Engaging Your Team: A framework for leading "difficult" people.

The cover of our eBook . . . .

Here is a list of few things I’ve learned being in leadership positions for more than 25 years . . . how many do you agree with? How many have you experienced? Are their others that should be added to the list?

• While there are lots of successful business models, business gets done through the effort of people.

• Managers typically lose more sleep over people issues than they do business decisions.

• Problems that persist in human systems are rarely simple, obvious, or subject to a quick fix. The easy fixes never become persistent issues.

• Leaders fail to deal with “difficult employees” for a number of reasons but the biggest one is fear . . . in the leader themselves.

• There are many successful business plans but success is determined by the action of people on the team.

• People’s behaviors are, to a large degree, conditioned by their past experiences and only recognizing this and sustained focused practice create real changes.

• The leader’s most difficult employee is likely to be one that differs the most from the leader in personality . . . and thus the one with the most potential to add balance to the team.

• Leaders who are quick to see termination as the answer to problems will create teams with systemic problems of trust, loyalty, honesty, etc.

• Leaders who will not address a toxic employee will demotivate and erode their team’s efforts.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for leading “difficult” people is an eBook we wrote to help managers and leaders. It can be downloaded for free (we do ask for your email), or, if you prefer, you can support our work and buy it on Gumroad.

Family Legacy: Protecting the Family in Family Business: Free eBook.

Simply . . . Like Jobs. Steve Jobs . . . and Redesigning Apple

Apple logo: Wikipedia

Simplification . . . Yes, KISS** is still good advice!

In his book, Boundaries for Leaders, Dr. Henry Cloud tells the story of Steve Jobs, who—having returned to Apple as CEO, brought clarity to the struggling organization—eventually driving success by eliminating 70% of their models and products. How did he do this? By having a clear vision of what Apple was and was not. Jobs, while sitting in a product strategy session, shouted, “Stop! This is Crazy!” and going to the whiteboard, drew a four-cell chart. “Here’s what we need,” he said—then he wrote “Consumer” and “Pro” across the top of the two columns and followed this by labeling the rows “Desktop” and “Portable.” “Their job,” he said, “was to make four great products, one for each quadrant.

Simple. Elegant. Apple. Great at what it does. Different.

Often times in business we over-think ourselves. We move, naturally, toward more complexity—believing that “more is better,” that complexity or more choices creates more value, right? But experts remind us that focus, clarity, and quality are often driven by parsimony . . . simplicity if you will . . . and may be more important than complexity. (Think of your T.V. remote. Do you really want more options?)

How about your business? Have you driven your strategic planning to parsimony? Have you achieved Job’s level of clarity? If you quizzed your board, employees, vendors, customers, would they all describe what you do in the same terms? Are you clear what and whom you are and what you are not?

One Example

At HSC, we have focused on developing this clarity and created four core products—one for each market segment and product level. This clarification of our vision has driven us to focus on continual development of these products and prevented being “distracted” by pouring energy into new ancillary products that take the focus off what we do best.

For example, a recent conversation with a business owner lead to the discussion of an “opportunity” to develop a product to help private pilots deal with the anxiety of flying—particularly the additive stresses of landing. An interesting, and tempting, thought given our background in mental health, mindfulness, and training. Should we do it? Should we invest energy in developing expertise in this “problem” and create a training to meet this need? Well, focusing on our core model helps get to an answer . . . does it focus on our customers? Not clearly. Is it a service we offer? No. So, unless we change our strategic plan, this is not an opportunity that we would pursue.

Maybe it will help you to do the same.

Like Steve Job’s example, we divided our table into two segments: our market segments and our product lines. Here’s a representation of our model for comparison:

Keynote slide on our four core products.

Notice that we have two primary markets: Organizations (including family business) and Professionals. We also have two distinct product lines: Services and Training. Our four core products then are located in the yellow cells. cross-referenced by these four variables.

What issues are each of our core products focused on improving"?

Organizations:

Human Systems Consulting: There are many ways to implement a successful business plan. In almost all cases, the plans depend on people to carry them out. Our core consulting service is designed to help resolve issues related to the human element. Challenges with culture, motivation, conflict, performance . . . all the human variables that interfere with high functioning.

Team Player Skill Development: People behave as they have been conditioned to behave. Reach out your hand toward someone raised in the USA and they, involuntarily and instinctively, extend their hand toward yours. But that rationale “act” of shaking hands is not universal—it is a conditioned response. villagers in asian countries may not respond in the same way. Employees need training that does not simply “tell them” how to do something different they need to practice. Our training is to start the process of practicing new, functional behaviors that create good team functioning.

Professionals:

Leading Edge* Coaching: Professionals want new ways to practice and pay their bills. But most are “locked into” a health care model dependent on insurance reimbursement. We help professionals develop private practice contracts and to develop a consulting practice through personalized coaching sessions. our coaching process is designed to help identify opportunities, understand how to apply their skills and knowledge to contracting, create marketing plans, develop their fee structure and generally support professionals developing private practice contracts and consulting work.

IMPACT Model*: For professionals ready to jump into contracting and consulting, provide and introduction to the contracting/consultation process we have developed over 20 plus years, to give them a road map on how to work with organizations. We have trained professionals on our marketing/consulting model in national conferences, on-line trainings, and in person workshops.

Well, that’s it. Our four products, one in each quadrant to serve organizations and professionals.

Special note: Interested parties can check our availability for training/services by contacting us. Please note that due to demand, we typically schedule trainings a year in advance. Other services are on a first come, first served basis, and subject to the availability of a consultant at that time.

**KISS acronym for “Keep It Simple, Stupid!”

Why won't they let go? Fear in the Family Business

The term “death-trap” comes to mind when I see this . . . but maybe that’s just me. Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

A Personal Confession

Rollercoasters evoke fear for me. There, I admitted it. It's not that the action of the rollercoaster—speed, erupt changes in direction or height—cause me fear, they don’t, it's the notion that these mechanical wonders . . . are mechanically complex machines . . . and complex machines . . . break.

Having admitted my fear, now, maybe, you will understand why the idea of “having a good time,” in my world, does not involve strapping myself to one of these mechanical devices; indeed, it would take just the right motivation (force?) to get me to risk of becoming a passenger. You may also, having realized the basis of my fear, be able to reason with me that my fear is irrational, and perhaps even in a way that gets me to reconsider my fear. After all, I do fly on airplanes. Oh, and yes, I have ridden rollercoasters in the past.

But, in the future? Probably not. For me a rollercoaster ride it is a waste of time and money. There is no “up-side” for me. I don’t get a thrill from riding. There is no “fun.” I’m long past the age of doing something I don’t like just to prove to others—or myself—that I’m not afraid. The motivator is going to have to be pretty good to get me to change.

Fear . . . and Holding on

If you got me on a rollercoaster and you were an astute observer, you might notice my discomfort. Nervous conversation, keen observation of the attendant locking the bar . . . subtle clues to my fear. Fear makes us want to “hold on” to what ever object seems to promise to save us from the feared outcome. A child will clutch to the seat or the safety bar or the parent,. an adult may simply hold on nonchalantly as possible but give away their fear when they “stiffen” with anxiety as the car moves over the course.

This fear and the natural tendency to “hold on”, reminds me of struggles I see in leadership transitions and particularly in Family Businesses—where the senior generation is holding on to the business and the younger generation is anxious to take over the controls.

So let's talk about the pertinent question from the younger generation's point of view . . . 

Why won't they let go?  

Ever had to "take the keys away" from an aging parent? Not so easy. For my family it was prompted by a few minor “accidents” over the course of one year followed by our local mechanic telling us that he intervened when one of my parents left the vehicle “in gear” and “bouncing against the concrete barrier” at a local store. He opened the car door, stepped on the brake, and put the car in “park.” Obviously, it was time.

So, why won't they give those keys up? Especially given all the alternatives for transportation? Family members reassure them that they will be taken wherever they want to go. There are offers to pay for assistance. Uber, Lyft, and other services are readily available in some cases. Still, they don’t want to hand over the keys.

Once the transition is accomplished—voluntarily or not—the senior often complains, repeatedly, about the inconvenience of not having their independent transportation and may have to be reminded about the reasons the keys were handed over . . . repeatedly. But, too often this difficult transition is made even more difficult because we think this should be a simple transition based on a logical analysis of the risks, right? Well, for many, it’s not.

Photo by Laura Gariglio on Unsplash

It's a funny thing about humans . . . “Keys aren't just keys.” Those keys represent much more. The senior may see them as “my independence, my freedom, my way of not feeling like a burden to others, my way of helping” . . . there are deep emotional ties that make what seems like a simple exchange, become a complex path to navigate. John Gottman, a researcher at the University of Washington, coined the phrase “dreams within conflict” to describe how, at the root of conflict, there often is a dream that is being unrealized or threatened. Not realizing the threat to that dream makes the senior’s resistance irrational—and invites unfavorable judgements of “stubbornness, controlling, emotional, etc.”

For my mom, as an example, I think that giving up the keys meant that she would worry about being a “burden” to others—anathema to her self-sacrificing consideration of others—in depending on them for rides.

Turning over a business

Why won't the parent’s let go?  After more than two decades working intimately with families, I can sum it up in a word: Fear. (Leaders of all stripes are, too often, Managing by Fear . . . and family firms are no different. In fact, “close-systems”—such as family business where there are more emotional ties—are more likely to be affected by management by fear at critical points during their development!)

What fear? Fear that . . . 

• the change/transition will make things worse

• the transition will place a burden on their children

• their own value and self-worth will be lost

• spending more time with intimate relationships will make life more difficult

• the business itself will struggle or fail

• their departure as a leader will, some how, harm the family

• fear that leaving will expose some personal weaknesses

One of the barriers to moving beyond this transition point, is that people are not very insightful about what is motivating their family member’s actions. The aging parent may think, "They are making too big a deal about this!" or "They just want my car!" . . . and their defensiveness, often becomes the excuse to redirect themselves from their own fear. The children do the same. “They won’t ever let go!” or “They want to keep control!” hides fears of not being trusted, anxieties about performance, and other issues. But back to the parents . . .

Find the Dream . . . and Address the Fear

Tied to each of these “fears” is a dream. The senior’s dreams that the change will not make things worse for the family, the employees, or the business. That there will still be a valuable role that the parent can occupy within the family or children’s lives. That family relationships will improve or at least not be damaged in the transition. That the business will continue to grow and succeed.

Helping the parent with the transition includes a couple of important steps.

First, they may need help in recognizing and stating their underlying dreams—taking care to both acknowledge the ones tied to the business role and not neglecting dreams that are not connected to the business**—and recognizing that there may be inherent conflicts within the dreams. For example, the senior may want to travel more, have less stress or responsibility and at the same time want to be present to make sure the burden on the younger generation is not too great to handle.

Second, they may need a well-defined process of addressing the fears and supporting movement toward making risk/reward decisions . . . normalizing and challenging the fears—that can help them get “unstuck” and make the transition move forward.

This is not an easy process. Often, it takes time, careful persistence to address the issues. Trust building (yes, even between parents and children!) and the slow process of addressing, and lowering, fears so that changes can proceed naturally. At times, families simply can’t, won’t, or will want to decrease the risks of a negative outcome by engaging an outside entity to guide the process.

However it gets approached, trying to force someone to get past their fears (i.e.: Fear Factor style) is fraught with risks. There is no doubt that it can make things change, if successful, but too often it will heighten fears, create more resistance, and worst of all, create a traumatic event that may harm the relationships necessary to make a transition good for everyone.

**Often the younger generation will over emphasize the dreams not tied to the business as a means to leverage change. This often backfires. The senior sees this as the younger generation trying to “force them out” or manipulate because the dreams and fears tied to the business are minimized instead of being addressed.

Available eBooks:

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

Blog post . . . leads to sharing . . . surprising an old friend . . . and training!

Photo by Web Hosting on Unsplash

Opportunities . . . to Help . . . sometimes Come from “Strange”. . . or Rather . . . “Stranger” Places

Serendipity. I think that’s what it’s called.

It is always interesting to see how opportunities to help organizations present themselves. Often it is through a direct contact with a leader. But not always . . . sometimes it is through a blog post, and the action of a “stranger” . . . a reader, you have never met, who happens to be connected to someone in your circle . . . as it did this past summer.

Rekindling Friendship

Recently, I was sitting at a mexican restaurant in Missouri, catching up with some high school/college friends. Later, they showed me the recent damage from a tornado and flooding in their town, and I got to be in their home and meet their son. It was a great reunion of old friendship . . . and brought about through the pages of this blog. I’ll explain in a minute . . .

In my years of posting content, I regularly check the analytics to see what readers are interested in reading and how the readers “behave” when they come to the website. Many visitors click on links “About Us” and “Contact Us,” and/or download content, like our free ebooks, but only a minority actually reach out with a comment, question, or inquiry. Most, I suspect, prefer to sit back, glean what they can from the posts and that is good enough—which is fine and one of the reasons to continue posting so that people can benefit from our journey. Thus analytics, in leu of personal contact, becomes the indicator of what you, the reader, want for content in our posting. I admire those confident readers with the courage to reach out— connecting with “thought leaders” or those who have traveled “the road” before them—and I can tell you that the times that I personally have reached out to experts in areas I am interested in, I have universally “walked away” from those contacts feeling encouraged and enlightened. I personally need to do it more. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but for those who reach out to us I want the experience to be just as helpful and inspiring.

But back to the opportunity raised through the blog post . . .

A Reader, a Coworker . . . and my Friend

So, the friend, the one that I had supper with in Missouri, has been a regular follower of our blog. He has commented at times, sent me notes through LinkedIn or Facebook, and we have stayed loosely connected through the “grapevine” of our mutual contacts, as well as occasional times we were in the same place at the same time.

None the less, I was surprised when this friend, “old friend,” contacted me asking about the possibility of HSC doing some training for the Bureau.. I use the descriptor of “old” because the most significant time we had spent together was over 30 years ago (we had gone to camp together, then junior college, and college, before our paths parting ways).

The most interesting thing to me about this opportunity was—here is where the serendipity is involved—my friend was not the one recommending HSC and promoting us to do the training! One would expect that it was a person contact, like my friend, who might recommend your services as a provider. But, although I guess our personal relationship played some role, he was not the original “spark” that lit the fire.

Serendipity . . . or . . . operating in Reverse

As my friend tells it, he received an email from his boss with one of our posts attached. The post, called “Mistakes . . . Vulnerability . . . and Developing a Good Product,” was sent to the entire division. My friend, contacted his boss and said, “How did you get this? I know the author.” It turns out that a different manager, who was also a reader of our blog had sent the blog post to the boss, suggesting it be sent out to all the employees, which included my friend, and the boss did exactly that—sent it out, prompting the inquiry from my friend. Operating in “reverse” from how opportunities usually develop.

Is this replicable? Probably not. At least not to the degree that an organizations needs to fill it’s “pipeline” of work. But it highlights one very important principle: Do things because you value helping others—not simply because it is good marketing, sales, or produces a billable hour. Recently, I had this conversation with a professional in Atlanta that I am coaching. I reminded her that it is best to focus on helping not getting a signed contract. Why? Well, first of all, you can’t make someone buy something they don’t really want. Secondly, if you are only in it to make money for yourself, then it is likely that you will be frustrated and the client will have a barrier (you) to getting help even if they really want and need it.

Case in point: I once was on a committee to purchase a electronic records system for four agencies. One vendor, had flown into Omaha for a follow up to his original presentation— essentially making the “first cut” and entering “round two",” must have gotten frustrated at not having “sold” us in the first round. During the second presentation he began to complain about having to return a second time—talking about the pressure he was feeling, the hardships of coming back for the second presentation, how his wife didn’t like it, it took him away from his family, etc. This was so off-putting—even to a room of sympathetic therapists—that his product, which going into the presentation was our number two choice, became immediately a “no go.” The sale—ultimately worth over $1 million—was lost . . . because his behavior made is seem that it was about the sale not about helping us get the right fit for our four organizations.

You need to trust that your efforts to help will “come back to you” in expanding the scope of your value and ultimately will lead to work with organizations! This “give it away first” is a common theme in the on-line entrepreneurial world today. But, to me it is just good practice . . . help when and where you can and don’t focus on selling. Trust that if you provide value then opportunities will come.

The Training

A note about training. I love doing training. If done well, it lowers the bar, for employees to learn. It avoids the natural defenses and poor coping skills displayed in trying to intervene in a more direct way. It invites experimenting and play. Yes, ultimately, to make real changes you have work to do, but a good training can often open the door to the willingness to approach the harder work in a positive and healthy way.

For those readers interested in the training details . . . it was delivered in a six hour-workshop format on site. Our training focus is on promoting the actual practice of good teamwork—and this workshop was no different. This is important! Teams need practice. Few teams are significantly impacted by a lecture on teamwork. (see post: Training Should be like Music Lessons)

Attendees engaged in practicing teamwork through attempting tasks such as defusing “bombs” through heightening their communication skills and strengthening their interactional processes. This entertaining process avoids long lectures about what good teamwork is in favor of training the actual skills—much like practicing the piano or guitar—so that teams have an awareness of what it takes to be a productive part of a team and have practiced the skills.

We have done this training several times and in different market segments—with non-profits, groups of professionals, for profits, and this time, would be with a government department. Each team is unique and each group brings different levels of preparedness. All teams, however, benefit from revisiting and training on the skills of effective team work.

Often, problems encountered in teams are due to normal—or abnormal—human actions or behavior but intervening, successfully, in these human systems is complex. What one team members sees as an attempt to help is seen as interference or undermining. Defenses get put up. Blame is passed around. Team members try to decipher who is right/wrong and to whom they owe loyalty. It can become quite a destructive mess—and often all for good reasons of loyalty, protecting, problem solving, etc.

Trainings . . . the HSC way!

To make an impact, HSC training are designed to focus on three things.

• Building on sound research. Bryan, the founder of HSC,, has a background in research and trainings are developed with sound methodology and processes.

• Refining skills in an interactive setting. A team is only as good as the collective team member’s skills.

• Deep understanding of human systems. Simply because a system is more than the sum of it’s parts. Placing all the components of a iPhone in a box doesn’t result in an iPhone.

What effects do our trainings have on work teams? The trainings . . .

1. Raise awareness of the skills needed for high team performance

2. Identify barriers to skill acquisition and achievement.

3. Promote a strengths-based approach to growth

Sometimes our training is part of an overall consulting project (See what we do: Organizational Behavioral Consulting). But at other times it is a stand-alone activity to bolster the functioning of a team.

The greatest value however comes in the providers of the training. A couple of years ago we did part of one of our trainings for a leadership conference. Afterwards, a consultant, who works in the insurance industry, mentioned that they would like to learn to do the training we did that day. I told her that I would be happy to share our resources and support her learning to deliver the training, but what I could not duplicate was the experience of having trainers who have been in leadership positions for 20+ years and who have very advanced training and experience in human systems. This is after all where the real value lies . . . in being able to apply it to real teams.

The very thing that she found most valuable—how the presenters engaged the trainees—was likely to be the exact part missing if the training were replicated. She understood. We shared the resources and she made it a goal of using HSC, and our training, in her future work where needed.

HSC’s limited availability for stand-alone trainings means that we are currently scheduling for next year. Interested parties can check for availability by contacting us.

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

Fences . . . Make Good Employee Relations.

Wikipedia Fence

New Manager . . . and a conundrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relationships and Leading

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

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

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

Setting Boundaries

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

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

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

The professional chose to resign.

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

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

Boundaries and protecting people?

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

• the professional avoided being fired (they resigned)

• my role as the supervisor was not placed at risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

Team Training Needs to be like Music Lessons

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

Team Training as Music Lessons

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

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

Two Distinct Approaches

Think about the differences in these two approaches . . .

Music Lessons Classroom

Focus is on skill acquisition. Focus on imparting information.

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

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

Emphasis on practice. Emphasis on teaching.

Outcome: improved skills. Outcome: content mastery.

Moving from “School” to “Lessons”

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

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

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

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

Yo-Yo Ma, Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Are leaders born or made?

Old Guard and New Vanguard

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

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

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

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

Leaders—Old and New

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional resources:

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

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

Contact us with questions. Thanks for sharing and commenting!

A Peek into Our . . . not Google's (sorry!) . . . Consulting Algorithm

I think a map would definitely help in this case! Photo by Victor Garcia on Unsplash

Just finished a post for our email subscribers about the critical need for professionals, turned consultants, to have an “algorithm,” or decision-making process, process or path, to guide them as they engage with human systems. This engagement may be in developing their private practice through contracting or by going “beyond the couch” and becoming a consultant. In plain terms, this algorithm can be boiled down to a series of questions and decision points that creates a path to follow, such as . .

HSC CONSULTING ALGORITHM: (Sample questions to ask yourself.)
1. Do I have contact with a decision maker? YES .....
NO ......

1A. If, YES, go to #2 . . .
1B If, NO, then ask to make contact or move on . . . .

2. Does the decision maker recognize a need? YES ....
NO ....

2A. If, YES, go to #3.
2B. If, NO, go to 1B.

3. Does the recognized need, require a deep understanding of the human system? YES . . .
NO . . .
3A. If, YES, go to #4.
3B. If, NO, Is the need solely training/coaching for the decision maker? YES . . .
NO . . .

3C. If 3B is YES, then seek conceptual agreement to propose training/coaching.
3D. If 3B is NO, explore the issues and how they relate to the system, then seek
further exploratory meetings or a conceptual agreement to propose
consulting.

The Power of an Algorithm

The power of an algorithm like this is comes in . . . confidence. Confidence in knowing where you are in the process, what has been done already, what needs to be done next, and a process that is replicable—and can be used again and again with decision makers. This algorithm, for HSC, has developed through more than two decades of consulting work, reading the consulting literature, teaching graduate students and professionals how to do consulting, and our own publishing.

Developing this process at HSC has evolved to the point that we created our IMPACT Model of consulting and forms the core of our Competitive Edge Coaching process . . . helping mental health professionals who want to develop consulting contracts. We even created a “cheat sheet” of our process in our IMPACT Model Quick Start Guide.

Moving from Healthcare to Contracting/Consulting

For those starting, or wanting to start, this process . . . here is a place to start:

• Recognize that this process—creating an algorithm—is helpful for getting private practice contracts that provide “health care” . . . as well as consulting with organizations. At HSC we have done both—private Employee Assistance Programs, for example, and business consulting/coaching. We use the same process for both.

• Read everything you can get your hands on about consulting. Especially, resources coming from those who transitioned from health care to consulting since they will speak the same language and can highlight the similarities and differences.

• Consider getting training as a coach or consultant. Training programs will decrease the time and effort to make the transition and start getting contracts. Organizations such as the International Coaching Foundation, or others, can help you get moving.

• Adopt an “algorithm” process or plan that has worked for other consultants until you develop your own—if you ever need to. Don’t “reinvent the wheel” start by finding a template to follow then you will tweak that, or create your own, as you gain experience.

• Be patient, but aggressive. Remember, it will take time to transition into a new product or service and to transform yourself into a new skill-set. Be realistic about your progress and not overly self-critical. Get support, find mentors, and just keep working . . . and it will be likely to happen.

Sign up for our emails . . . and get a free eBook.

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!