“Change the World” or “Bring Impact to One Person”

leverBigCornersLately I have been thinking a lot about the struggle many of us have because we want to “change the world.” For us we keep looking for that really long lever that Archimedes was talking about so that we can move the world. We have tried it all, social media, blogging, webinars, and the like. But what if we stopped and reflected on how change actually occurs?

What if your job isn’t to change the world, but to impact one person? What if the impact of that one person was so deep that their life influenced someone else, and that person influenced someone else, and (well you get the picture).

Too often we go in to an engagement, organization, program thinking we are going to bring about some massive shift, and leave disgruntled because we haven’t seen the outcomes we desired.

What would happen if you stepped back and recognized the impact on one single person? Would you be happy knowing that your influence has made things better for that one person?

#WMTOonTNE

Why so cryptic? A hashtag for a title? Ughhhh!

Ok, I feel you, I would probably be saying the same thing, except I really want to get this message out and to make sure that you know that hashtag as it could win you a pretty cool experience.

In my daily work as the Executive Director of SynerVision Leadership Foundation I get to meet some amazing people and regularly come across really awesome material. A few months back in reading a blog, I came across Maddie Grant and then later her co-author, Jamie Notter. Not only are they authors, but this dynamic duo serves as the co-founders of Culture that Works, on top of amazing work that they do as consultants, convention speakers, and general authorities on topics as exciting and varied as leadership, nonprofits, social media, new work, and the like.

Why should you care? Because I want you to join me in learning more about what they have found will occur in our organizations “When Millennials Take Over” (which just happens to be the title of their newest book). They will be appearing on an episode of The Nonprofit Exchange, the weekly nonprofit series that I host, on Tuesday, February 17th. During that episode we will be announcing the winners of a contest that they are co-sponsoring with SynerVision Leadership Foundation (you can read the details here).

Don’t miss out on your opportunity to engage with these wonderful authors and a chance to win an autographed copy of their new book, a hangout with the authors, a free copy of the upcoming magazine issue by SynerVision Leadership Foundation on Millennials in the Nonprofit World, and a 3-month premium membership to the SynerVision website.

So start tweeting – what do you think will happen when millennials take over? Be sure to use the hashtag #WMTOonTNE so that you can win!

The Nonprofit Exchange (4)

What Kind of Culture are You Creating?

In Adam Bryant’s book Quick and Nimble, he shares the following excerpt from an interview with Mike Sheehan, CEO of Hill Holliday advertising agency:

“I think that there are two kinds of cultures and then you can subdivide after that…One is based on a foundation of insecurity, fear, and chaos, and one is based on a firm platform where people come to work and they’re worried about the work. They’re not worried about things that surround the work are not important. If leadership doesn’t provide a forum for that kind of stuff, it dies quickly. People forget about it and they just focus on doing their job.”

chaos or clarityThis statement goes to the very core of what is happening in organizations. Organizations that have positive cultures focus on and celebrate “positive deviance”. These organizations hire with their values in mind and assure that those brought into the organization not only can “deal with” the values but are in alignment with these values.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, organizations with an average to subpar organizational culture suffer from shortsighted planning. They bring in people simply to based on their skills, without an eye to culture and person-organization fit. These organizations tend to give space for personal conflict, inevitably giving credence to chaos and dissension as they believe avoidance is the key to seeing problems go away.

Positive organizational cultures don’t simply happen by accident. They are the outflow of leadership and teamwork, cultivated with discipline, built through trustworthy consistency, and demonstrated by personal example. If you are uncomfortable with the leadership being exemplified in your organization look at the pattern being established by those in positions of leadership, it is likely that what they do, celebrate, or promote (implicitly as well as explicitly) is exactly what is seen within your organization.

Don’t believe me, look no further than the mess that is the NFL!

Productive Conflict.

CONFLICTNo, you didn’t misread the headline. Yes, it is possible. Contrary to how we generally view conflict, it actually can be a positive and productive thing in an organization. I would go so far as to state that any team or organization that doesn’t promote healthy, creative, content-oriented conflict will not grow or innovate.

Earlier this week, as part of my work at the SynerVision Leadership Foundation, I was able to co-host a hangout with Bill Stierle. Bill is a specialist in communications and relationships, oh and he also serves to mediate and facilitate high-conflict situations. During our Hangout, both Bill and Hugh Ballou challenged the idea that ignoring conflict in our organizations is acceptable. Bill points out that conflict typically flows from one of three levels: 1) Thinking style, 2) Emotional style, or 3) Belief style.

The reality is when we break conflict down into those three levels we begin to provide framework for thinking about what healthy conflict can look like in our teams. If groups work toward developing a safe-place for conflict (removing blaming, shaming, shooting down ideas, triangulation, and avoidance), true growth can occur.

As innovation researchers are quick to point out, new ideas stem from bringing together things that aren’t normally thought of together…this type of thinking will bring on conflict (potentially at any of the three levels), but if we operate from an empathy framework toward the person bringing forward the idea then we have provided space for growth.

But that isn’t always easy. Many times we get really passionate about things that we hold to (thoughts, emotions, beliefs) and we have trouble seeing how others might think, feel, or believe something that we don’t. Bill suggests we can only build an empathetic link as we connect a “feeling” word to a “need” word (at the 23:53 mark of the video, Bill digs into this area…watch it!).

How does conflict impact your team (positively or negatively)? What have you recognized as you “normal” response to conflict? How would creating a safe space for conflict look on your team?

Why Unstructured Time Might be the Best Thing to Happen to Your Organization

ImageFrederick Taylor and Henri Fayol each were responsible for developing a new way forward for labor. Fayol and Taylor were both responsible for much of the improvement in thinking about how work was accomplished in late-1800s through the mid-1900s. Many of the improvements for organizing a workforce into producing consistent, replicable work in industry can be attributed to their improvement of Henry Ford’s assembly line. Both of these engineers developed new concepts for management, of which some still can be found in operation today.

Why the history lesson? Today’s worker is all too often bound to a physical building, desk, or even phone by many of the management improvements of an era 80 to 150 year old. We still have the concept of the 40+ work week, time cards, and even office management that was perfect for industry but is largely out of place in the present technological, mind-oriented work world.

One of the saddest by-products of this overly rigid, out of step with what should be reality, work existence that many people live is that we constantly face burnout, disengagement, and apathy. One suggestion that seems to present an alternative to this chained-to-your-desk, time-card-punching functioning of previous generations is the institutional embrace of unstructured time.

You can read about the concept and its effects here, here, here, and here. The reality is that this unstructured time rather than being responsible for Facebook wandering and blog-rolling is often responsible for tremendous innovation in organizations. When you give people autonomy, resources, and support, it is amazing what they can come up with.

How would unstructured time impact your own workplace?

Teammate of the Year Award: Why the NBA Almost Got it Right!

Last year, among a litany of bigger, more coveted awards a NBA player was recognized for being a good teammate – errr, the best teammate. In the era of self-centered, ball-hogging, hero-ball that has clogged up the ranks of basketball from the youngest leagues through the professional ranks, the NBA did something that shocked me – they honored a teammate.

There may be more than a little bias on my part, but I have been absolutely thrilled with the selections for 2013 and 2014. The inaugural selection of the award was presented to a player whose identity changed from a slightly cocky point guard, who shot too much, and couldn’t run an offense through anyone but himself when he first entered the league to a player who served as the vocal floor-general on one of the best teams of the 2000s. Chauncey Billups had moved beyond elite player, to amazing teammate, teacher, and ambassador for the game. His was a fitting recognition.Image

This year, the award went to Shane Battier (who had been runner-up the previous year), who certainly exemplifies selflessness and team-orientation. Battier, a native of Birmingham, MI (suburb of Detroit) went from being the most highly recruited high school basketball player in the nation (when he played at Detroit Country Day – Chris Webber’s alma mater) being named the Naismith High School player of the year, to becoming another great at Duke where he led the team to the NCAA title and he was named the Naismith NCAA Player of the year (and was also a three-time Defensive Player of the Year in college).

Battier was selected 6th overall by the Grizzlies and throughout his early career was overlooked as an NBA player. Until, teams started to get it. No, Battier is not the quintessential NBA athlete. While 6’8” and having some quickness and jumping ability, Battier is not an athletic freak like you might think of when talking about Michael Jordan, Lebron James, or even Kobe Bryant. But Battier is a dogged competitor, a player who understands the team concept, and frankly has made every team he has played on better (as recognized by the championships won at each level – High School, College, and in the NBA). Battier is a great example and a perfect fit to follow Billups as the Teammate of the Year.

But, what pains me about this award is that outside of the reason for the name of the award (it is the Twyman-Stokes award), the amount that goes to charity ($25,000 to the charity of the player’s desire) and the actual voting mechanics and finish, nothing in the articles seem to point out anything about the greatness of these two players as teammates! What? Can you imagine a story on the MVP trophy or Defensive Player of the Year simply focusing on the mechanics of the voting process?

What about a piece like this (written by Michael Lewis of Moneyball fame) where the teammate is shown for the blessings and struggles he has faced? What about getting real quotes from teammates about the ways he has mentored, assisted, and shown true leadership on the team and in the community? Might it be possible to talk more in-depth about the foundation that the player is supporting, detailing how it fits into their role as a great teammate? Nope. Sorry!

It pains me to thank the NBA, none of the other Big 4 North American pro sports has this award, but could we do a little better in spotlighting what teamwork it is actually about?

[Coaching Corner] Pay Attention to these 4 Gaps to Overcome Prolonged Organizational Ineffectiveness

Sitting at your desk, couch, table, or preferred reading spot, you probably find yourself like many others wondering when the economy will fully turn around. In fact, you, like many others in similar situations, might actually have just been thinking about the difference between where your organization exists now and where you know it could be in the future. The good news is, you recognize there is a gap between what is and what could be. What if the beginning of the end of this organizational turmoil began with examining how you recruit and retain individuals and how you plan for the future, today!

In the present extended economic downturn, all organizations are facing tremendous challenges, internally and externally. One primary area of discomfort resides in your human resource capabilities. Right now, you are facing stiffer competition for every job posting due to a flood of un- and under-employed workers. This has allowed you and your competition to the opportunity to overly specialize openings, as with a bevy of individuals, you can easily weed out the masses to fit your needs. In part due to these changes, as well as the greater availability of continuing higher education, more individuals are taking advantage of their lull in employment and accessibility of higher education to engage in programs of learning and development.

Sounds like a golden opportunity for organizational growth, right? Well if you don’t adapt your organizational practices, it may simply be fool’s gold! While on one hand this might seem to be the perfect storm (think – greater pools of candidates with increasingly better capabilities), the other hand might be hiding a great potential for continued organizational despair.

If you, and your organization, fail to enact new strategies to adapt to the new economic realities, better candidates certainly will not be the magic wand to cure your ailments. The pace of change in the present economy, make necessary that you conduct thorough and forward-thinking gap analyses, or else the hiring of new individuals could actually exacerbate your organization’s downturn by costing you more money to onboard, people that in the end will become discontented with stagnant or outdated strategies.

Think about it, presently you (if you are responsible for recruiting or retaining employees) probably faced with stacks of resumes and pages of emails with resumes and cover letters. Your job is to cull through the carnage to find the person that best duplicates what you lost when the previous employee left the organization. Yet, is that really the best tactic? Does filling a present need (or even a previous need, in some situations) really help your organization turn into an industry leader?

Noted scholars on organization diagnostics, Harrison and Shirom (1999) note, that when decisions are made regarding closing current gaps, such framework can be tremendously short-sighted and miss the future needs in the environment. Which really begs the question, do you want to go where you already have been, or do you want to lead the future?

If you want to lead, it is imperative that you engage your organization in preparation for diagnosis and dialogue. Examine your present and anticipated future. Ask members of your organization, including executives, what they see as a long-term destination of the organization and do this prior to enacting hiring practices.

So where do you start? HRD experts, Gilley, Eggland, and Gilley (2002) note that organizations should examine potential gaps in four places to best prepare for the future: need gaps, performance gaps, management gaps, and organizational gaps.

Need Gaps – In the present economy, many organizations easily fall prey to simply trying to ‘replace’ outgoing workers with those that duplicate lost skillsets. However, when organizations examine need gaps in their personnel, it will better allow for adapting to the present and future climate. In many organizations, this means a greater emphasis must be placed on training for new skills, knowledge bases and abilities for current and future organizational needs. It is expected when these needs gaps are analyzed and endeavors are created to close these gaps the organization will have organizational members who have expertise in areas of greatest importance to the success of the organization.

Performance Gaps – Your organization probably has experienced one of the realities of the open systems framework – loss of energy within the confines of a system. In most organizations, this loss occurs simply due to poorly developed or maintained performance systems. Such gaps in performance may result from poor job designs, salary and reward structures that don’t meet the needs of high performing organizational members, and even poor realization of barriers to performance (both internal and external) in a work environment.

Management/Leadership Gaps – While bookstore shelves are covered with books on improving management and leadership ‘techniques’ many organizations still suffer from gaps between expectations (or expectations for the future) and current management and leadership behaviors. It is no longer acceptable for managers and organizational leaders to lack the important ‘soft skills’ in this knowledge economy. Organizations must prepare for the future by hiring and developing individuals throughout the organization that communicate well, listen effectively, dialogue with individuals at all levels of the organization, and facilitate the development of others. This means that organizations must examine their investment in training and development of organizational members, as well as the examples set by those at the executive level.

Organizational Gaps – This may be the largest and most overlooked area of need in gap analysis. Many organizations suffer from misfit between personnel and technology, personnel and organizational structure, technology and environment, environment and strategy, etc. While obviously a potential strain on resources, particularly in the present economic slowdown, conducting a full organizational gap analysis can actually save time, money, key organizational members and stress and strain in the long run. Too often, organizations continue to function with low levels of adaptability and reflection even as the environment, personnel, product/service, etc. changes. It is imperative that organizations not only enact, but encourage a continual analysis of organization-wide gaps in order to stay prepared for the future.

Your organization cannot afford to simply duplicate past performances, nor can you simply replace outgoing employees in filling present and future job openings. If expectations exist for increases in future performance throughout the organization, a greater level of inquiry into the present and intended outcomes related to the needs, performance, management and organization must be conducted. Strategic preparation and design cannot be wishful thinking if growth and increased performance are desired. Begin to think big, be creative, and ask the tough questions of yourself and your organization.

If quick fixes worked, wouldn’t more things already be fixed?

Truth be told, they often make me laugh. Until they make me sad. Quick fixes have been the rage for generations. Think about it, if those get rich quick ideas actually worked wouldn’t more people be rich? If those weight loss programs actually helped people lose weight and keep it off, don’t you think more people would be slim and obesity wouldn’t be such an issue in our country?

It is attributed that Philip Stanhope, former Earl of Chesterfield, once said “anything worth doing, is worth doing well.” Yet, that bring so much of the quick fix, band-aid orientation of our present culture into question.

How many leaders are searching for 3 simple steps to huge turnarounds in their organizations? How many entrepreneurs are looking for the 5 things that will suddenly make them millionaires? How many church leaders have bought into the notion that these 7 things will suddenly transform your church into a mega-church? The answer is too many!

All too often we settle for easy when true success means extra work. We fail to ask the question behind the question. We aren’t willing to invest our time and energy in the things that really have impact and because of that we are constantly looking for the next silver bullet.

What goals do you want to accomplish this year? How are you working to meet those goals?

 

Just because you have a hammer, doesn’t mean the problem is a nail!

New feature here on TeamWorkDoc.com. Beginning with this post, every Friday will feature a “Coaching Corner” post for leaders in organizations (if you have questions that you want addressed, feel free to comment below). The first post in this series digs into two issues that are important to me: the myth of the magic pill solution and group development. Enjoy!

Too often as I look out on the sea of people discussing leadership, the answers are overly simplified. Many, even well-known writers, are presenting a one-size-fits-all model of leadership. This would be great if every problem and every organization was the same, or even on a scale to the original situation, but that just isn’t the case. Too often leadership approaches are based on a single way of approaching the world. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But obviously that doesn’t work in the real world. Things get bent and broken that way.

Image

Countless theories and approaches have been developed and all have their strengths and their pitfalls. The reality for organizations revolves around understanding that beginning the leadership process starts with owning your specific organizational situation/environment.

To illustrate this, I want to take a very specific situation, a leader seeking to accomplish group development in two different organizational environments, one stable and the other unstable (NOTE: Even stability itself is on a continuum, but for the purpose of illustration, we will use these two categories to display just how differently the role of the leader is enacted in the group setting. Please note, regardless of the specific place your organization is on the continuum, it is vital that you work to encourage, provoke, and sustain positive growth and development within the groups present in your organization).

Leader’s Role in Group Development – Unstable Organization

The reality is, every organization has groups and trust me, they are vital to your success. But what happens when you are given the challenge of developing a group in a situation that is already unstable? Taking Tuckman’s model of group development, the development of an existing group in an unstable environment most likely is going to start with the chaos of the storming stage. When groups are in this stage, particularly when the surrounding environment of the organization is also unstable, things can be tumultuous. Group members are likely filled with too many questions and not enough answers. They have expectations, but a lack of clear understanding of what their roles will be in the group.

Group development at its earliest stages seems about as linear as a white water rafting trip. Plans are often cast aside as realities are being shaped. It is important to remember in this space you are a guide holding the rudder, not a taskmaster with a whip! The leader (or leaders) within an organization experiencing change, play an important role in seeking to establish clear purpose, processes, and goals for the entire organization, including groups. It is within their purview to work with the teams to be certain that the plans developed meet the intended purpose of the group, and also that the group has the needed/appropriate resources in order to accomplish the task at hand.

In order to be certain of positive development in a group surrounded by instability, the leader needs to be clear and directed. This means that the leader will often be present with the group to recognize problems, needs, or questions. In this type of organization, and with a group in these stages the leader should establish clear goals that are attainable, providing incentive that clearly establishes for the group that these goals are in their (and the organization’s) best interest. This type of commanding leadership can help bring calm within an unstable environment and allow a group to focus on the germane tasks.

As the group shows improvement, and as the organization shows more stability, the leader may begin to show more supportive behavior. Using this style of leadership, termed – coaching by Hersey and Blanchard, the leader will begin to establish more of relationship with the group (and/or individuals in the group) in order to seek to encourage their growth by better understanding their needs, desires, etc. This movement in style signals to the group that positive change is recognized and that more of the development will be based on their input and interaction, rather than being simply handed to them by the leader.

Leader’s Role in Group Development – Stable Organization

Within a stable organization, group development likely will begin from the standpoint of previously established teams who are entering into or in the maintenance of Tuckman’s norming/performing stages. In these stages of development, the leader’s role is extremely important. The intended life cycle and purpose of the group will guide some of the development needs that the leader(s) will focus on.

For the leader that is outside the group, development will likely take a more hands-off approach, in which the leader serves in more of a delegating or supporting role. This leader should be less visible, providing the group with the opportunity to select their own processes, develop their own plans, and structure themselves accordingly to meet new and bigger needs.

The leader in this role, has the opportunity to encourage and promote growth and development within the group by providing consistent challenges that allow group members to move from areas of comfort into new and challenging tasks, skills, and processes. Further, in a stable environment, with a team that is already in the process of reaching the norming and performing stage, the leader through the supporting function found in Hersey and Blanchard’s model can serve as a mentor to the team, at large, and individuals, in particular, to make sure that they are personally having their needs for improvement met and are finding the group to be moving in the right direction.

In order to maximize the potential of a team, it is important that this leader encourages the group to set clear, consistent, and challenging goals. The leader will want to encourage the group to set their own challenging, yet attainable, goals and they seek to make sure that the obstacles are passable, in order for the group to find success.

Conclusion

The leadership styles needed in these organizations are as different as their situations themselves. As a group begins to become more formalized, and/or the environment becomes more stabilized, it is beneficial to slowly become less directive, and more supportive. This means being present and listening more than talking.

However, as the organization continues to stabilize, and the group reaches a heightened level of performance, the leader in order to encourage a greater level of development within the group, should step back – providing the group with a greater sense of autonomy. This movement provides the group the freedom to enact its own goals, processes, and plans. It invites them to take responsibility and be accountable for their actions, toward each other rather than toward some outside leader.

The group development process is certainly not a one-size-fits-all approach. Groups of differing purpose, tenure, and organizational environment should be led in different ways. The purpose in this case is to recognize the importance of approach when facing a stable, or unstable, organizational environment. Groups have the potential to accomplish great things when provided the needed direction and resources. It is imperative that leaders recognize that groups need varying amounts of direction and support based on their organizational environment and stage of growth.

Have specific issues you want to see addressed in the “Coaching Corner”?

What’s Your Story?

It is funny how many times in the last few weeks I have come across books that are all about story. I have I presently have two books on my desk about telling stories (see here and here), just finished an audio book about leadership via story, come across a few national organizations focused on telling stories (see here and here), and even recognized the growing TED talk channel devoted to storytelling, not to mention the oft-mentioned importance of the organizational narrative (see #5). So besides just the confluence of singular subjects that seem to find me, what is it about storytelling that seems to be making such a push recently?

Organizations that tell their story (both good and bad) and can connect past to present seem to be leaders (seriously, Apple’s story is one of the most compelling things about their entire brand). People that know how to communicate their story are often those that are in high-demand. Presentations that share a memorable story are much more likely to be remembered than those that simply present raw data. Why?

I believe that in our tech-heavy world in which the average attention span is somewhere between 15 seconds and “squirrel”, we are finding relief and release in returning to the use of story to connect. Story puts us in touch with something that is greater than ourselves. Regardless of how we view religion and spirituality, at our core we all crave something that is bigger than our limited existence. We want to feel connection, existence, struggle, success, fear, failure, and joy. We crave the opportunity to empathize, embody, and empower.

Story gives us a platform to do just that.

What stories are at the center of your world? How are you sharing them?Image