Leading or Managing?

Every parent is both leader and manager. Photo by Andrea Lightfoot on Unsplash

Do you see yourself more as a manager or leader? Sometimes, I think those in positions to make decisions in organizations tend toward one or the other. Perhaps based on personality, interests, or their own earlier experiences within organizations. The fact of the matter is . . . you are both. (In fact, as I write this post, it is hard to describe these roles without defaulting to one or the other of these terms! Try it and you’ll see what I mean.)

“Leadership and management cannot be cleanly divided into separate functions. Leadership involves taking action in such a way that it influences others in a desired direction. Management consists of taking action to control a course of events. Both leadership and management happen when action is taken. Every act is an act of leadership and management.” ~ A. Keith Miller, Major U.S. Airforce (Ret.) from Lessons Learned Around the World: People-centeredl leadership.*

People who are effective understand the interconnectedness of managing and leading. Someone who really takes the management role to be primary may be very good at those tasks. The organizations may run like clockwork. Problems are not avoided. Employees are well trained, supervised, and supported. Yet, the role may not recognize that the “leadership” message may confine optimal growth. it’s as if the manager is saying, “We are going to be really good at what we do now.” Which may, inadvertently, imply, we are not thinking about, or planning for, the future.

Alternatively, those who emphasize the role of leader may be very good at getting others to “buy in” to the bigger vision and the hopes for a better tomorrow. However, if they lack a focus on good solid managerial duties, the frustrations and realities of today may dull the luster of a promise of better things. Employees wanting more structure, reliable work conditions and controls may leave. Others will wonder if a bright future can be achieved when the present day is less than stellar.

Thus, for leader/managers who want to engage people to be high achieving teams. both managing and leading are critical.

*Just a quick note about Lessons Learned Around the World: The author is my brother. Despite that, I can honestly say that I know him to be someone who is concerned not only about managing but leading. His “lived-style” has always been people-centered. In fact, although he notes (with pride?) that he is the only sibling without some degree in Psychology and the fact that he was “career military,” his style is more pastoral than command—which is why I encouraged him to write the book and why I am providing it to my audience. (Incidentally, for those interested, we are presently offering it at a discount on our Gumroad site.)

Innovation to Mastery

Dad’s notes on his goals for the college. A plan he followed through out his 51 year tenure.

Note: This is a follow up to our Posts “Be a Disrupter . . . Or Not” and “If Not Disruption . . . then What?”

Reliability over Time . . . or Continuous Innovation and Mastery

Regarding my beloved Huskers (see earlier posts above), I am more impressed by Tom Osborne’s consistency over 30 years (9 wins or more every season) and the flexibility to overcome the annual obstacles of being very good, even elite . . . than I am by the achievements of the “Decade of Dominance” and the national championships.

Dominance, like the Huskers had in the 1990s, requires a lot of things to “go right” or simply “fall into place” (The Miracle in Missouri and Matt Davidson ring a bell?), many of these variables, the leader simply has no control over. (One year, we had three different quarterbacks win games. How many teams had that kind of depth?) Will a player fail their classes, have a family tragedy, suffer an injury? Will the team chemistry in the locker room support or detract from their performance? Leaders try to manage all these contingencies but, in the end, they simply cannot control all the variables necessary to successful win a championship.

The goal then should not be to become a disrupter but to seek innovation and driving to mastery.* This is easily said and very hard to do.

Brook Berringer’s career wouldn’t be described as disruptive by most—he wasn’t even the starting QB—but at least one national championship, maybe two, wouldn’t have happened without him. Photo credit: Wikipedia

By wht_wolf9653 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/white_wolf/5417349804/in/photolist-9fHkmQ-9fHkXd/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37640562

Is Mastery an Achievable Goal?

One problem is that you can never really say you’ve arrived . . . at Mastery. If you think you have, then someone, still innovating, will prove you wrong. Mastery is the goal, Innovation is the path you take to get there. But innovation doesn’t mean “blowing where ever the winds take you.” Instead, it means having a strong commitment to a vision . . . and then seeking any means necessary to achieving it.

I know this firsthand. When my father—who worked for one organization for 51 years, most of it in leadership positions—passed away, we found a bullet list of goals he created when he first started in senior management. We shared it with the President at the time, who took one look and said, “It’s remarkable! He still had that same focus throughout his entire tenure! Yes, he did.

But in 51 years, neither my father, nor the organization—despite much success—had “arrived” at mastery. The organization’s success, once achieved, was not sustainable without continued innovation. Nor was the organization’s mastery anything akin to perfect. The goals, met any many ways, were constantly challenged by changing conditions. I witnessed the struggle to “stay on point” over the years despite the “winds” blowing from many different directions—social forces across the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s for one—and that sustainable drive wasn’t without a focus on continuous innovation and mastery. (see post “From Doc to . . . Mabe the Babe.”)

A close up shows the title of his old note pad. Simple typed letters, “From the desk of Mabrey L. Miller. No as fancy as todays versions.

Time’s Effects on Leadership

Exercising leadership is not without it’s erosive elements. The demands of the “mantle” weigh heavy. Leader’s daily tasks include fixing problems—a task that is never complete. The pressure to impulsively attempt quick fixes is always present and amplified when troubles are evident. Leaders, ground down, by the abrasion of their role become ineffective. Their passion for the vision no longer provides the “fire” to push forward. They begin to look to avoid, try and control more variables, or grasp at new leadership “straws” that they hope will fix the problems they are experiencing. Too often, it’s without a deep, rigorous approach to understanding what their team really needs.

The biggest need, for most leaders, is not to search for a easy fix. They don’t need a wholesale adoption of a new approach with new “buzz words,” a new disruptive scheme that will contort their direction of growth, or even a brilliant guru.** They need a deeper understanding of their team and how to continue to innovate and improve within their own scheme.

What leaders often need is perspective . . . and the courage to act—not be reactive—regarding the human elements of their organization or business. Board member comments, customer complaints, employee issues, the list of stakeholders that can increase the potential for reactive leadership is long—all suggesting how to quickly improve the situation. While a leader should “stay aware” of possibly new disrupters, models, etc. that could create a competitive edge, they shouldn’t focus on chasing them. Yes, there is danger in being stagnant. But, a larger threat looms. Leaders can get caught up in chasing model after model and destroy continuity and crush the stakeholder’s belief in leadership.

Why is it that some coaches can get more out of their talent than others?

I remember a conversation I had with a former Division I quarterback about a team. “They don’t want to play for these coaches,” he asserted. “Just look at their body language,” he continued, “heads down, not making eye contact, avoiding the coach when they come off the field.” He was right. The coaches had lost the team and their performance, and subsequent downward spiral of losses, proved the accuracy of his observations. The players no longer believed in the coach.

Which brings me to this . . .

It’s about the people. It’s always about the people.

There probably are as many ways to “innovate and master” as there are people. In business, the “Lexus model” does not duplicate the “Walmart model.” Nor should it. What makes a team highly functional is the shared vision, application of discretionary effort, interpersonal trust, and other “soft” factors. Call it team chemistry, operating as a “family,” being hungry, or several other euphemisms . . . success is through, and about, people’s willingness to sacrifice, work, and their drive to achieve. To succeed as a leader, you better understand the people element. To wit . . .

You want to do a survey and ask what would make employees more satisfied? Implement a new attendance policy? Iinstall a slide at work? Start the morning with a team chant? You better have a good idea about why this change will be good for your particular organization and understand how people are likely to react to the change. Far too many “good initiatives” have back-fired on leaders and given them the exact opposite of what they hoped to achieve.

Being Real

This starts with “being real.” A leader needs a good grasp of where the team is . . . and where the leader wants them to go. People, even young people, will know if you are not being real. For example . . .

I remember watching a youth baseball game some years ago. One team had an obvious advantage in “talent” and was pummeling the other team. The coaches, obviously steeped in the “lets not focus on winning and losing” model were trying, desperately, to tell the kids that “it’s not about winning” and we are not keeping score!” The coaches continued to correct any attempt by players to draw comparisons on performance that came up. Yet, as the game drew to a close, two young contestants exited the field and walking by me, I hear one say to the other, “They killed us, like 27 to 3.”

{Side note: I, for one, as a former athlete, am not against de-emphasizing the win-lose emphses—particularly with the very young—who we would like to focus on learning skills and enjoying the competitive process. I am against pretending that if we tell them to compare themselves by the amount of funds scored then we have accomplished something if in fact they continue to compare themselves in that manner anyway.}

Leaders exercise this same “wish fulfillment” approach with employees because “if they believe it the employees will too.” However, they are often wrong . . . because they do not have an outsider perspective. Leaders tell me, “Our team is on board.” Is it? “Employees believe in the mission.” Are you sure? “We’re a family.” Yes, but are you functional or dysfunctional?

The leader’s ability to be clear about the reality of where they are and to engage the team to achieve more is an art . . . and largely dependent upon the emotional intelligence and people skills of the leader.

* Yes, I know. I think it was Wayne Gretzky who said, “I miss 100% of the shots I don’t take.” I am not advocating giving up on one’s dreams. But many of us had to change our vision of being the next greatest, in my case a NBA player, as reality became apparent. I, for one. when faced with being a 6’1” forward going up against 6’8” college competition, altered my path into academics.

**Yes, new vision and approaches can be helpful in continuing to improve your vision and at times can be a venue to a competitive advantages. It can, for example, help hire millinials in the IT world but mimicking a successful model (ala: Pixar) won’t make the company perform like it’s model company. Trying to be Pixar-like, or Amazon-like, or whatever . . . in a world that already has a Pixar and Amazon . . . or assuming the model with translate across industries, locations, and time is, at best, a wild hope.

Often, disrupters are simply those who have a viable idea and then dogmatically work to achieve it. They learn how to harness the right people to accomplish their vision and understand how to continue to navigate the inevitable pitfalls of the human dynamics present in any organization.

Cover of our free eBook.

Get our free eBook: Engage Your Team: A framework for leading “difficult” people.

If Not Disruption . . . then What?

The wheel lives on! But, thankfully, not without innovations.

By Randal J. (RJFerret) - Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=930869

If not Disruption . . . then What?

In our earlier post, Be a Disrupter . . . or Not, we outlined why most leaders should not strive to become a disrupter in their industry. But where does that leave us? Accepting mediocrity? Hardly. It simply means that a leader should not overestimate the control and influence they have on a market. Dreaming to be the Next-Greatest-Thing is not the same as having The-Right-Conditions-and-Opportunity to be The-Next-Greatest-Thing.

I recently had a conversation with a business owner. This owner is brilliant. He has created products that did not exist in the industry before he created them. So is a a Disrupter? Yes . . . and no. He has a thriving company and continues to create new ground-breaking products that have not existed in the market and solve real problems. These products are slowly changing the industry itself. But these products remain a successful . . . but small niche within the market itself.

But . . .

Even with this great success, he will be the first to tell you that if there had not been an “Act of God,” at a critical moment in the company’s history, the company would not even exist today. It took an unlikely event, at the right moment, to get the industry to see the value of these new, unique, products. As we all have experienced, people, organizations, and even industries resist change. You can build a “better mousetrap” but if no one buys it then you are out of business. This company would have floundered, and failed, if not an event that made the industry adopt their products to deal with an emergency.

I wish this product was a disrupter!

Me holding my favorite guitar pick . . . the ZeroGravity Orbit Tethered Guitar Pick. I buy multiples of them when I can find them. I give them away to other players. It is a great product . . . but hardly a disrupter.

No guitar players I have ever asked have even seen one. They are often out of stock and can be hard to find. I’ve never found anything but “mediums” available . . . although “thins” and “heavy” are sometimes mentioned. I love them because I have trouble with a conventional pick “spinning” in my fingers as I play. This prevents that from happening and lets me relax and play more naturally.

Disruption in a market is exceedingly rare. Most leaders simply do not have the leverage to shift an industry . . . unless the industry is ready for a change. Most truly innovative and remarkable new products and services fail to capture the market’s attention. These organizations typically run out of funds, or other necessities, before they can recreate the market.

Oh, it’s true that there are successful disrupters—even dramatically successful ones. That’s why we know the names of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, to name three. These leaders and their organizations are the “stuff of legends,” but one must remember that they are outliers, oddities, famous . . . because of how rarely it happens . . . and not replicable models to follow—no matter what the motivational speakers and writers are selling. Most leaders need to focus on something more reliable and attainable . . . Innovation and Mastery.

Innovation and Mastery . . . An Alternative to Disruption

Here’s an example of the problem we talked about in the last post where gurus tout the goal of disruption: A 2012 Entrepreneur article stated it like this, “One of the most interesting, exciting and potentially lucrative things you can do as an entrepreneur is disrupt a big market. One of the smartest people I know puts it very simply: If you manage to disrupt a big market, business will follow. Blow things up and you’ll make money.” *

The problem is not ambition. In business, like in football, most leaders I meet are already trying to find ways to “capture the market” or “win a championship” . . . but most attempts to “blow things up,” only result in . . . a newly-formed, and oddly familiar, crater. Aiming to be a disruptor is more like throwing a Hail Mary than having a sound game plan . . . it may end in a remarkable win but it’s more likely to get knocked down or intercepted.

Most leaders biggest problem is not necessarily to be different, aim bigger, “try harder,” take more risks, or the like . . . as if they have failed in some fundamental lack of vision or ambition. Almost every ambitious leader I have met has a vision of what they want to achieve and would love to be the next disrupting force. The wisest of them understand the difficulties and barriers to that happening. Unless the leader is suffering from burnout, paralyzed by the trauma of leadership, or struggling personally, most do not rise to their positions with out a strong strain of ambition, a vision for what they want to accomplish, and the will to act.

To go back to the Huskers (see last post) . . . prior to the 1990s, the “Decade of Dominance,” many national pundits seemed to intimate that Tom Osborne’s I-formation offense was stuck in the past. Surely, the prudent thing to do would be to move toward a new offensive scheme (like Florida!) and not continue the past “three yards and a cloud of dust,” run-heavy, scheme. But close observers new that Osborne’s offensive scheme was not stagnant. Osborne continued to innovate—creating unparalleled versatility in the running game (remember the Bumerooski and Fumblerooskis?)—and focus on mastery of his offensive scheme that he believed would work best in that conference and in the midwestern climate.

The challenge is, “How do I continue to find room to be innovative within the framework of a focus on mastering our processes, services, and/or products?” It turns out, the skills needed are mostly about managing people—the human systems through which the leader will impede or succeed in the march toward the goal.

Next . . . we’ll talk about making a habit out of Innovation and Mastery.

*I’m sure (?) the author is not saying, “If you just ‘blow things up’ you will automatically be a success!” I have to believe, the motivation is to get entrepreneurs to move forward, dream, pursue their goals, and put in the hard work of building a successful enterprise. Now maybe espousing hyperbolic maxims is great for the entrepreneur who, I would argue, already is seeking to become a disrupter—win or lose. They are already encoded in their DNA to take risks. To go for the “big win.” But, at least here in the Midwest, some of us are skeptics of the benefits of “pie-in-the-sky” talk. We’d rather just get to work. Maybe it’s the farm mentality. The reality of entrepreneurial ventures is . . . some succeed, many do not. Few, very few, will become market disrupters.* (Just like a “5-Star recruit” who dominated the football field in high school, and may think they can repeat that dominance in college and eventually the NFL.)

Cover of our free eBook.

Ready to “go deep” and really understand your team? Here’s some help!

Get our free eBook: Engage Your Team: A framework for leading “difficult” people.

Be a Disrupter . . . or Not.

The Goal: Become a Disrupter . . . or Not?

I’m a big fan of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. I watch their games . . . when I don’t have time to watch any other sports teams. I follow their recruiting cycles. I read the news . . . and gossip . . . about the program. I remember vividly the 1970 Orange Bowl . . . and loved the decade of Husker Power in the 1990s—three national championships baby! Of course, I’m not alone in my “fanatical fandom” . . . others are just as freakishly passionate about their teams.

Following a program, especially a Division I program, is a great bird’s eye view into the various topics of leadership. After all, these coaches are essentially the CEO’s of a major organization with all the personnel, budgeting, on-boarding, and cultural issues of any type of organization. Vicariously, the fan can contemplate the day-to-day decisions and actions driving the program to success . . . or not.

Unfortunately, right now, my Huskers have been suffering. Yes, suffering. In my opinion, based on observation and comments by the coaches, the team needs a few more “disrupters” to get back to national significance. You know, those players that can change a game, take over, cause the other team to change their plan to account for their presence. Game changers.

Ndomukong Suh: A disrupter! Photo: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ndamukong_Suh

In business, there has been a lot of talk about organizations becoming disrupters as well. But most businesses, like most football teams, cannot count on the reliability of finding, or developing, a disrupter. Disrupters are rare. Instead, most businesses have to be good at innovating, mastering disciplines, and hard work. We’ll get to that later. At the moment, consider this . . .

Looking For a Decade of Dominance . . . and Setting Goals

I fondly remember the 1990s because Nebraska was dominant. Teams adapted to us. I remember commentators talking about how the national championship always ran through Nebraska. Since our decade of dominance that mantle has passed on to others . . . Oregon, Alabama, Clemson, and (as much as it pains my to type it), Ohio State.

Next year, Division I coaches will meet with their team and set their goals for the year. Every coach, hoping to become the next dominant organization, will set the same ultimate goal: win a national championship! But, how many teams have a realistic chance at that ultimate goal next year? Not many. Ten? Twenty? (Yes, I know cinderella seasons do happen and every coach can dream, still, the point stands.)

How many coaches next year, trying to become the “Next Greatest Thing”—or save their job—and improve their team’s performance, will try some significant new change, hoping that this change will be the key to unlocking better performance? What percentage will graft in some new component—a new offensive coordinator, a new defensive scheme, adopting RPO principles, etc—hoping to achieve the results that have worked with some other program. For most, the exercise will be like trying to keep a inflatable buoy under water, as it stubbornly continues to rise to the surface. (No Nebraska fan will forget how many times Tom Osborne’s I formation was criticized as outdated.* Many experts seemed to think the new offensive schemes were superior. This belief and the arrogance that it promoted, I think, was one component in Nebraska’s Decade of Dominance!) But often seeking the “quick fix” is attempting a easy solution to deeper fundamental issues that are causing the problems.

In human systems theory, this equilibrium or homeostasis** is the tendency for organizations to get “stuck” in applying the same solutions to problems. These solutions, whether it is avoiding problems or wholesale reactive “fixes,” only lead to yet another return to the normal functional patterns the organization has maintained over time. The on-going “reciprocal interactions” and “feedback loops” that have defined the system, and kept it from escaping the “status quo,” will—without addressing the underlying structures—reorient the organization, returning it, like a buoyant object to the water’s surface—to it’s normal state.

Buoyancy as the homeostatic normal state. Photo by Lukas Juhas on Unsplash

Understanding the difficulty of real changes, some leaders will grasp—albeit superficially too often—the need for fundamental changes. Thus the concept of “disruption” becomes appealing and influencers have seized upon the hunger to find a solution.

In our next post, we’ll give an example of how business gurus push the idea being a disrupter . . . and lay out a more viable option that what most leaders need to focus on.

*Especially enjoyable for the Cornhusker fan are clips of the experts predicting that Florida’s Fun & Gun would dominate Nebraska in the 1996 Fiesta Bowl!)

**Note, homeostasis can be exhibited by constant attempts at change, which ultimately, fail. Thus no real change happens.

Cover of our free eBook.

Get our free eBook: Engage Your Team: A framework for leading “difficult” people.

Employee Retention: a matter of "Who Are You?"

The Who . . . Wikipedia

“Who are you? Who, who, who, who? I really wanna know.” Lyrics from The Who, 1978

Employee Retention: a Critical Threat

First, some things remain constant. For example, younger workers, as they have always done historically, will continue to resign at a higher rate than older workers. Industries dependent on a younger workforce will continue to face turnover pressures compared to those with an older average age. However, market and societal changes have brought changes in employee behavior that will continue to present challenges in 2020.

In general, leaving a job continues to be a product of two factors: 1. Employees increasing their pay; and 2. Opportunity for growth. (See a recent CNBC Make It article)

“The reason people are quitting today is because the labor market is so competitive that the only way they can get a significant increase in income is by quitting and going to another job.” Brian Kropp, V.P. of Gartner as quoted by Abigail Hess

With the old business adage that employees ”join organizations but leave supervisors”— managerial effectiveness, developing employees, active leadership, and guiding change are critical tasks facing organizations in 2020.

While the fading “Baby Boomer” cohort may continue to demonstrate some loyalty to organizational “brand” and riding out their careers with their current employer, younger cohorts increasingly see job changes as desirable for economic or lifestyle preferences.

Those lifestyle preferences may be personal or, increasingly, corporate.

Questions to Address Retention

Three Critical Questions Leaders Can Ask Themselves

1. What kind of an organization are we?

2. Who are we likely to attract as employees”

3. How can we use this “brand” to retain employees in 3030?

Some organizations lean toward achievement, high compensation, opportunity and success. An example might be McKinsey & Company. Employees are likely motivated by compensation and prestige. Others are service oriented. Employees are more attune with the mission of the organization and their own contribution to that mission. Think an organization like The Salvation Army. Another subset, are “the best available.” Meaning that employees see the organizations as the best opportunity in their location, industry, or specific circumstances. Some are the “zany” cutting-edge, trendy, culture-focused workplaces. A local Pixar-type story.

A Single “Core Phrase” May Identify Who you Are

Think about how your brand is reflected in what is emphasized in your every day work. In my career, for example, the organizations I have worked for could have their “brand” defined by one, specific, succinct statement . . . and it was not the official mission statement! Instead, it was a common phrase heard, repeatedly, in the organization.

“Special place, special experience.”—Small college.

“Customers first.”—Gas Station

“A sense of urgency” —Federal Express

“Community safety net.”—Non-profit

“You eat what you kill.”—Private Practice

I hear similar statements from other organizations . . . often they are “tag lines” in their marketing. Only employees know if these statements truly reflect the culture of the organization.

The coffee’s always on. (Local business)

The way you treat employees is the way they’ll treat customers. (Virgin)

You’re in good hands. (Allstate)

Who You Are . . . will Determine Who you Attract

One organization I am very familiar with was great at attracting members. Their core culture was one of support and acceptance. As a result, they got a lot of “looks” and new members. Unfortunately, they didn’t keep them. Why? I believe, it was because their identity didn’t include a vision for a long-term branding. They were good at being welcoming, supportive, and created a comfortable environment but once members were a part of the organization . . . there was not a clear definition of who the organization was.

The organization constantly tried. They came up with new tag lines and mission statements with regularity. Members were told that they were going to “Hit it Out of the Park” (or a similar phrase) but what was the “It” that we were going to swing at?

Another organization had lofty goals. But the real culture was defined by the CEOs comments which often ran along the line of . . . “We’re not here to have fun,” or similar comments. Intended, I think, to emphasize the importance of the work being done (and perhaps as an excuse for not having a more culture-focused approach) it was clear to employees that the job was going to be “all work and no play” and contributed to a dour, oppressive, and depressed work force.

Among organizations trying to attract milliners it’s often understood that organizations today need to present a community focus or social responsibility element to attract employees. This may, however, rebuff other potential employees.

Being True to Who you Are is Critical for Employee Retention

Knowing how you attract employees . . . can be a key to knowing how to keep them. Why do your employees work for this organization? It’s not a simple question. Leaders often make assumptions about employee’s reasons and how they see the organization. Few really know. They don’t ask.

Engage employees. Find out what really drew them to work for this organization and not another. Use it to help define who you are and, then, lean into that identity. The only reason to not do this is that the identify is a dysfunctional one. Then the fix needs to be systemic—and beyond the focus of this particular post.

Tips on finding People-Gifted, Business Sense, Consultants

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Finding People-People with Gifts for Business—A follow up to our post “Making it look easy”

Hiring the Right Consultant is Not Simple

Hiring a coach/consultant for human system’s or organizational culture issues is not easy. While I touted in my last post hiring “people-people” for human systems issues, the truth is, it is even more complex. You will need someone gifted in people . . . and someone with experience with organizations.

Making the assumption that any “people-person”—any expert in behavioral health issues—will “do fine” in the organization arena can be just as naive as assuming any business consultant has the necessary people skills**. . Leaders make this mistake when they expect professionals with gifts in business to be good with people issues in a consulting role. At the same time, many leaders make the mistake of referring employees with work issues to therapists. This leads to very mixed results because many therapist have limited experience with organizational leadership. They are experts in mental health and if the issues are really individually-based—anger, anxiety, chemical dependency—then this may be an appropriate referral. If it is a broader issue that includes leadership, management, or or institutional issues, it may be ineffective or detrimental.

Finding the Right Gifts

So, what’s a leader to do? First, determine if the issue in organizational or an individual’s behavioral “problem.” Second, if it’s an individual issue consider a referral to EAP or an independent mental health professional. Third, if it is truly an organizational issue—creating new HR policies, a strategic plan, or new electronic records system— consider a business coach or consultant. Fourth, if is is organizational but has elements of an interpersonal or “human” element—organizational culture, team conflict, motivation, etc.—find someone gifted with people that also has experience in organizational leadership.

To determine if a “people-person” has the necessary organizational skills can be tricky. Below are some questions you can ask the professional to assess their ability to act as a systems consultant and not just a therapist.

Questions to Ask

Questions to ask a therapist to determine if they can act as a human systems consultant or coach:

• What experience have you had in leadership/managerial roles?

• What areas of an organization would you not give advice on?

• What, to you, is the definition of a healthy work team/organization/leader?

• What are the primary causes of problems in teams/organizations? (Look for an understanding of systems)

• Tell me about a time you helped a team/organization with a cultural/systemic change?

• What would you consider to be a successful outcome from an organizational consulting contract? (Again, looking for an awareness or organizational goals not simply personal goals.)

Ask these questions and you will get a feel for the ability of the consultant to use their people gifts in an organizational system. (As consultants you need to keep it simple—Like Steve Jobs)

** Having trained during the heyday of systemic theory, I feel fortunate to have studied topics like “Cybernetics of Cybernetics” and “Human Networks# as well as more traditional “organizational consulting” topics. Many younger therapists I talk have not had this systemic focus and are more likely to have had training in narrative or postmodern topics. Our Leading Edge Coaching with these professionals often is the first introduction these professionals have to understanding human systems.

In the last post I shared a picture of my Taylor 614ce acoustic. Here is my other “axe.” A custom built “Batswatter” electric built by my brother as a surprise gift. Ne, I’m not a huge Batman fan. There is a personal bat story that prompted the time. Oh, and it lights up. Too cool for my skill set.

Making it look easy . . . .

Just built and primed this window frame on our four-season porch. I can do the work but my contractor makes it look easy!

Aligning With Gifts . . . for Success

I am convinced that when a person is using their real gifts, they make things that are hard . . . look easy. This is just the opposite of what happens when I play guitar.

To be fair . . . I have a lot of technical skill with a guitar . . . but playing guitar, and creating music in general, is not one of my gifts. I work hard to produce a good sound with my Taylor 613ce . . . something other musician’s appear to do easily, but . . . for me . . . is a lot of work. One night, I was struggling with a particular section of Eric Clapton’s classic Tears in Heaven—a piece that I eventually would master . . . after months and months of work. I asked my son, who has his mother’s gift for music, if he could help me with figuring out a particularly difficult section. “Sure,” he replied. “I’ll look at it.” The next day—the next day!— he came back playing the entire piece. “I’m not talking to you anymore!” I joked. In truth, I’m used to it. All my kids (6 in number) excel at things that are not my gifts—like art, writing, drama, etc.

When my son plays guitar, unlike his father, people pull out their phones and start taking pictures; or they ask me, “Is he left-handed?” (He’s not.) It is definitely something that comes much easier for him than it does for me. Fortunately, my son doesn’t see this particular gift as something that sets him apart, and above, others. “Talent is as common as table salt,” he quotes . . . when others admire his gift . . . and he’s right. Everyone is gifted.

Here is my Tayler. Love this guitar!

Gifts and Making It Look Easy

Gifts are what people can do easily. While I can’t master a challenging guitar piece without a crazy amount of work. I can read a room of people—even a room full of strangers—with a high degree of reliability. I see patterns I understand behavior. My family has forbid me, due to my ability to recognize patterns, from telling them what is coming in a movie, play, or television show . . . but I almost always know. While having a Ph.D. in human development enhanced this ability, the truth is, I have always been able to do it easily . . . and I can’t even tell you how I “know” except that I pick up on patterns and nuances of non-verbal and verbal cues. Oh, I’m also “on to” the patterns that writers and producers use to throw you off . . . so the viewer won’t predict what is coming. All my family members have such gifts. Things they can do easily that the “old man” can’t do well. Whether it’s grammar, spelling, music, art, theatre . . . truly talent and gifts are “common.”

If you want to learn to play guitar . . . hire my son. Want an editor, an artist, a recommendation for choreography? I can’t point to the kids in my family that have these gifts. You don’t want to hire me to teach you guitar—someone who has learned a lot of technique bur is limited in this area—lest you curtail your own development. Could I teach a beginner? Sure. But if they are gifted in music, I would need to pass them on to someone else very quickly to avoid delaying their development. The same goes for the other areas I mentioned that are not my gifts. In the same way, hiring people for their gifts will make hitting your targets more likely. I see leaders hiring business, finance, marketing, or other coaches then asking them about how to manage people. Maybe that’s okay if this is an area of gifting but most of the time I’d like them to work with someone whose talent and expertise is in human systems.

Giftedness . . . in Coaching/Consulting

This is why I beat the drum for leaders to hire “people-people” when it comes to improving their organizational culture. And the reason why we have spent a lot of time training graduate students and professionals in the mental health sciences to work with organizations and businesses.** Because a lot of business consultants have developed a techniques and tools for helping but, if they are not working in an area of gifts, their outcomes are likely to be poor over time. Poor simply because they are not working in an area of gifting and the things that come easily to others are not their strengths. (For a real-life example, see our post Consultant, Stay in Bounds! In this post we tell the all-too-familiar story of a consultant asked to work outside their area of gifting and the traumatic consequences on an organization). If interested, you can also check out a related post on why Consultants and Clients Shouldn’t be Friends or how Steve Jobs used his talents at Apple.)

Using Your Gifts

So, if you are a coach or consultant, make sure you are practicing within your area of giftedness. (Keep it simple. Focus on your core services.) Don’t let your own ambition, other people’s vision for your career, or the pressure of the organization or leader’s needs make you operate outside your “sweet spot.” Refer to someone whose gifts align with the needs. Hopefully, they in return, will do the same and refer to you the organizations and leaders that you can help with your gifts. Everyone “wins” and success is more likely. Also, be intentional about continuing to develop your gifts. Invest in training, coaching, and other self-development activities to enhance, expand, and deepen your gift. This will continue to make the value you can provide to organizations or leaders increase over time. It will also help to “fill the pipeline” of work and bring you more opportunities.

Hiring for Gifts

If you are an organizational leader, hire a coach or consultant for their specific gifts and do not let them—or let yourself—expect them to work outside their area of expertise. This particularly is a risk over time. A trusted advisor, who has helped in the past, is asked to work on something new. The focus is on the trust. But is this the right person, with the right gifts, for this particular problem or task? Rarely, is this the focus. The leader and coach/consultant simply assume they can tackle a new “problem” . . . and perhaps they can, but at what cost to efficiency and with what degree of risk? Smart leaders find the right tool for the job and smart leaders/consultants find the right set of gifts to maximize success.

In our next post we will offer tips for choosing consultants/coaches that have the people-gift and that are prepared to handle organizational issues.

** Even professionals in the people area need training and identifying their gifts. All “people-people” are not gifted in the same way either. Some are great at analytical thought, statistics, but not good at people skills. Others are great with people but struggle to use the analytical tools to help leaders. Some may be great at strategic planning and poor at conflict resolution. Others may be great at personnel issues but not good at visioning. It all depends on how they are gifted.

Fences . . . Make Good Employee Relations.

Wikipedia Fence

New Manager . . . and a conundrum

Ever had an employee whose motivation--and their subsequent behavior left you . . . puzzled? Have you struggled to find ways to communicate with them, encourage them, even motivate hem to succeed?  Ever given up on an employee?  At some level, most people who perform well enough to be given the responsibility of leadership expect other employees to act like they do—seek out and perform in a responsible way. When those people do not respond in this way, it can cause confusion for the new leader.

I remember an employee I supervised when I was a young manager.  This employee perplexed me.  They were, after all, a professional, with a degree, a license, years of schooling and extensive experience. In my “armchair assessment,” I believed that they were competent in their work and, on a human level, I liked them personally. But one thing persistently was a problem with this employee. They simply could not complete their paperwork. Now this, I realize, is not an uncommon problem in health care.  In fact, I had already experienced professionals who had trouble getting their paperwork done.

I had experienced already, in my short career, employees that had been put on “improvement plans,” given warnings, or their paperwork addressed through continuous quality improvement programs. Most managers, I believe, have at least one employee they have to consistently monitor and remind about their paperwork in my profession. (Perhaps this problem is exacerbated in the helping professions where "doing paperwork" is often viewed as taking away time from "helping people.") But in this particular employee’s case, even compared to other helping professionals, it was extreme.

I sort of thought I understood what the problem was.  The paperwork that was completed, upon inspection, was done to an extreme level of detail. Where my "average" professional would give me a treatment plan with three goals each having two or three objectives each.  This professional's plans had 8-12 goals with as many as 20 objectives under each one! I would have been overwhelmed, dreaded starting such a big task, and probably lagged behind and I surmised that this individual needed some external "motivation" to help them get caught up.  My method, of course, would be to encourage, communicate, and partner with the professional to get this accomplished.

I made efforts to try and communicate and reinforce elements that could fix the problem.  We reviewed the treatment planning process and I emphasized you should have no more than 3 goals with 2-3 objectives. I tracked and reported to each and every professional what paperwork they had outstanding and when it was due. I personally met with this tardy professional and discussed the need to get the paperwork caught up. When this did not fix the problem, I mandated no more than 3 goals and 9 objectives. Nothing worked. the paperwork was not getting completed, I felt stuck.

Of course, not all managers focus on the same things. As a manager, my natural tendency is to try and create "emotional ties and warm connections" in my work groups; the focus of this style is on building consensus, providing support, and valuing openness.  It is what William Schutz (creator of the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation Instrument or the FIRO-B) called "Affection" which he contrasted with a managerial need to express "control" or "inclusion."  Since my attempts at creating a consensual response to "getting caught up" was not working, I had to look to other ways of expressing this managerial need.

Relationships and Leading

Before telling you how developing fences or boundaries helped in this situation, I want to draw a connection to the type of leadership that might benefit the most from this construct. 

Developing strong fences, and defending those fences, is, I think, an element of expressing control. In Schutz’s definition control is not “being controlling” in the sense of bullying, dominating, or playing psychological games. Healthy control is about efficiency, stability, sustainability, predictability, and good outcomes. I leader high in wanting to express control—a good practice detailed manager—will be hands on in creating systems, procedures, and will shepard the on-going activities to keep them on track. Not my preferred managerial style. Being low in Expressed Control, I want employees to be professional—show up, do the job, and have the freedom to make the job their own—these are valuesI like to “express” in working with employees. To be clear, the best employees, to me, are those that respect boundaries without being told and but strong effort into what is best for the team. But, as leaders we need to grow or become ineffective, and this was a moment where"control was now a factor that I found myself in need of deploying—or I would let this one employee’s behavior hinder the team as a whole.

BTW: Knowing a leader's preferences and identifying what they "want" and would "like to express" as a manager (with a tool like the Firo-B) helps identify common challenges this style of leader will experience.  For leaders whose managerial orientation leads them away from a "control" stance to foster an environment of inclusion and/or affection, maintaining good boundaries--fences if you will--and seeing those fences as a beneficial tool and not simply an uncomfortable or even harmful behavior is a challenge.  But, even the most affiliative manager, if he has the courage to face it, will recognize the need for control at times.

Setting Boundaries

Ultimately, this delimma led me to a follow up meeting with the professional. The purpose of the meeting being to set a boundary (establish a fence) on the paperwork issue.  I started by stating the problem (paperwork was not timely), then we established a clear target (completing the oldest treatment plan), added a timeframe (on my desk by Friday at 5 pm) and the resources to accomplish it (you can delegate or ignore other duties as needed to complete this task this one time).

The result? . . . no treatment plan on my desk by the deadline.

What I did get was a message promising to get it done ASAP.  Not good enough.  The end result was another uncomfortable second meeting.  I clarified what we had talked about the week before, asked for an explanation of why the target was not met, explained the delimma I was facing (not doing my job if I ignored this problem), and asked for input.  The professional, after this was all laid out simply said, "I'm not sure I can do this job."  My response?  A sad (remember I think in affiliative and collaborative terms) confirmation, "I'm not sure you can either." I pointed out that we were now at a point where I would have to continue take formal action ("writing up" a formal poor performance plan) and if he could not bring his performance into line with the expectations . . . that it could result in eventual termination.  

The professional chose to resign.

The fences or boundary setting succeeded (in terms of resolving the issue) where my earlier approaches had failed.  Yes, I felt bad. In my “dream world” as a young manager, I thought I would always be able to motivate, encourage and support people to success.  In the real world, it turned out that it was not all up to me. The hardest "shift" in thinking for me was to see how these fences were actually helpful to people—unidentified problems are likely to be ignored and persist. Allowing someone’s poor performance to create resentment for them among their team members and not honestly challenging the employee is, at best dishonest, and at worst, something that is anathema to most people . . “just tell me the truth” is a common value for most people.

If you are struggling with this idea of setting boundaries and the need for control, ask yourself, "How would this have ended, if I continued to simply try to encourage and motivate this employee?"  There were many possibilities, many of which were unpleasant for one or many members of the team. The team itself could continue to become increasingly angry at the underperforming peer . . . and the supervisor. Team members could “escape” the situation and resign. The employee and/or the supervisor could face potential firing for incompetence. The agency, due to the incomplete documentation and effective controls, could lose it’s accreditation due to poor performance on audits. Community funding for the program could dry up—especially if the accreditation was lost. Maybe others as well?

Boundaries and protecting people?

How did this boundary setting protect people? Several ways, including:

• the professional avoided being fired (they resigned)

• my role as the supervisor was not placed at risk

• the team, who were aware of the deficiencies of their colleague, saw that the organization was serious about timeliness being an important aspect of providing our services to clients

• the professional was able to negotiate the terms of his leaving (although completing the paperwork was a condition that had to be met)

• the paperwork did get completed (they brought last batch in when picking up final paycheck)

• the company was protected from liability issues, losing accreditation, funding or facing fraudulent billing accusations

• the client was "best served" by the files containing all the necessary information for treatment, referral, or historical record purposes

Leaders need to step up and set appropriate boundaries. This also means that the leader, at times, will need to “be the boundary” or enforce the need for the fence being in place. It is a great irony that those who need to have boundaries set are the very people that do not get the need for the boundaries in many cases. Think of it like this, you don’t need a fence with a good neighbor; you need a fence with a neighbor who does not naturally respect their own, and your, boundaries. Remember, employees lie to themselves. People with boundary problems often shift the focus of the problem to something outside of themselves—thus perpetuating the problem unless stopped by something outside themselves.

New managers, especially those who want to express their leadership through terms of affection rather than control, are particularly at risk for trying to continue the tried-and-failed approaches to motivate employees that are underperforming . . . and there by, exacerbating the negative impacts on their team. Like a football team that needs to “establish the run” so they can open up the playbook and get their passing game into high gear, these leaders need to see setting and enforcing boundaries as tools that allow for, and preserve the ability to maintain, healthy relationships within their team. Only then, can the team function to it’s fullest capacity.

A P.S. for Family Business, Non-Profits, and Ecclesiatistical Bodies

This need to develop good "fences" is especially tricky when the organization or business has an emotional component beyond a typical business venture . . . partnerships, ecclesiastical bodies, non-profit service organizations, and family businesses struggle on other levels that a "typical" business venture does not. In these circumstances there is a critical need for help from professionals who understand human systems.

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

Team Training Needs to be like Music Lessons

My humble set up. Love my Taylor guitar and the discipline of practice and working toward mastery.

Team Training as Music Lessons

If you really want your team training to make a difference . . . fashion them after music lessons . . . not school.

Remember music lessons? You go, have a 30 minute “lesson,” get your assignment, and go home to practice, hopefully daily, some exercise, technique or mastering a piece of music. Similar, but critically different, than the experience of school—at least as I experienced it—where much of the time the focus was on imparting information—through a lecture for example—where the goal was to master content and demonstrate that through regurgitating it on a test. (BTW: I realize that modern didactic approaches are trying to address this singular approach . . . through recognizing different learning styles and more comprehensive teaching processes . . . but let’s allow the simple duality for the same of drawing, what I think is, an important distinction.)

Two Distinct Approaches

Think about the differences in these two approaches . . .

Music Lessons Classroom

Focus is on skill acquisition. Focus on imparting information.

Short, repetitive instruction and daily practice. Lectures, homework and testing.

Narrow focus: scale, song, technique. Broad focus: history, terminology, theory

Emphasis on practice. Emphasis on teaching.

Outcome: improved skills. Outcome: content mastery.

Moving from “School” to “Lessons”

To often, team training is modeled more on a “school” platform instead of a “music lesson” style. I worked for a time for an organization that had an internal “university” for training. Once a month, the managers would get together for training and typically it was some form of “telling us” about something that would help us do our jobs. At best, it was a way to get a break from the daily grind, conduct business during breaks with our colleagues, and impart some . . . some . . . useful information. Many saw it as a “requirement” and generally a waste of time. Did we walk away with new skills? Rarely.

Supervisors and managers are in their positions precisely because they have skills. But that does not mean they have reached mastery. Like a musician or artisan, the skill building process is on-going because every new situation requires the application of skills in a new way. Just like each piece of music is different and the student has to learn how to apply their talent to performing that particular composition.

Practice . . . and Mastery . . . and Superior Performance

Yo-Yo Ma, the world renown cellist, said, “The goal of practicing is to achieve a freedom of the mind that enables one to physically do whatever they want to do. Careful practicing eventually allows one the freedom to be spontaneous, to react onstage to the moment.” I also heard this virtuoso in a live interview once comment that if he missed a day of practice, he would notice. If he missed two days, his teacher would notice. If he missed three days, the audience would notice.

Yo-Yo Ma, Wikipedia

How many leaders dedicate themselves to continuous skill development? How many organizations allow for, or prioritize skill development, as a goal for leaders? In my experience, not many.

Two stand out in my experience. One provided their “point person” to take several weeks each summer for continuous training. Another limited the role of their leader to one primary task in order to have them continue to develop a high degree of skill in that task. In both cases, the results were spectacular. Those two leaders excelled in their roles and it was clear why. The organizational support for their practicing and mastering their talks was remarkable.

Organizations have come to understand the need. They provide coaches, they allow time for continuing education, they promote leadership development. But few, really have a clear focus on creating a “music lesson” mentality and a consistent focus on specific skill development. The well-documented decline in interpersonal skills in the age of social media and virtual relationships among younger cohorts of leaders makes this need an urgent focus for the future of leadership in organizations.

Looking for training that will teach your team real skills? Contact us and we can get you signed up to help your team jump start their skill development.

Buy Engaging Your Team: A framework for leading “difficult” people here, or get it for free by joining our email list!

Old and New . . . A leadership story of attribution errors.

John? Is that you? Photo by Jenny Hill on Unsplash

Are leaders born or made?

Old Guard and New Vanguard

“Newbie,” John thought as he rounded the track and watched Tyler animatedly talk to one after another runner about his “love” of being a runner. He noted Tyler’s Salmon “Ultra Pro” blue and red shoes, neon-green Fitbit, Rockay running socks, Smart Wool running gloves, and matching headband.John looked down at his own clothes . . . dependable Nike shoes, almost five years old, a no-name line of shorts, tee-shirt, and stocking cap. He’d bet that his whole wardrobe, bought at a “big-box store,” maybe with the shoes excepted, cost less than the price Tyler forked over to Smart Wool.

Tyler barely gave John a thought. Oh, John was always there, this 50-somethingish road-ghoul, finishing his morning run with a few final laps and warm-down on the track. John looked, to Tyler, like a burned-out, uninviting, “road warrior” who wasn’t likely to be a source of encouragement or inspiration—simply someone doing what he did, for some unknown, but internally-motivated reason—without a sense of the great synergy of involvement in a broader running community.

Tyler, a 30-ish millennial, who came to running as a pastime last year, could draw a crowd. His animated excitement—whether talking about his observations on running shoes, the latest on Runblogger, or heart rate variability—was palpable and infectious. Other’s attempting to re-engage with a more active life-style or to develop a love of running loved to come along side and listen.

If pushed, John might admit that he held some distain for Tyler. He might have, in his less charitable moments, thought, “We’ll see how long he lasts.” Tyler conversely may also, if his psyche were plumbed, acknowledge that John, to him, was the embodiment of what he did not want his running to become—one more joyless chore he did because it was “good for him.”

Leaders—Old and New

Too often, this is the picture of leadership—where generational differences turn into “attribution errors;” ie; “John is burned out and no longer has a passion for running!” (Really? How will you look after decades of running?), or “Tyler is a flash in the pan, and not serious!” (Were you not excited when you first started?)

I got to watch this play out annually when I was growing up. As the son of the Academic Vice President of a small college (enrollment of 500) I watched wave after wave of new students come to college, young leaders emerge, and the annual tug-of-war—sometimes in minor ways, sometimes in a noisy visible crash—between the generations play out. I also saw, behind the scenes, the dedicated service of the staff, faculty, and leadership as they sought to guide, harness, and lead these energized and idealistic youth into success—with patience and understanding of the “youngster’s needs to find their own way.” At times it wasn’t pretty.

One student, whose passion at the time was an electric guitar—and today, is a retired grandpa—told me about how my Dad was called out of bed at 3 in the morning due to neighbors complaining about the loud rock music blaring from on campus. My father, all 6’3” probably bristling from head to toe—strode into a performance hall, unplugged the speakers, and announced, “Now, do want to clear out this equipment, or do you want me to confiscate it?” The student admits this led to a “dust up” with my Dad, (which he lost and eventually, decided it was prudent to dismantle the equipment himself). I remember the tears in this grandpa’s eyes when, upon my Dad’s death, he commented that it was my Dad, among others, who taught him, how to be a man of integrity. (BTW- Dad was the source of the greatest leadership act I ever witnessed--doing nothing!)

This week, I was back “home” where I grew up. A guy stopped me, introduced himself, and asked who I was. I told him. “Your father and your brother Kirk changed my life,” he told me. Your Dad’s class and your brother’s example as my Resident Assistant in the dorm showed me something I hadn’t experienced before—caring and strength.” I know. Both of them, my Dad and my brother, would not compromise on two things--caring for the person and following their principles. At least where young men were concerned, they knew how to see beyond the behavior and see the person, in context, and with an understanding of what was needed at that time . . . an encouraging word or a kick in the amp.

Lesson for Old or New (Don’t manage by fear or control!)

Maybe somebody has said what I am writing below, or something similar, somewhere . . . but I couldn’t find it on-line. So here is my shot at a “truism” about what happens too often between the old and new leaders (someone should make into a profound and pithy quote).

“We blame those we cannot understand, attributing to them motivations we create, and judging those motivations insufficient, incorrect, or morally deficient; thus, invalidating their right to choose and proclaiming our right to judge.” ~ Bryan Miller

It take great courage, strength, and wisdom to lead when others think you are headed in the wrong direction. It is when the “heat is on” or a crisis manifests itself that leaders are most severely judged—for good or bad. The disagreements may be the result of something as simple as a difference in age, philosophy, learning history, or other factors—like how loud music should be played at 3 am. Creating respect comes through the strength of presenting a caring and principled approach that will, in the long-run, garner the support and the following leaders need to “grow up” new leaders who can maximize their human systems to reach organizational or team goals.

Additional resources:

Lessons Learned Around the World: People-centered leadership. A. Keith Miller, Major, USAF (Ret.)

Engage Your Team: A framework for leading “difficult” people. Bryan G. Miller, Ph.D.

Contact us with questions. Thanks for sharing and commenting!

Consultants and Clients shouldn't be Friends!

Three is an awkward number . . . and a good illustration of the challenges of dual relationships!

Photo by Vidar Nordli-Mathisen on Unsplash

A Priori . . . Dual Relationships . . . to Conflict of Interest

My background is in the health profession—specifically mental health. Anyone training and practicing in this area is well aware of the limitations on what the profession calls “dual relationships.” A dual relationship is where the professional has both a professional duty to the client and has another relationship which might compromise that duty. It is strictly advised against, could be the cause of an allegation of unprofessional behavior and, at it’s worst, could be the cause of losing one’s license to practice. To say that it’s emphasis as the apex of ethical professional behavior in the mental health world is not hyperbole.

In the consulting world there generally is no such restriction. Consultant regularly seek to be engaged with leaders and develop relationships with decision makers that may turn into clients. They become gold or hunting buddies, spend time at social functions together, perhaps even becoming close friends. In business this is not seen as problematic for many reasons, primary among them is that the client is not seen as somehow vulnerable or at risk of being harmed through the dual relationship. Fair, I think, since business leaders are not, on average, as vulnerable as patients being treated by a professional.

Unrecognized Conflicts of Interest Can hurt everyone

But, does this mean there is no risk? Hardly. Consider this . . . a consultant I once talked to had been invited into an organization by his best friend— a conflict of interest with high damage costs if the project ends badly. He accepted the contract but found, when he got deeply involved in the organization, that there were a lot of issues within the organization, issues that were intimately involved in his friend’s interactions with others in the organization. Awkward!

What’s this consultant to do? Unfortunately, this consultant did not realize the risks, find a way to extricate himself from the contract, and refer the organization to someone who could help with the particular problems they were facing. The result of not doing this was quite dramatic for the organization and there friendship.

Politics may be the most egregious sector for embracing situations that should raise concerns about possible conflicts of interest. I would speculate, for example, based on an article from the Washington Examiner and another in the Post, that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, may present one example. Reading about the numerous organizations Saikat was involved in—Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Brand New Campaign and AOC’s campaign (multiple LLCs and Pacs)— it is hard to imagine how he could avoid conflicts of interest in this complex network. The actual, or appearance, of conflicts of interest—perhaps even rising to campaign law violations—may have led to his resignation.

Leaders Beware!

Leaders—especially leaders of family-based firms, where relationships are particularly vulnerable—need to be very careful about using consultants that become “too close” to the leaders. Danger lurks when consultants and leaders become more than business partners, because . . .

1. The objectivity the organization needs from the consultant is compromised . . . by the close connection the consultant has with the leaders. Consultants who become too close cannot help being influenced by those relationships. As in a family setting, decisions may be made based on the relationship itself and not on what is best for the organization.

   Consulting relationships naturally have a built-in conflict of interest. If I develop close relationships with the leaders, I may get more work. But consultants need to ask themselves, “What do I care about the most, my business or providing the best service to the organization"?’ Yes, building a friendship may be good for the bottom line but it willfully introduces risk for the leader and the organization.

2. While you can argue that the close relationship may be a strength, and probably is in good times—trust is heightened, loyalty is built, decisions are informal and quick—often when a crisis hits it can be a big liability. The same strengths of trust, loyalty, informality, can paralyze or misdirect the consultant’s role and exacerbate the problems.

   It is often during a crisis when one of the real dangers of forming a “too close” relationship presents itself. For the same reasons that families can struggle during critical moments—taking away Mom’s keys, putting Dad into assisted living, or estate planning—emotions often cloud good judgement and damage relationships. The consultant’s role as an “objective outsider” is lost when they cross into a close relationship with the leaders.

3. Consultants that are too close may not address the hard issues—choosing to remain on good terms instead of pointing out problems. Denial, avoidance, procrastination . . . there are many words that describe the tendency to not address problems—even ones that threaten the organization’s existence. Consultants who retain more distance can direct leaders and organizations to confront problems more easily.

   It may not only be at times of crisis that consultants who are “too close” may negatively impact the organization. The closeness also risks avoiding issues early on when they might be dealt with and a crisis avoided.

4. Most consultants come from business backgrounds and have little awareness of, and no training in, the risks of dual relationships—therefore, they may not maintain good boundaries and avoid these relationships. Any training in conflicts of interest also tends to give them only a cursory overview and little real insight into the potential traps. Ask a consultant to define the risks of dual relationships and you are likely to get a blank look. Ask them about avoiding conflicts of interest and you will get a general understanding of the danger . . . but little depth in what the real risks involve.

   Should the consultant attend the company party? Do they become “golf buddies” with the leaders? Do they circulate in the same social circles as the leaders or go on vacation together? If you are asking yourself, “What is the harm in that?”—then you may not have a deep understanding or the risks of dual relationships.

5. A consultant’s loyalty, or other factors, in close relationships may prevent them from walking away from a toxic issue. In other words, a consultant with less involvement may, due to some over-riding disfunction in the system, may choose to “not help” by walking away. This “walking away” may be what the organizations needs to address a chronic issue they have been avoiding. Sometimes this separation is needed to help leaders or organizations grapple with the issue and bot become depended on others to fix issues they will not/ can not address.

   It’s a hard reality, but sometimes a helper needs to walk away. Some individuals, and organizations, in chronic conditions will not turn away from their “addiction” until they have no choices left. Consultants, at times, need to—for the sake of the organization—walk away. If there are unethical practices, persistent poor judgement, hidden abuses, the consultant can enable and support real damage by continuing to prop up the leadership and the organization. The proper course may be to make the problem overt and disengage from the organization.

It is easy to assume that the turbulence of dual relationships can be navigated safely. In truth, despite the hidden risks and undisclosed damage, they often are accepted eagerly (see the political-organizational hegemony in the U.S. for example). But the predominance of these arrangements do not suffice for “best practice” in consulting and do not protect the leader or the organization from its harmful effects.

Contact the author.

Reclamation . . . part 2

Another view of some of the wood . . . notice the reclaimed shelving and original Depot floor mixed with the new quarter-sawn oak cabinets and Maple “butcher block” counter top in the foreground. Oh, yeah, then there is the Flair stove . . . made in 1964 by General Motors. But that’s another story!

Reclaiming Employees — Part 2

I recently wrote a post about reclaiming wood . . . and . . . well, retaining employees . . . valuable ones who may have some flaws. (I also shared several pictures of projects I made out of the reclaimed redwood from an old deck.) If you read that post, you know that I, for one, have learned to find value in trying to reclaim things . . . be it wood or employees. But let’s talk about what it really takes to engage in a reclamation project . . . because

Reclaiming is not the easiest path . . . if your focus is short-term solutions not quality ones.

Reclamation is not a quick or easy process! As an example, in reclaiming wood from the old deck I mentioned in the first post I had to . . .

1. Tear apart the deck.

2. Pull all the nails, screws, scrape off glue, etc. and cut off and discard pieces with imbedded metal.

3. Plane the rough boards to reveal the wood underneath the weathered/stained exterior and further reveal any parts of the boards that were damaged or unusable..

4. Carefully choose boards that would work for each project—boards that had the right length of “good wood,” ones where the knots or knot holes would not interfere, boards that matched other boards to minimize additional ripping, cross-cutting, etc.

5. Remove rotting areas, broken spots in the board, places where the board had split, been notched, or ripped to be narrower than other boards.

6. Re-plane, rip, and/or cross-cut then sand as necessary so the boards were be properly sized and ready to used to build the project.

Finished baton case.

Six steps to get these boards usable “like new” boards. Obviously, you wouldn’t go to this much trouble for just “any old boards”—boards that have little of no value. It’s often easier and better with “poor quality” boards to just tear out and replace. But often, people tear out old wood (or employees) that have great value and replace it with something of inferior quality. Why? Leaders may see employees as “expendable.” Either because they haven’t learned to value the older, more valuable resource or they don’t have the “know how” or tools to turn the old wood into a beautifully restored piece of usable lumber. Other leader’s just don’t want to go to the trouble because, once again, reclamation in the short term, takes more time and effort.

Years ago, I ran across a “leader” who recommended that leaders taking on a new team or organization find the one “indispensable” employee and fire them. The point being that no one is above the team or organization. I get the point. I abhor the practice. Maybe there are times where the arrogant, self-serving, “hero” types are causing so much damage to a team that getting rid of them is the only option. But, in my world, an employee once seen as ”indispensable” in the past should be given the opportunity, and tools, to change before being terminated. To do otherwise is reprehensible . . .and poor leadership.

It may “fix the problem” for the moment, but in the long-run this leadership practice will only be tolerated in environments where the leader has strong control, and incentives, over the employees. If the leader doesn’t possess this strong hold, employees will begin to undermine the leader who will have lost their respect and trust—or they will simply move on. Often this leads to s “simmering resentment” a loss of trust and an eventual “eruption”—often immediately after experiencing some sort of crisis—reduction in revenue, job injury, key employee resigning—just when the leadership needs to count on employee support.

What do you do for a door stop when you live in an old Depot? A railroad spike of course! Here’s one more use of the old redwood.

“The best defense is a good offense”

— Jack Dempsey

Steps in reclaiming a valued employee.

So what exactly is involved in reclaiming a valuable employee?

1. It starts with robust honest conversations and deep listening. Communication is one step that most leaders think they do well . . . and often the one they neglect the most. In woodworking you need to carefully inspect the wood. With employees you need a very rigorous process to really understand the experience of the employee. As we have demonstrated in other posts, people generally listen very poorly. Leaders are no exception. To resolve long-standing issues your understanding must go beyond the surface. You need to really “get in their shoes” and understand the territory of this particular employee. Any progress on this journey must start where the employee is now.

2. It validates the employee’s experience but challenges them to present their best effort. Employees will change their behavior if confronted or threatened. But they will sustain those changes only if they feel understood and challenged to move toward what most of them want . . . to be their best, most successful, selves. Remember, employees tell themselves stories about themselves that my enable or exhibit their performance. Sustainable change starts where the employee is now. Leaders who generally manage and make decisions can be effective. Great leaders though inspire employees to give discretionary effort to making their teams the best.

3. It sets clear goals. You won’t get there if you don’t know where “there” is. Don’t assume the employee knows what changes they need to make. Spell them out. An honest dialogue with a focus on the employee’s value—and the need of the team or organization to have that value realized, is critical. It is here that you can acknowledge that the employee may not want to strive to reach the goals—they may be burned out, have personal issues impending their performance, or other outside factors may influence their motivation. This is the time to determine if they need to move on or if they will engage and be a part of the reclamation process.

4. It takes investing in time, resources, training, etc. If they are willing to focus on the challenges and goals, give some thought to what it will take for the employee to successfully become an engaged part of the team. Do they need more mentoring or coaching? A new work challenge? Reassignment/ More resources or training? Just like “cleaning up” and preparing the old boards, valuable employees need to be “prepped” for their new purpose.

5. It requires frequent and consistent monitoring. Unlike boards, people' have complex motivations. Employees that agree to setting goals, who seem to be open to re-engaging, may through their behavior prove that they are not. Remember, employees lie. A leader needs to stay in close contact through this process. Is the employee making effort? Are they improving their fit into the team’s needs?

6. It requires transparency from the leader. Leader’s need to model and demonstrate the behavior they want to see from the employee. Honesty, integrity, and courage to be truthful. Traits that world-wide demonstrate good and affective leadership. They need to speak “truth” meaning both highlighting the value of the employee (not playing games) and clearly defining how they are performing at any given time (timely feedback). No employee, if they are reasonably emotionally and mentally healthy, should ever be surprised by how the leader sees their performance—they should already know given the feedback they have received from their supervisor.

If a leader sees the value in trying to reclaim valuable employees, there will be some significant steps involved. The leader will need to exercise patience but also close monitor, continue to communicate, and evaluate the progress of lack of progress. Yes, they will likely have moments when the thoughts of “just buying new boards” float up in their minds. But as I mentioned in the previous post, once a leader has successfully completed a reclamation project, the leader will, themselves, have changed and will know the value of restoring old boards.