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.

Things You Don't Know . . . Broadening your View . . . and Listening . . . to Understand

“The more you think you know, the less you are inclined to listen and learn.”

— Bryan G. Miller

Things You Don’t Know . . . Broadening your View . . . and Listening . . . to Understand

My wife and son watching Old Faithful. We saw it “go off” three times. Once from the observation area, once from the mountain top in the background of this picture, and once through the eruption of Castle Guyser.

Things I Know I Don’t Know

There’s a lot I don’t really understand. Maybe I shouldn’t admit that but I think in our complex world it is true for everyone. Take geysers for example. I can listen to an explanation (which I did several times at recent “Ranger talks” at Yellowstone National Park and understand the basic principles of geyser “mechanics” . . . but really understand it? No, not really. But then again, even the Rangers note that the experts have trouble predicting most geyser activity and not understanding some elements of the phenomenon . . . so I feel—slightly—better.

Side note: In 1973, my maternal grandmother, from Valdosta, Georgia, traveled to Nebraska and accompanied us to Yellowstone for vacation. Since then, I have returned to the National Park twice, with the last time being this summer. Yellowstone, if you have not visited, is a world-class attraction. Visitors come from all over the globe, in fact this last time I heard more languages and dialects in two days there then I have experienced in any other single place—even while traveling Europe. Being around people—just like your own family—who have markedly different cultural expectations for personal space, social mannerisms, communication patterns, among others, makes for an interesting study of the effects of your own culture and your own personal assumptions. But, that’s another post, now back to things I don’t understand . . .

Managers are Tasked with Understanding People—Do they really get it?

There are also other things, more understandable, that I don’t really fully comprehend. For example . . . protecting yourself from a bear attack. Yellowstone literature, signage, and it’s staff were replete with information . . .

If you spot a bear, keep 100 yards away; If closer, back away, slowly. Don’t run! If the bear approaches, use your bear spray. If the bear charges, fight back. If the bear stocks you, play dead—but only if the bear is a grizzly never play dead with a black bear. (Oh, BTW not all grizzly’s a tawny colored and not all black bears are black!). If the bear continues to approach you, fight back. And this last one gave me pause . . . If the bear attacks you in your tent, fight back. What? No backing away slowly? Really fight back? What other option is there? Probably didn’t help my sarcastic attitude that we were sleeping in a tent and I didn’t like the implication.

I should have bought stock in bear spray! Here is my, unused can, safely back in Nebraska. Where I can guard myself from raucous raccoons and, of course those coyotes—without looking for rocks! (see below)

In Nebraska, almost no one—except perhaps in the far northwest corner—thinks about or would ever own bear spray. We in this state also are woefully lax in thinking about hurricane preparedness, forest fire prevention, or building for earth quakes. Most of us colluding identify a “circle hook” or have ever seen the halibut it is designed to catch. Yet each and every one of these things is critical somewhere to someone.

Here is an example of what you find everywhere in the park.

in my opinion, as an “aside,” this one good reason to encourage travel—and a reason I promote it for my children—becoming aware of what you don’t know including the predispositions that your local culture has hard wired into your own way of thinking and behaving. Why do we stand 3-6 feet away from others? Talk in financial terms about the choice of having children? ”We can’t afford it right now.” Or expect ourselves and others to ask if we are working “hard enough” rather than working “too much?” Culture.

But People are Different!

But, “People are people!” right? Well, if we mean that their are basic commonalities among all humans . . . basic needs like eating, companionship, etc. Then, sure, People are people. But people are shaped by their experiences, the age in which they live, and a host of other things that make each one unique—just like each geyser or bear “encounter” is unique. In a way, every person is a culture of One. Things shared and not shared with others.

But what is “culture?” I would suggest that it is the product of real experiences at specific times and places in history that develop patterns of thought, behavior, and customs. Functional or dysfunctional on a larger world stage . . . it has come about due to something real.

We happened to stop by my brother-in-law/sister-in-law’s home in another part of Wyoming on our way back home. While there, they collected the memory cards from their “trail cams” on their property and we reviewed its content . . . it included pictures of a couple mountain lions, a black bear, and a moose among others. They have had a black bear on there deck and found muddy paw marks on their sliding glass door downstairs. They talked about monitoring lighting storms and finding, reporting, and helping extinguish a first fire. Living with these threats, having lived only in the midwest and south, is also something I don’t understand.

Case in point, I have never felt the need to either a) buy bear spray or b) own a hand gun. However, I know from residents of Wyoming that these are often common items carried on trips in the wilderness. I get it. A story i saw on our return from Yellowstone about a “good samaritan” that saved a family from a wolf attack in Canada by kicking the wolf drives the point home. Is “kicking” a viable defense? The next day, there was this story about a hunter getting attacked by a Mountain Lion not far from where we traveled. He drove off the mountain lion with a pocket knife but lamented that if he had brought his pistol he could have shot it in the air and perhaps avoided harming the lion. In both cases, these people were lucky. The wolf gave up and the mountain lion retreated.

(Speaking of broadening your view, listening, and understanding . . . I know some people will take offense at my mention of a gun—even though the hunter thought the gun could have prevented the attack and eventual destruction of the mountain lion. This, I think illustrates the point. Too often, we don’t want to listen. No, I don’t have a need for bear spray or a “pistol” in Nebraska—but I don’t face wolves or mountain lions! Listening doesn’t mean agreeing—perhaps there are other ways to avoid these encounters—but it does mean “wanting to understand” and not just pre-judge other’s views based on your own preconceptions. Something quite the opposite to our current political climate. Judging other’s actions based on your own presuppositions is easy. Understanding another’s experience and viewpoint—before passing judgement—requires work.)

Things They Don’t Know

On our last night in the park, we were down on the shore of Yellowstone Lake, and as we came back up to the road, a family with Mother, Father and two children—possibly middle eastern from their accent—met my son, “Did you see the coyote cross the road?” the Father asked. “No. I didn’t,” my son answered—probably wondering what the big deal was (we have coyotes in Nebraska). I followed. The Father inquired, again, of me, “Did you see the coyote"?” “No, I didn’t.” I replied. “Well, I didn’t have that” . . . he said, pointing to the bear spray on my belt . . . “so I picked up some rocks,” he stated, showing me the items in his hands. I suddenly realized that I had never thought of coyotes as a threat. Certainly not one needing the protection of bear spray or rocks!

Back home in Nebraska, we go out on late winter nights to listen to the lovely sounds of the coyotes and their new litters. We don’t take anything for “protection” and we don’t feel any risk. If you spot a coyote, they tend to “skitter away” . . . and their diminutive and normally ragged appearance is hardly threatening.

I didn’t try to explain all this to my new found “friend” at Yellowstone. In reply to his bravado—in picking up the rocks to face this unexpected threat—and bravely continuing on their path to the lake with his family, I simply said, “It’s probably a good idea.” I figured this to be true—for the family’s peace of mind even if not necessary for protection from the canid. But, perhaps his “coyote” was our “wolf?” So I did remind myself how the bear spray worked once again.

Leaders and Things they Don’t Know

The best Leaders have a good grasp on what they know, their own presuppositions due to their own experiences, and a desire to understand other’s experiences in an effort to lead the team or organization to it’s optimal performance. This is one reason that any effort on a leader’s part to better understand themselves is a good exercise! Because for the leader, their actions, their behavior and choices are the key tool of managing others.

Leaders need to remember that employee’s lie—mostly to themselves—and leaders also are at risk of believing lies about their own roles. Managing the “difficult people” is key to a manager’s success. Deciding if the employee has value or is not a right fit is a difficult, but necessary function for leaders.

The problem is . . . all these decisions are commingled with the leader’s own personality, experiences, and coping strategies. For example, one leader, who had very good insight, stated that their organization was struggling because they were trying to integrate a new team into an old one and the old team mates had all been picked for the same basic personality types—aggressive, rationale, fast decision makers—the new team had different strengths and the two groups were struggling to mesh. This leader understood that the strengths they are developed in the old group were now a barrier to integrating new team members. But many leaders could have fallen to the temptation to blame the new employees for failing to join this productive team. She didn’t, and the result was a better, more well-rounded, and even more productive team.

Often this journey to understanding can begin through an honest evaluation of who it is that the leader does not understand—those employees that most frustrate the leader. Or, another way of saying it is, “Who pushes your buttons?” This attempt at understanding is not a pass for weakness, managing by fear, or to enable the continuing of any unproductive behavior; instead, it is to help the leader determine what motivates this particular employee, analyze their relative strengths and weaknesses, determine if they can support continued growth in that employee . . . and if that employee can be a productive part of the organizational culture.

As a leader, here are some things I struggle to understand or traits that “push my buttons:” Employees or people who . . .

• are not self-motivated

• fearful avoidance that results in self-fulfilling failures

• any behavior that seems disrespectful of others

• acting in a dominant way and interpersonal tasks as a win-loss

• lying and “selling” their integrity to rather than admitting a weakness or failure
  

What are your “hot buttons? How do these “issues” invite you to prejudge team members that may be different? Have you taken the time to understand their viewpoint before making a judgement about their motivation, commitment, or value to the team? Can you set aside your fear, temporarily, in order to listen and inform your decisions so as to minimize impulsive actions and steer a steady and predictable course to success.

No, this doesn’t mean to be slow to act, procrastinate on dealing with issues, or any extremes (that are just as destructive to a team), it simply means taking a moment to check your own assumptions, engage with the employee, listen well, re-check your assumptions, and then, act.

Learn more . . .

Get our free ebook Engaging Your Team: A framework for leading "difficult" people. for joining our email list,

or, if you prefer, you can simply buy it.

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.

Reclamation . . . Old Wood/New Wood; or Is that employee worth it?

I love the reclaimed depot wood we put on our cabinet ends. The picture doesn’t do it justice.

Leaders, like a builder, can choose to get new employees or work with the old ones. Employees with issues can be seen as disposable—out with the old and in with the new—or as valuable resources worth working toward reclamation.

A Change

I have found a new joy in reclaimed old wood. Old redwood to be precise. Redwood salvaged from a deck that provided the framework for a porch that had deteriorated over time. It surprises me a little bit—this joy of working with tis old wood—because I’ve always been favorably predisposed toward “new.” Maybe it’s my history of allergies. Maybe it’s laziness. But I always enjoyed building with new wood—from scratch if you will—rather than recycling something old . . . and often not being happy with the result. But now that’s all changed.

The destruction phase. If you look closely, you will see our Melodrama sign (to the extreme left) later in our shelving picture on the—mostly—completed porch.

The Wood

It started with a tear-down-and-rebuild project. We live in an old converted train deport. An amazing amalgam of construction. One hundred year old “bones” and newer additions make up the primary building. One of the features we loved was the “four-season porch” on the back. That porch, not in great shape when we bought the property—and poorly built originally—had deteriorated to the point that it needed to be torn off completely or rebuilt. Tear off and rebuilding . . . again not my favorite. But, it had to be done. The next couple of years, with the guidance and assistance of my contractor, consisted of working on weekends on this project, and after finishing the major work with the contractor, I am still working on the finishing touches as I write.

Redwood boards. Planed and ready to use for projects! You can see the discarded metal wagon box in the background. See the redwood wagon below!

The porch was built on top of a redwood deck. Well, it was partially built on a redwood deck. The builders had cobbled together a porch stoop (by the door to the right) and a deck (covering the rest of the porch)—which allowed the whole structure to settle unevenly—there was even a metal stand probing up one part!—and helped the general deterioration. We tore out the whole underlying structure, including the redwood, as part of our rebuild.

Now, if you aren’t into wood, you should know that it is expensive to buy redwood today. When I started building shelving from this wood, I priced new redwood to see how much it would cost to build one of the shelves and found that the wood, alone, would cost me close to $500 to buy new. Now that gets a guy’s attention and makes him look at the reclaimed wood in a totally new light!!

Here are some of the shelves and other Christmas projects—vase stand, and guitar neck rests. Notice the same sign in the background that was in the earlier tear-off picture. No floor yet. Finishing the walls first.

From the salvaged redwood I have built a few sets of shelves, a child’s wagon, a dozen or so guitar head rests (for changing strings), a bunch of guitar picks, one flower-vase frame, and a conductor’s baton case. Mostly these are for gifts, partly for fun. I could show you lots of pictures . . . but I’ll limit myself to one more, that should make the point.

Some of the smaller projects. Mostly the redwood. Some ebony, maple, too.

Leaders and People

All this . . . chaos? . . . effort? . . . history? . . . came to mind recently when a business owner, who was told about our process of helping organizations with their “people issues",” asked, “Why don’t they just fire them?” This sentiment, “just fire them,” sounded eerily like my attitude about wood. Just buy new wood! It’s easier. There are no problems to deal with . . . like there are with old wood. Old wood is too much trouble.

Some leaders see the world in much the same way. They would rather start over with a new employee than struggle to find a solution to their managerial problem. They minimize issues within their culture, system, or leadership that contribute to the problem. The propose superficial fixes and ultimately blame the employee for not changing. These decisions reveal the leader’s true values.

Yes, every leader has to face the fact that sometimes the only choice is to let someone go or do harm to the team or organization. But, as a leader, are you eager to adopt an “out with the old and in with the new” attitude?

I have worked with a few leaders who, a review of history or observation, revealed a pattern of employees passing through a “constant revolving door.” Rarely do these leaders see these decision as driven by their own ego or their behavior and that of the organization as the constant in this pattern. They don’t understand how lies that effect employees and leaders. Communication suffers along the way. They may struggle to see the value of mistakes in creating strong teams. They believe that failure is always bad. Other leaders see value in preserving the value of seasoned employees. They recognize that an investment in these employees may provide a superior long-term benefit.

Yes, working with the “old wood” means you have to engage with the wood in a more rigorous manner . . . trim some damaged wood away. You have to pull nails out of the boards so you don’t ruin a set of planing knives. You will make more cuts to find the solid, usable part of the boards and to reveal the pretty original grain. Finally, you will also have more cut-offs to discard.

Seven Reasons Leaders Should Focus on Retaining Employees

But there are good reasons not to start over with new wood . . . or a new employee.

1. New wood isn’t the same as old wood. Anyone who has been building for more than 20 years knows that the wood you buy today at the big box stores isn’t the same quality as old wood. Fast-growth, sap-wood, poorly dried, cheap lumber dominate the industry. Old wood has dimensional stability, strong grain, color, hardness, and character.

   In most circumstances, employees also gain value over time. They have institutional knowledge, they have experience with the trials and errors of the past. They have awareness of what it was like before the product was available. They have relationships with coworkers, vendors, and customers. Finally, successfully “reclaimed” employees can become the biggest champions of the organization and leadership.

2. There is a cost . . .to buying new. My father-in-law continues to “whittle-away” at a big block of Desert Ironwood from Mexico that he bought years ago for a little over $100. That one log has been part of projects for more than 20 years. Today, a 3/8" thick, 1.75" wide, 5" large stick will cost $12-15 plus shipping . . . if you can get it at all. A log like my father-in-law’s would run close to $1,000.

   Those who study business also talk about the high cost of employee turnover in organizations. The impact on “onboarding,” training, and other “real costs” may be secondary to the impact on the culture, morale, leadership trust, and other “soft factors” that, while critical to success, are less frequently measured. The big problem is, most leaders don’t have an easy cost comparison when deciding if firing an employee is in the best interests of the organization and many minimize the impact on the culture of the team—especially if this is perceived to be a pattern of the management.

3. The old wood has a unique attractiveness —because it’s old wood. Part of the beauty of working with this old wood is the blemishes . . . the nail-holes, checked areas, and uneven coloring. It leeks “used,” but when the wood is cleaned up, trimmed, planed, sanded, and finished, it is more beautiful that a more “perfect” new board.

   “Reclaimed” employees can have this save value. When we do interviews in an organization we typically take a plant tour. We request a guide—an employee who is not a “company ‘Yes!’ person” but who is also not the company critic. When leaders guide us to the right employee for this guidance . . . often someone with a reclamation story about the company . . . other employees’ trust in that individual helps us get very honest information about whatever issues we are seeking. The “stability” of this employee (see below) promotes trust and creates the opportunity for an open dialogue that is priceless to the organization. Other employees see the value in this employee and trust their reliability, know their past history, and see the openness about the organizations past challenges . . . and their faith in the leadership.

4. Old wood has known attributes where new wood has unknowns. Once again, old wood is far from perfect. But, you do know what you are likely to encounter in working with the wood. That’s worth something. New wood may have a high moisture content and tend to cup, warp, or crack. Old wood, once reclaimed will remain true to form, stable, and increase its value. New wood is an unknown. It may age and become cherished old wood or it may warp, crack, or fail.

   As we noted above, a reclaimed employee, in the same way is a “known” commodity. Other employees develop a respect for the employee that has come through challenges to remain a part of the organization. They trust someone who they know has not always “had it together” and see themselves in the real story of that employee. They note the optimism and faith the employee chooses to place in leadership despite the past. A new employee may have those traits, but it is an unknown risk at the time they are hired.

5. There is a unique satisfaction to reclaiming old wood. Sustainabllity, history, value, reduction of waste, or character and beauty . . . there are many reasons that reclaiming old wood is satisfying. In the same way, there is nothing like developing, challenging, and supporting employees to be their very best . . . and then seeing that benefit the team or organization.

   Many leaders are, in fact, very open to the idea of trying to “reclaim” employees. There are several challenges however that can make this fail. This, in itself, could be it’s own post, for our purposes, suffice it to say that a poor understanding of human behavior, a weak commitment to reclamation, a lack of consistent attention over time, fear that it will fail, poor communication or planning . . . these are but a few reasons that it may not succeed without a clearly implemented and monitored plan.

6. Developing a love of old wood opens up new possibilities. Living in an old Depot was daunting at first. The prospect of reclaiming a structure that had been turned into apartments—with it’s three kitchens and six bathrooms—did not sound like fun. But, tearing out the old porch, finding the redwood, and beginning to use this resource has created possibilities where none existed before. The cabinet ends pictured at the top for example. These boards were, in my estimation, a merely a nuisance, piled up in the attic . . . old, dusty brown boards that I was going to have to deal with at some point. Now, after several layers have been stripped, the boards planed down into quarter inch panels, the rotten parts cut away . . . they are a real center point of our remodel.

   In the same way, I have seen leaders that were burned out, dreading coming to work, contemplating leaving their position, who after working through a process of reclamation, were, once again, energized, excited about the next challenge, feeling more optimistic about their role and the organization. As the saying goes, “Success breeds success.”

7. Working with old wood changes the woodworker. Maybe it’s obvious. The old wood/new wood dichotomy is not new. What has changed is me. Once the woodworker opens him or herself up to using old wood, the world begins to change. Board piles are interesting, seeking out businesses that reclaim wood becomes a passion, helping to tear-down old properties becomes a treasure-field to explore. One sees the cheap woods of modern building. There rekindles a joy in the old, the weathered, the sturdy.

   One of the best reasons to be inclined, first, toward reclamation when it comes to employees is that it changes the leader. (A good reason to try and “reclaim” leaders as well! Because they can be more valuable.) No, a desire to focus on reclamation will never preclude firing a bad employee. We have mentioned several times that not all the old wood was kept . . . the bad parts of the board were cut off and discarded . . . the point here is that by taking a positive view toward reclaiming the old many boards can be salvaged, materials have a longer sustainable life, and the leader becomes a more functional, well-rounded, and energized leader.

They put the wagon to immediate use! But it’s not about the wagon, is it? People . . . that’s what it is all about!

Nine Signs You are a Normal Therapist . . . and encouragement to break the mold.

Image: villagehat.com

In the BBC hit series, Sherlock, the protagonist, Mr. Sherlock Holmes, characteristically known by his unusual double-billed hat called a “deerstalker,” given to him by his faithful Dr. Watson, describes himself as a “consulting detective.” Further, he also describes his nemesis, James Moriarty, in similar fashion, as a “consulting criminal.” This description, of an external expert as consultant, is something we need. In the profession of mental health, we need more “consulting experts” and fewer “normal therapists.” Consulting experts . . . ready to use their knowledge and skills to assist in all kinds of venues. Medical, legal, business, government, education. Here’s why.

I’ve been a professional therapist for over 35 years. I don’t consider my journey within the profession to be that remarkable or different from the “average” or “normal” therapist. Where it has been different, has been in the things I have done outside the “normal” parameters. In working with manufacturing companies, with family-businesses, non-profit organizations, and others.

Being a “normal therapist” myself, I’ve also supervised, administered, trained, and taught hundreds of other normal therapists over the years, and . . .

Let me be blunt . . . there are a lot of things about being “normal” that, over time, will drastically increase the risk—the risk of practicing in a manner that will undermine the therapist’s life and career. Over time, doing significant damage if not understood, addressed, and overcome.

What do I mean? Well, let me tell you. I mean that I have cringed as I have heard too many therapists, often nearing the end of their careers, that don’t have good retirement savings, do not take off quality time from their practices (some skip vacations and have not had a quality vacations for years), are not in a position to financially help their children or families and who are burned out, tired, and, sometimes, defeated by the very career they chose to support and sustain them and their families.

From a business/career stand point, the normal therapist is often their own worst problem. Let me lay it out for you . . .

Nine signs of the normal therapist:

• Believes that working for an organization is safer than working for themselves. Ah the benefits! Salary, insurance, paid time off, training budget . . . there are several aspects of working for an organization that appear to make it the safe choice. But is it? It feels like it until the the layoffs, down-sizing, closings happen. Most businesses, even Fortune 500 firms, don’t last more than about a couple generations. It’s just not as safe as you think.

• Thinks that the most reliable way to get paid is to be dependent upon insurance reimbursements. I hear many talking about wanting to get away from insurance but most, even the experienced, see insurance as a reliable source of revenue. Okay, sure, it is. But, organizations—who provide coverage for your clients— change insurance providers. Reimbursement rates are dropped. Getting paneled becomes more limited. You either spend time chasing the payments or pay someone to chase them for you. Is this really the most reliable form of income? For me, the answer is, “No!” Contracts, several that have laster more tan 12 years in my case are far more reliable. Negotiated rates with organizations that appreciate the value you offer is far different than the insurance panels trying to minimize costs.

• Worries that peers, or others, may think they are driven by a desire for money. Occasionally I wonder if the worst thing you could say to a “helping professional” is that they seem to be “interested in being financially successful.” Most deny this by quickly pointing to other priorities for their work. But, just because it is not their primary goal, does it mean that they don’t want to be financially successful. In most cases, “No.” However, they are uncomfortable acknowledging this. They constantly make sure that peers know, and will not judge them, by downplaying and insisting their focus is not on money.

• Are willing to trade time for vague benefits. They are wooed by vague benefits to their own career and live based on hopes reaping “marketing benefits,” unplanned “giving back” to the community or profession, and “just a good experience. They accepting being on call, providing free phone support, writing letters, and other tasks without much, if any, benefit to their business. I’m not suggesting that none of these things should happen—circumstance dependent, any and all of these may be appropriate or necessary; my point is, that the normal therapist simply does this, and accepts doing it, because it has been the standard practice historically.

• Makes excuses about the unsavory elements of their career rather than working to change them. Long term complaints about hating paperwork, insurance, no shows, without taking assertive steps to remove those things from their business life. Most will simply accept these things as part of the profession rather than re-examining their utility in today’s environment or seek other forms of practice that minimize or eliminate some of these elements.

• Constantly seeks to reassure themselves that they are competent. I hate to say it, but a majority of normal therapists have a lot of self-doubt. Just like the college student taking Psych 101 and wondering if the symptoms described in class men that they have a certain diagnosis, therapists, perhaps due to the personal intensity of their studies or primal interest, often give marquee attention to their weaknesses or deficits rather than their strengths. Few feel confident that they “know enough” or are an “expert” beyond a narrow and specifically trained knowledge base and skill-set. Yet, in truth, their life-experiences, knowledge, and training make their utility much more broad then they imagine.

• Doesn’t take risks, even small ones, that could provide significant improvements in their career. You’ve probably heard the old joke, “How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb?*” How about the correlary, “How many therapists . . . will change.” Therapists tend to play it safe. Leaps of faith for the sake of their career are rare. This includes wisely spending money to increase the likelihood of progressing in their careers. So, they go to mediocre trainings, don’t pay for supervision to gain expertise, do not spend money to learn new processes or products that could make their practice stand out and separate them from other providers.

• Follows the rules. While their are pioneers in our field, out there breaking new ground, as a group, therapists are prone to follow the “tried and true” of that the profession has dictated health care “is.” There are few “disrupters” or “contrarians” as a rule in the group and thus not much innovation. Tendencies run more toward “am I doing it right?” and against, “could it be done better?”

• Feels victimized by outside sources. Let’s face it colleagues. We often “play the victim.” Whether it is society, insurance companies, culture, history, etc. there is often a stain of helplessness norms in our thinking. These professionals, among the highest educated and trained people in the world, feel trapped and powerless by forces outside their control. We may seek to liberate others from the forces that we fear may be in fact constricting our own trajectory.

Professionals that stay trapped in this normative mindset may have an adequate, or even good, careers. Many do. They will, however, be subject to operating within the confines of the health care system and their own perceived limitation of their profession. The tragedy of this is that their are no “consulting therapists” in daycare centers, oncology offices, pediatrician practices, legal firms, or on family business boards—among many other places where they could provide significant benefits. More sadly, most professionals have never even asked themselves the question, “Could they benefit from my consulting?” Thus, the inquiry is never made. No discussions take place. No services are defined or contracts completed . . . and no help is available.

Do you see these signs in our profession? How does it affect the careers of your colleagues? How many of the nine traits influence your thinking?

As a profession, we need to focus on becoming more entreprenurial, taking a broad view of our capabilities, and turning those into non-traditional areas that could use our help. IN as sense, we need to see our selves as “consulting professionals” and not just therapists. Are you ready? If so, grab your “deerstalker” and let’s go. The game is afoot, dear Watson.

Ready to be abnormal? Share our post, make a comment, or more than one, and include in your comments how you shared the post, and you will be entered in a drawing for a digital copy of our book Beyond the Couch: Turning your behavioral health degree into cash without losing your soul and other prizes. To encourage comments, we will give away one copy of the book for every 10 comments. So, even if you already have it, or are not interested in the book for yourself, you can tell us who you’d like to give to or we will give it away for you!

*So, how many therapists does it take to change a light build? “Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change.”

I'm a fanatic . . . about culture . . . but it better be real!

Yep, I could be that guy! I’m that far gone . . . . Photo by Martin Reisch on Unsplash

I admit it. I’m a fanatic. No not a ranting, in your face, zealot. I’m from the midwest after all. Our zeal is a little more tempered. Stoic. Nice. That reminds me, our state once thought the best tourism tag line for our state was to promote this . . . “Nebraska, nice.” Ugh. Doubt it helped much. Anyway, back to me, the fanatic. I bear all the hallmarks of being a “true believer,” I have the gear, I study carefully everything about my passion, I’m drawn to others who share a similar love for the object of my obsession, I’ve done it all . . . except the tattoo. But then again, I’m from a different generation and, again, midwestern.

So, what is it that I am fanatical about? Well . . ., before I tell you and some of you sign off—concluding that your passion is not mine, and thus irrelevant—let me say, this post is not about the object of my fan-dom (fan-dumb?) but about the power of culture You see, the entity upon which my interest is focus is, right now, not worthy of such devotion. Ouch. It hurts to even admit that, I’m such a homer when it comes to college football.

The truth is the truth however and it is undeniable that my beloved team—the Nebraska Cornhusker football team, or “the Huskers” for short—has been awful. Last year? 4-8. The year before? 4-8. Dismal. Yet, this team has a top 15 recruiting class this year. They have been projected to finish in the top 20 by a number of prognosticians. Enthusiasm is high among the fans. Hope is abundant. What gives? Well a change in leadership but perhaps even more importantly the establishment of a new culture.

You can feel it. In the way the players talk, in the way they play, in their belief in the team and coaches and their willingness to voluntarily commit their discretionary effort to the team’s goals. Just watch their body language. A few years ago, under a different coaching regime . . . we won’t name names, I saw players on the side lines with their heads down, looking away or even pushing past . . . and thus avoiding . . . coaches who were trying to talk to them. It was not surprising when, over time, they began to look like they weren’t united in trying to win and the results began to mirror that disconnect. My observations were confirmed when a friend, and former division I quarterback, made the same observation, “You can tell they don’t want to play for this coach,” he said, “Just look at how they act when they come off the field.” Finally, someone close to the program also stated it. “They lost faith in the coach.”

So what has given this new culture its legs? Not success . . . not yet. Unless it’s the reputation of past success which these leaders have or the progress being made. But, success in the present? No. The team started out 0-6. The first time in the history of the program. Amazingly, the team continued to fight. They appeared to improve over the course of the season. They fought no matter what the circumstances and even looked better when they lost. It was clear that they “had each other’s back” and the team was, in fact, a Team. Having played both for teams that were not united or had a successful culture as well as teams that were very high functioning (including a national coach of the year) here are a few observations (from an outsider’s view) of what has made this work.

1. The leaders have a deep understanding of—and deep connection with —the broader context of the program and how to utilize the context to promote success. The Coach grew up in Nebraska. Population 1,325. The “Walk On Program” here at Nebraska—the recruiting of local kids—is at least as important as the getting the “blue-chippers”—highly ranked recruits— in the context of Nebraska football. He gets this. He praises the fans and the culture as being “like no other” and highlights its strengths—joking about how “blue-chippers” think they’ll see a football stadium in the “middle of a corn field.” Early cohorts talked about valuing the walk on program but in practice . . . they didn’t get it.

2. The leaders demonstrate a commitment to one thing—success. I hear statements like, “We are going to be good.” or “ We’ll see if he can contribute.” Even doubts, “Some may not be with the program” It’s clear that the goal is the focus and they believe reaching for that goal will help everyone who buys in. You could call it the “while no one is an ‘expendable crewman’ . . . some are more expendable than others.” But the message is clear. This is about being successful as a team. You can “get on board” or not but it is the single clear focus of the program.

3. Hard work is the route to success. How do you go from 4-8 two years in a row to the 13th ranked recruiting class? Hard work. Weight training. Husker Power. Strength Coach Zach Duvall. The coaches have not shied away from saying that players were not where they needed to be. In fact after the final game to our Iowa neighbors, the coach said it hurt to see that they were bigger and stronger than we were. How’s that for honest clarity? Yes, the coaches are careful to allow that there are many paths to success (that other coaches may have tried) and that previous coaches may have had a different focus and emphasis, but it’s clear that the team did not meet their criteria for strength, speed, and commitment. It’s also clear that anyone wanting to be a part will dedicate themselves to these attributes.

4. Finally, over everything else, the emphasis is on people. The clear message—and one that resonates as not just being "coach-speak”—is that this is about the players. Helping them become better men. Developing their potential. Becoming a close-knit group and having fun together. Yes, fun. In fused in everything is this belief that hard work, dedication, team chemistry, and success is fun and worth the effort. The mission is not just winning on the field it’s being successful as a person.

In Coach Frost’s own words . . .

As I was writing this blog, an Omaha World Herald article by Sam McKewon came out where Coach Frost talked about the importance of culture. Here’s part of what Frost was quoted as saying . . . “Culture eats scheme for breakfast . . . I can put the guys in the best scheme, the best offensive plays, the best defensive plays we can come up with. But at the end of the day, if we don’t have . . . people holding each other accountable, and we don’t have our team making smart decisions and grinding and working hard, [i.e.; the right culture] I’m not sure the best scheme in the world matters.”

Frost boils it down to two factors, 1. players making decisions in the best interests of their teammates, and 2. a desire to excel and no fear of failure.

Will this, ultimately, lead to the success the coaches want? If we’re talking wins . . . it’s unknown. In fact, due to the variables at play in such an endeavor it could be argued that their is no way to determine what causal factors lead to success on the field. Fair enough. But if you just look at the players behavior, other on and off the field, you can already see a clear and vital difference. It’s clear that this focus on culture has brought a new energy, a willingness to commit voluntary effort to succeeding, and cleared aways a number of hurdles that were detrimental to success. A strong culture, at the very least, increases the likelihood that success is possible—in athletics and in business.

P.S. I was told by someone who worked with transportation for recent Husker teams would leave the bus “trashed” when they got done with a trip. Not anymore. The Coaches, from the first, made players clean up after themselves and appreciate the service they were being given. Coaches talk about representing the state, university, and each other. The message is clear—even in this minor detail, “We will treat people, including ourselves, with respect.” Sometimes it starts that small to build a great culture.

Mr. Rex and Ego?

Photo by Vern Ooi on Unsplash

The Best Team Players? They know It's not about them.

Those of you who participated in athletics know that, as an athlete, you get to experience a lot of real time "psychology on display through behavior" as player's egos become involved in competing. Hopefully, for most people, the need to "stroke one's ego" gets resolved by the time we reach adulthood . . . but not always.

A few yeas ago I was playing "noon basketball" with a cadre of guys at a local gym. One of the amazing things about this group was that two of the most talented players were over 70!  Yes, 70! By "most talented" I don't mean that they had the most stamina, speed, or leaping ability when compared to the younger players,  but boy did they have skills and the experience to be a great asset to whatever team they played for.!  Both still played on traveling teams against player across the nation. Very impressive.

One of the players, I particularly liked. He was very laid back, competitive, yet encouraging to other players--a guy who was confident enough to play well himself and encourage the best out of others, both those on his team and the opponents as well, a real team-player. The other? Let's just say . . . that it didn't take a Psychologist to tell that his game was a little bit more about stroking his ego than just having fun competing--not that ego doesn't play a role for most of us at some level, some people just hide it more reliably. :)  Anyway . . . let's talk about .

The Day The Ego Demanded "it's Due!"

We were playing one day, as usual, when a new player joined us. His assignment was to guard Rex. Now, a new player, especially a younger one, would have no reason to believe that this would be a difficult task. After all, this is your grandfather--someone your should be able to outmaneuver, out jump, and out hustle. But Rex was an athlete, with a capital A. He could make shots all over the floor and from "way downtown"--far distant from the basket.

His favorite shot was a hook-type delivery off a drive to his right. Those of us who had played with Rex for a long time knew that the best strategy was to overplay his right side, and force him to go left where, although still capable, he was far less dangerous and effective. It was common knowledge and everyone who defended him more than once knew this.

The new player who joined us that day, however, didn't know this. As he tried to guard Rex, this septuagenarian shark, repeatedly drove right and drained the basket . . . time after time . . . scoring easily and, I think, frustrating the younger man's increasingly strenuous attempts to stop his scoring. Finally, the younger man, once again, beaten to the delivery of the shot, exclaimed, "Rex, you are unstoppable!" Rex beamed. But, unfortunately for Rex, the moment didn't last. 

Another player, let's call him Doug, who was known for his less-than-sensitive-candor, impulsively reacted. "It's not hard to stop Rex," he commented dourly.  "That's easy. He can't go to his left."  A statement, that over-simplified guarding this athlete, but never-the-less did communicate the best approach to stopping Rex's game. An awkward silence hung in the air, as players absorbed this Doug's "attack" on Rex's abilities and demonstrated Doug's own need to stroke his ego "against" a player, in Rex, that definitely had superior skills. Some glancing at Rex, uncomfortably, and wondering how Rex would respond.

Well, Rex wasn't one to let such blatant disrespect to pass. He said nothing, at first. I was surprised, but remained watchful.  The next time Rex's team had the ball, Rex, playing point guard, took the ball, drove to his left, executed his signature hook shot, banking it into the basket off the backboard, the pointedly directed a comment to Doug, "So, I can't go left huh?"

Flashes of Junior High School

"What is this, Junior High School?" The thought flashed through my mind.

So, Rex proved he could go left. Doug was "put into his place," and Rex's ego could remain intact--although why it was threatened so much by the comment remains unknown. Or so it seemed for a moment. Doug, unfortunately, didn't have the wisdom to let it go either, and the rest of "noon ball" was marred by a general pensive, irritation punctuated with some general aggressive playing and "bad will."

The funny thing is, for all the posturing egos on display, that day . . . nothing had really changed. We all still knew that the best strategy, when guarding Rex, was to force Rex to go left. No one thought less of him as a player, since all players have strengths and weaknesses to their game. And we were all sure that Doug would continue to comment on things that others would think but definitely not say. While Doug would rush in to fill the void. We also knew that Doug, no matter how long he played--would he even be playing in another 30 years?--would never be as good as Rex.

What did change was that it was clear that Rex's ego was tied up in his ability as an athlete (and so was Doug's, but that's another story) and that Rex would get defensive, react with somewhat controlled anger, if challenged . . . and this trait, could be turned against him, by unscrupulous opponents. That Doug, or others, could easily "get under his skin" with just a comment despite the fact that he was a great player. I can imagine some competitors I have played against in competitive venues, making comments,  "What's the matter, can't you go left?" and goading him into "proving them wrong" ---thereby taking him out of his best game and using his emotion against him—and disadvantaging his team.

Ego vs. Team

When Doug made his comment, and Rex visibly reacted, my intuition and experience told me that Rex would have to prove himself by forcing the next shot . . . going left. He did, and it worked, he made the basket. But what if that had not been in a "pick up game" but in a game that counted for something. Was that the right time and place to take the shot?  Maybe. Would a defender, as I did, anticipate his need to go left and position himself to block or alter the shot.  Possibly. But ego doesn't consider what is best for the team only what is demanded to keep the ego intact. 

Rex, it appears, didn't trust the team. He didn't believe that that everyone already saw him as a superior player--even if they recognized that he preferred shooting going to his right. He probably was fearful that others would "believe" John's view or that perhaps it would make it harder if the young man guarding him forced him to operate going left. Some subconscious fear drove his need to respond. Ultimately, however it was driven by his own fears about himself and his ability.

Another ego and it's effect . . . a starter on one of my high school teams "lost it" when his shoe came untied and the coach didn't call a time out to let him fix the problem. He responded by kicking his shoe off, sending it flying over the bench, and starting to hack (foul) other players. He fouled out of the game in the first quarter. I have never seen such a ego-driven temper tantrum quite like it before or since. Playing the rest of the game without our number one point guard and a great shooter certainly did not help the team and we lost the game.  Those whose ego strength, to continue the use the Freudian term, isn't sufficiently strong will not be able to laugh at themselves, apologize, admit mistakes, or put the team first.  They may be very talent and accomplished but, in some fashion or another, they will always be a one man show.

Leaders, Employees and Ego

When consulting with organizations you inevitably will run into people whose ego is a barrier to them being the best leader they can be. Whether as an employee or a boss, their fragile self-worth will manifest itself in defensiveness, rejection of valid criticism, and a stubborn refusal to examine mistakes and learn from them.  Often, these are very bright and accomplished people who has skillfully found ways to mitigate some of the negative effects--perhaps they are superficially charming, or hard working, or they maintain and aloof distance--but, like Rex, everyone knows of the ego-weakness and how it effects their work and the organization as a whole.

Attempts to point out the weakness results, again like Rex in the story, in them proving (at least to themselves) that the have a strong ego and the problem is not them but is the problem of the person pointing out the impact of their behavior.  

You can spot this trait often when a person "flip-flops" on responsibility when they can no long dismiss it. So, if problems are pointed out by another colleague or employee this person may simply dismiss it, or aggressively refute it. But if the problems amplify to the point the behavior is threatening the organization and they are forced to face their behaviors . . . the "Ego-challenged" person will admit a problem, superficially take responsibility for it, perhaps even apologize (if necessary) and verbally agree to a need to change.

But watched closely, and over time, they will reverse course . . . reverting back to their baseline, ego-protecting view, that "the problem isn't me."  When this happens, you can be sure that you are dealing with someone who, to reach their full potential, has a need for significant work on the ability to take constructive criticism, be self-critical, and learn to grow.  In Patrick Lencioni's words They suffer a lack of humility . . . thinking, albeit somewhat subconsciously, more about themselves that the good of the organization. In those moments it is, once again, all about them.

Give us your email and get Engaging Your Team a free eBook from HSC. Or buy it here.

Other Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.