throughout your organization.
This is true because your team or organization is an example of a complex adaptive system. In the natural world, examples of complex adaptive systems include brains, immune systems, and ant colonies. In each of these systems there is a network of individual “agents” acting in concert. In a brain the agents are nerve cells, enzymes, etc.; in a corporation the agents are departments, functions, individuals. Each agent functions in an environment produced by its interactions with other agents in the system. The relationships among agents are the conduits for the intelligence of the system. The more access agents have to one another, the more possibilities arise for creating innovative solutions to challenges faced by the whole system – and (as a direct consequence) the more prepared the system is to anticipate and react to change.
But, in order to capitalize on the business potential in relationships between people, trust has to be established. Trusting is not a matter of blind deference, but of placing – or refusing to place – trust with good judgment. In what are called “dense” relationships, the strength of connection is such that trust is taken for granted. In newer, less dense relationships, trust must be built.
Trust is the belief or confidence that one party has in the reliability, integrity and honesty of another party. It is the expectation that the faith one places in someone else will be honored. Or at least that is the definition of trust in its “benevolence-based” form. Another type of trust, “competence-based,” describes a relationship in which one party believes another to be knowledgeable about a given subject. When building personal networks, both types of trust are essential. People have to believe that you know what you’re talking about, that you have accurate information and expertise, but they also have to believe that you’re taking their perspectives and concerns to heart.
Another ingredient of trusting relationships is consistent credibility. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that you can talk until you’re blue in the face, but you will never create trust unless your sustained behavior parallels what you say. That’s why building trust can take so long. People are waiting to see a long-term, consistent pattern of behavior that is congruent with what you’ve been telling them.
High-trust relationships are also very personal. Beyond the obvious link of work-related issues, we develop relationships through finding things in common: loving the same music, rooting for the same team, having children in same school, liking the same kind of food, or playing the same sport. And sometimes a leader has to create experiences that enable individuals to get to know one another as fellow human beings.
A story I often tell in my Creative Collaboration program is about Jeff Garbin, whose first management assignment was to help facilitate John Deere’s change from the “cell concept” of manufacturing in which employees merely performed one or two operations on a component before passing it on to the next cell to a “modular production system” in which all employees working on a given component would share equal responsibility for the finished product.
Along with the other new module leaders at Deere, it was Garbin’s job to help his employees through the transition – and he had inherited a problem. In Garbin’s words: “We had ten people working the early shift and five on the late one. There were people on the two shifts who had never spoken to one another before. They didn’t know each other, they came from different manufacturing disciplines and they had a reputation for not getting along. I had to build some kind of relationship between the two shifts – and I had to do it quickly. What I thought of was pretty simple, but it turned out to be very effective. I got everyone together in a room for a couple of hours, with no limits on what they were to discuss, except that it couldn’t be business-related. That was the beginning. Within three months, people started coming in early or staying late just so that they could talk with people on the other shift about what was happening at work.”
Another issue leaders should be aware of is motive. Ron Burt, of the University of Chicago, discovered through numerous studies that certain patterns of connections that individuals build with others brings them higher pay, earlier promotions, greater influence, better ideas, and overall greater career success. But the MIT study found that high-performers didn’t develop and maintain these networks because it was “political” or self-serving – but rather because it was a natural consequence of the most effective way to get work done. And the connections made with others worked in ways that were mutual and reciprocal.
I’m not saying that leaders should throw out all formal change-management strategies. But I am suggesting that leaders should understand that the social side of change – which includes building personal networks and developing trusting relationships – might prove to be the most powerful strategy of all.
- Be aware of your biases. Your preconceived notions and attitudes often prevent you from hearing opposing facts/views. We hear things as we expect them to be. We often dismiss – or do not hear – statements that do not fit our belief system and values.
- Let the other person talk until they have finished. Be willing to take the time to listen. This is hard for some people at first. Just slow down, take a deep breath and wait for the other to say what they need to say completely.
- Look at the other person.
- Stop doing what you are doing. Eliminate distractions. In one of my listening workshops a young man said that when his mother phones him she asks if he is watching television. If he is, she asks him to turn it off so they can talk. Stop watching and using the computer, too. Effective listening requires your full attention on the speaker. It is impossible to multi-task and be fully involved in listening.
Leadership is caring. It’s about remembering what’s going on in the lives of those following you. Have they lost a parent? Did they just buy a new house? Are they going through a divorce?
Leadership is common sense. You can implement all the strategies, tactics, programs, and processes you want. But, when it comes down to it, people only really follow someone they believe in, and who they believe also believes in them. Leadership shows up in the day-to-day stuff, in the way leaders make decisions, remind others about what’s important, and have the ability to stay calm in chaos and shake things up when it gets too calm.
Leadership is courage. It’s lonely. It’s about taking the boulder on your shoulders, making decisions, and then moving. It’s about getting those following you to continue to do so. And, when it gets tough, when it gets down-and-dirty rough, that’s when you’ll prove you’re a leader, or just someone with lots of leadership books on their shelf.
Leadership is commitment. You will never give up. Never. Sure, some adjustments may be needed. After all, you’re not a seer, though you do tend to see past the hills and around the next bend. You know the path, even with your eyes closed. Especially with your eyes closed.
And each of these things – caring, common sense, courage and commitment – sends a message to those who follow you. In all, these things let them know you’re worth following.
And trusting.
Jim Warda
Maybe that’s because we’re trying too hard to formalize it. A recent MIT study found that 80 percent of the breakthrough innovations in products and services did not occur in training sessions or formal meetings. Rather, dynamic innovation was almost always the result of informal (even chance) encounters.
I help organizations find innovative solutions to business challenges. I’ve consulted with clients in the public and private sectors to develop collaborative meetings utilizing creative techniques for idea generation – and the results have been impressive. So I know the power of well-structured interaction to revitalize a group’s ability to think creatively.
But 80 percent! There’s a statistic that’s hard to ignore. And it isn’t only MIT’s finding. Steve Jobs put it this way: “At Apple, innovation comes from people meeting up in the hallways or calling each other at 10:30 at night with a new idea, or because they realized something that shoots holes in how we’ve been thinking about a problem.” In other words, innovation is less a product of structured processes and more a result of informal conversations.
Here’s an example of the results that can come from the cross-pollination of ideas: Two researchers at Hewlett-Packard were good friends. Sally worked in the life sciences area and Laurie was in the printing technology group. Both were part of the central research labs. At the time, H-P was looking at producing the print head nozzles for its inkjet printer through a process called laser ablation. This is a highly controlled process in which a high-energy laser vaporizes the plastic substrate to create a little hole.
Laurie told Sally about the project and she in turn mentioned it to Patrick, a colleague working in the R&D division for Hewlett-Packard in Germany. The three researchers started wondering if this same process could be used in life sciences to create microfluidic structures.
That was the beginning of over a decade’s investment – first by Hewlett-Packard and currently by Agilent (following a 1999 spin-off from H-P). And now Agilent has the world’s leading technology in ablation-based microfluidics for chemical and biochemical analysis.
How about your company – your agency – your association? Had any good conversations lately?
Obviously, it helps to have the right kind of culture in place for innovation to flourish – but creative conversations don’t happen because of a CEO mandate or a task force charter. Instead, they emerge organically in organizations as a byproduct of routine interpersonal interaction.
Creative synergies are often facilitated by employees with multiple networks throughout the organization. Friendships bring trust, inviting an even deeper level of communication. Importantly in the H-P example, Sally was able to connect to both Patrick and Laurie (who didn’t otherwise know one another) and all three people were essential to the project’s early success.
What to dramatically increase your organization’s “creativity quotient?” It may be simpler than we thought. IBM’s knowledge management guru, Larry Pruzak, says the key to knowledge sharing and innovation is to “hire great people and let them talk.” Social networks, personal relationships, people with connections across divisional boundaries – this is the real foundation for breakthrough innovation.
The grapevine – Webster’s “informal person-to-person means of circulating information or gossip” – is the unsanctioned communication network found in every organization. In my recent research, based on responses from more than 800 individuals in a wide variety of companies and industry, I learned just how the grapevine compares with more formal sources of organizational information.
I’ll share some thoughts on how communicators can harness the power of the grapevine. But first, let me share what I heard from some of those 837 individuals about how the grapevine poses a significant challenge for senior management – and for the formal communication channels employed by today’s communicators.
I asked, for example, if there were big differences in the message delivered in a speech from a company leader or the one heard over the grapevine, which would you tend to believe. Some 47% said they would put more credence in the grapevine. Another 11% would believe a blend of elements from both messages, meaning only 42% would believe senior leadership.
Leaders are “too PC” and “too positive,” I was told. “Senior leadership’s ‘advertising’ statements are not always trustworthy,” and “I tend to discount official speeches – they’re too carefully crafted. I prefer the truth.” Also: “Too often they paint a picture of Utopia. What world are they in?”
One individual had her own formula. “If senior leaders don’t trust you or aren’t confident enough to let you in, only believe 70% of what is said and get the other 30% from the grapevine so you’ll be prepared.”
I also asked which you would tend to believe if there were big differences in a message delivered in an official newsletter (online or print) or the grapevine. This time the majority (51%) favored the newsletter, with only 40% putting more faith in the grapevine. Putting something in writing, it seems, tends to carry more weight than the spoken word.
“This,” I was told, “is the official word everyone waits for. When something is in writing, it is likely to be quoted and displayed as evidence. At least here there is a paper trail.” On the other hand, there was the concern that “online or print means it’s already been filtered to be PC in the corporate culture. I don’t believe it.” And one caution to editors everywhere: “I believe what the newsletter says, except for those pictures of smiling employees. I’ve never seen any of them!”
I wanted to see how much of a credibility gap there was in message delivered over the grapevine vs. those heard directly from a direct supervisor. Not surprisingly, 74% told me they would believe their supervisor. But – everything depends on the relationship employees have with their supervisors. “I’d trust my current supervisor,” said one individual. “My old supervisor, no.”
People tended to give supervisors higher marks because of the more personal relationship that often exists. Said one individual, “I would believe my supervisor if I could also challenge him. Since your boss can fire you he should also be able to answer all your questions.”
I also wanted to know whether you would believe the grapevine or your most trusted co-worker if there were big differences in the messages from each. Personal relationships were again a crucial factor, with 89% reporting they would believe their co-worker. Here again, trust was the key, as with the individual who replied, “I don’t gossip with co-workers I don’t trust.”
So much for whom you believe. When all is said and done, it comes down to accuracy, which led me to ask people just how accurate they have found the grapevine?
Fifty-seven percent gave it favorable ratings. They supported their response with such comments as “Management communication usually confirms what the grapevine already knows,” and “The grapevine may not be wholly accurate, but it is a very reliable indicator that something is going on,” and “I believe the grapevine, but I validate it by checking versions from multiple sources.”
On the other hand, how did people rate the accuracy of formal communication? Given the tendency cited earlier to believe what they saw in writing, 67% had a favorable response to the accuracy of formal communication.
Communicators can take heart in hearing, for example, that “Formal communication is generally always accurate. There are seldom any mistakes in it, and people spend a long time crafting messages. But belief or trust in a message is based not just on accuracy. It also factors in completeness, disclosure, transparency, perceived intent, durability of the information, and of course, interpretation. Not to mention perceptions about and experiences with the sender. I think the mantra for today is ‘Trust, but verify.'”
As with all of the questions, there was a small percentage of people who indicated that they believed a “blend” of what they heard, rather than choose from among the formal communication channel and the grapevine. This, of course, is what really happens most of the time, which makes it incumbent for communicators to find ways to provide both formal and informal channels for their messages.
One individual reinforced this idea by noting that “Both channels have elements of truth that need to be synthesized.” Said another: “The grapevine is distorted, the formal is edited, and the truth lies between.” And a third: “Formal communication doesn’t tell the whole story. The grapevine has all the gory details.”
Others indicated that the nature of the message was important in deciding which source to believe more. “If the message relates to major changes and controversial issues,” said one individual, “the grapevine has more credibility. In the case of small and administrative changes, the formal methods are reliable. It’s all about skepticism.”
Another individual echoed a similar belief: “For information of a general nature (financial results, product news, etc.), I trust the formal channels. However, if the news relates to an ongoing investigation, regulatory action or product crisis – then I tend to believe the grapevine.”
Employees do, indeed, tend to believe the grapevine – an inevitable part of organizational life, a communication channel very much alive within organizations but not sanctioned by them, a natural (and healthy) consequence of people interacting.
Research suggests that up to 70% of all organization communication comes through the grapevine, yet many senior leaders are unaware that it exists or how it operates. One study, in fact, found that while 92% of lower-level managers knew the grapevine was active, only 70% of upper-level managers knew about it. In the same study, 88% of supervisors said they understood that the absence of formal communication increased activity through informal channels – but only 54% of executives understood this correlation.
Even with those numbers, one challenge today is for management to avoid overestimating the grapevine’s potential. As one of my interviewees explained, “A recent organizational change came as a complete shock. Senior leadership believed that the grapevine was more active than it really was – and that we would have some advance warning as a result of that activity.”
Research also finds that 80% of organizational rumor proves to be true. There may be a need for more research here, since this seems incredibly high, given what we know about how information gets distorted. Remember the child’s game of “telephone,” for example, where a whispered message is whispered and changes along the way from child to child.
But even if that figure is accurate – even if the rumor mill were 90% accurate – that small percentage of distorted or fabricated information can be devastating. And, remember, the grapevine is not responsible for errors.
Regardless of its accuracy, of whether it’s underestimated or overestimated, the grapevine cannot be eliminated or uprooted. You can’t kill it. You can’t stop it. But you can learn to understand it – and ideally even influence it. Here are some conditions when you can expect the rumor mill to kick into high gear:
1. When there is a lack of formal communication.
2. When the situation is ambiguous or uncertain.
3. When employees feel threatened, insecure, and highly stressed.
4. When there is an impending large-scale change.
5. When the subject matter is of importance to employees.
I think this response from my survey sums it up perfectly: “Formal communication focuses on messages the company wants to deliver, with a scope management feels is appropriate, and at a time management feels is right. The reason the grapevine plays such an important role is that it delivers the information employees care about, provides the details employees think they should know, and is delivered at the time employees are interested.”
The knowledge economy operates on the complexities of connections and networks. Companies are a combination of formal hierarchy and informal networks, but most communication strategies take into account only the formal organization. (Cascade communication is a classic example of “rolling out” a message from top to bottom of the organization chart.)
We will always need authentic speeches from senior leaders, well-written and well-researched articles in newsletters, and first-line supervisors who are first-rate communicators. It’s just that none of these strategies was created to deal with the complex web of social interactions and informal networks that grace today’s organizations.
In many of them, the grapevine is the major informal communication medium. It is a naturally occurring force. The question becomes: How do we tap into that force?
Malcolm Gladwell showed us one place to start in The Tipping Point: “If your want effective, sustainable communication in an organization, you need to reach a tiny minority of exceptional individuals who are responsible for the majority of the dialogue.”
His recommendation is keyed to the reality that gossip moves through groups that are split into factions (like separate departments and divisions) through people who gravitate into an intermediate position, making connections between the factions. They control the gossip flow and hold a lot of power.
Influencing the grapevine, then, begins with identifying “the influentials” who operate within it. Use a tool like Social Network Analysis to create a visual map of the informal organization and see who and where your connectors are. Find out about their attitudes toward the company, inform them in advance, train them to be even more skillful communicators, solicit their opinions. And ask their advice.
In conducting my research, there was no doubt as to which communication vehicle is the quickest. Some 99% chose the grapevine, which means that communicators are not going to be able to beat it to the punch. The challenge, instead, is to understand how the grapevine works within your organization – and how you can influence it.
Mission statements don’t have to be dumb. In fact, they can be very valuable, if they articulate real targets. The first thing I’d do is forget the exact words and remember the reason for a statement in the first place. In 2006, Wilson Learning surveyed 25,000 employees from the finance and tech industries. Respondents said they wanted a leader who could “convey clearly what the work unit is trying to do.” The same applies to mission state-ments, which set the tone. Employees, vendors, and clients don’t get stoked by fuzzy mission statements. They will line up behind concrete goals.
Email Nancy Lublin, the CEO of Do Something, with your nominees for best and worst mission statement.
Once I was trying to fix a toilet and water began to blast upward from a fitting. The building Super, who was watching me, commented, “You know the difference between a professional plumber and an amateur?”
“No,” I said, frantically searching for a towel.
“The professional makes as many mistakes as the amateur,” he said, swinging a wrench onto the main valve and closing off the fountain, “The difference is, a professional fixes them faster.”
We started this project about four years ago, and what this book is all about is about an organization that is full of conversation. If you think about what organization is all about, it’s just basically a bunch of conversations that are happening at the same time. And what leaders do to facilitate the conversations that actually produce value, and actually engage employees, is that what distinguished some of the best corporations that we studied.
So if you think about what makes conversations among friends to be really productive is that it has all the attributes. It’s interactive. It’s intimate. It’s inclusive. It’s actually intentional. And if you think about it, when you place that conversation inside organizations, many of those great attributes actually disappear.
So the book is, how do you actually have productive conversations in an organization? And the reason why it’s actually more important now in the 21st century than before is that, if you think about what’s going on around us, we’re a knowledge-based economy. Our source of competitive advantage are actually people who are working for us, working for our corporation. And the more engaged they are, the more productive they’re going to be.
So I think having right conversations [INAUDIBLE] 21st century is more important than 20 or 25 years ago. I think the speed of change, how industries are changing, how products are changing, is much, much faster than it used to be. So staying close to customers, staying close to your employees, that’s becoming more and more important.
Many companies nowadays are global companies, so you actually have to not only engage employees here locally, but you have to engage them across the board. And so communication, being able to be in touch with employees, is becoming more and more important.
An interview with Boris Groysberg and Michael Slind, authors of Talk, Inc.: How Trusted Leaders Use Conversation to Power Their Organizations. For more, read the article Leadership Is a Conversation.
| Distilled Wisdom: A company’s competitive advantage is a combination of the potential of its people, the quality of the information that people possess, and the ability to share that knowledge with others in the organization. During transformation, leadership’s primary challenge is to link these components as tightly as possible. |
Patrick, the baby of my extended family, started kindergarten last week. As a graduate of pre-school, we thought he’d be right at home in his new class. But after the very first day, he firmly announced that he wouldn’t be going back to school. When questioned about this decision, he admitted that the teacher was nice enough, and all his friends were glad to see him, but (and to Patrick, this was the deal breaker) there was no naptime.
No naptime! In Patrick’s school, 5-year olds are being asked to “pay attention” from 8 am to 3 pm without an opportunity to rest and recharge. Have we learned nothing about educating young children?
Which started me thinking about my work . . .
I’ve spent the past twenty years helping individuals and organizations thrive on change. Yet, recently, I’ve seen leaders making some of the same mistakes I noticed two decades ago. Have we learned nothing about managing change?
I don’t mean to minimize the complexity and chaos that leaders are facing. Rapidly changing technologies make yesterday’s choices obsolete. The turbulent economy increases pressure to “do more with less.” Companies rely on a shifting stream of alliances – competitors one day and partners the next – and sometimes both at the same time. Corporate reorganizing is becoming an annual affair. Mergers and acquisitions are on the rise. Customers are demanding “better, faster, cheaper” everything. Competition is fierce. The pace of change is accelerating. And employees are increasingly skeptical about committing to business strategies that are constantly being redefined.
Yet this is our reality – and in this world, leadership success belongs to those who can keep a work force resilient, positive, and engaged while dealing with the tsunami of change that is turning our organizations upside down. Here are the most common mistakes leaders make managing large-scale organizational change and the lessons we need to reinforce.
Mistake: Not understanding the importance of people. As high as 75 percent of all major restructuring fails, not because of faulty strategy, but because of problems with the “human dimension.” After years of research studies and statistics, we know this for a fact. And yet, as recent as last month, a vice president facing the transformation of her department asked me if she really had to include her employees in planning for the change.
Lesson: Organizations don’t change. People do . . . or they don’t. If employees don’t trust leadership, don’t share the organization’s vision, don’t understand the reason for change, and aren’t included in the planning, there will be no successful change regardless of how valid the need or how brilliant the strategy.
Mistake: Neglecting the emotional side of change. Transformation requires a redefinition of who we are and what we do. It’s often unpredictable (responding to unforeseen circumstance) and unnerving (requiring employees and businesses to reinvent themselves while they are at the top of their game). It can twist people’s past success into their greatest obstacle for the future. It’s highly emotional.
Lesson: To lead an organization (or a department or a team) through transformation, it is not enough just to appeal to people’s logic, you also have to touch them emotionally. Change leadership is about creating meaning. Employees need to be engaged by a vision of the future, and to be inspired to execute that vision. This takes leaders with a deep understanding of human emotion, who can see the power of intangibles and can capture the imagination of an entire work force in the pictures they paint and the stories they tell.
Mistake: Not being candid. Under the rationale of protecting people, leaders present change with a too positive “spin.” And the more they “sugar-coat” the truth, the wider the trust gap grows between management and workers. Organizational communicators, perceived as the purveyors of corporate propaganda, lose credibility as well.
Lesson: Honest communication goes beyond simply telling the truth when it’s advantageous. It requires an unprecedented openness and transparency: a proactive, even aggressive, sharing of everything – financials, strategy, business opportunities, risks, failures. People need pertinent information about demographic, global, economic, technological, competitive, and industry trends. They need to understand the economic reality of the business and how their actions impact that reality.
Mistake: Defining “change communication” as what employees hear or read from officially sanctioned sources. Reflecting this belief, leaders focus most of their attention on traditional communication vehicles — speeches, newsletters, videos, intranets, email, etc. Yet, from the employees’ perspective, traditional communication accounts for only ten percent of what convinces them to change.
Lesson: The most powerful change communication, accounting for 90 percent of what impacts a work force, is divided evenly between organizational structure (whatever punishes or rewards) and leadership behavior. Rhetoric without congruent action quickly disintegrates into empty slogans. A communication strategy that is not aligned with organizational systems and the actions of leaders is useless.
Mistake: Trying to lead change with command and control tactics. In a command and control culture, only top executives are expected to solve problems, make decisions, and set the change agenda. Such a limited view not only places an enormous burden on senior management to come up with all the answers, it also restricts the contributions of the rest of the organization and widens the division between them and us.
Lesson: A company’s competitive advantage is a combination of the potential of its people, the quality of the information that people possess, and the ability to share that knowledge with others in the organization. During transformation, leadership’s primary challenge is to link these components as tightly as possible. The most successful change strategies are highly collaborative. Developed in participative sessions, these strategies capitalize on the wisdom, experience, and creativity of employees throughout the organization.
In today’s “knowledge work” — with its reliance on project teams and cross-functional collaboration — leadership in peer relationships is becoming increasingly important. As the guidance of team efforts tends to shift to whomever has the needed information or expertise, more people in the organization must be able to lead through influence, rather than relying on the control (or at least the illusion of control) that management position implies.
Punishes failure Encourages and analyzes failure
