Have you said thank you today?

I had a real eye opener this week.  Because of an urgent situation in my sector, I witnessed incredible leadership from the usual types.  I’ve always known that the people I see everyday are at times extraordinary, but I was still taken aback and I’m still thinking about it today, almost a week later. 

This event required two teams working simultaneously to communicate with a whole host of other individuals and to take action so the chances of very high risk situations could be averted.   We all came together, stayed at work late after an already full day, and then continued to be on alert for several more days.  After the first evening, I went home pretty tired and thought I should do something to recognize my immediate team.  I mean, even though one could argue that we just did whatever was needed in this kind of situation, it wasn’t sitting well with me not to say something simple, like “thank you”.   The next morning, I sent off a note to everyone who was involved in the scene.  I didn’t think anything more about this till I remembered that the previous week, I was asked if I’d anonymously sent a group of people in the office beautiful plants they’d received.  When asked if I had, I said I had not, but added that I wished I had.  This situation and the one described above make me ask:  do we say “thank you” enough to people in the workplace?  And if not, how often is enough and what qualifies for this special recognition?

Many modern workplaces have tons of different ways in which they recognize employees, some of which quickly become routine and lose their punch, and others that are successful and have lasting meaning.  I’m starting to think that there are very simple ways to recognize and thank people that don’t involve a whole lot of fanfare, but that can have a deep and personal meaning to the people receiving the acknowledgement. 

I remember the first time I got a thank you card.  I was working in the Canadian Arctic in very remote, challenging conditions.  By the time the card rolled around, I’d been there for almost three years, and it was the first time anyone took the time to acknowledge that even though there was a lot more work to do (my assessment), what had been achieved or attempted was appreciated.  I kept that card on my desk until I got a second one, and then I placed them together and kept them in my sight until I left the following year.  I felt deeply and sincerely appreciated.  No fanfare or public display.  But I knew what it meant to me.

How did the staff in my office feel when they got their plants anonymously?  Appreciated – maybe a bit perplexed as to who sent them, but appreciated.  How do you feel when you get special notice? – I’d actually like to hear from you on this question, or if you want to tell me what you think would be effective recognition for notable circumstances. 

In Hardwiring Excellence, Quint Studer devotes a whole section on WOW cards, recognition, rewards, and thank you notes.  He recommends developing a system to notify you or your boss of individuals in your organization who have earned special notice.  He actually suggests that organizations should set targets for the number of thank you cards they send.  Furthermore, there are some thank you notes that should have distinction and be sent to a person’s home.  Imagine that?  Getting a thank you note from your boss at home?  Visualize being the one who sends the note to someone’s home and imagine the lasting memory that would have.  Isn’t this one of the greatest things about leadership?  Isn’t that what sets us apart from other types in the workplace?  We have the power, ability, tools, and means to deliver powerful and positive messages to staff.  Do we take advantage of that ability as much as we should?

For several years after I got my first two thank you cards, I kept a package of cards and passed them on to people I knew had really done something exceptional.  I did that for years.  Somewhere, somehow I stopped.  I don’t know why.  But later today, I’m going to get a new batch and have them ready and available.  What about you?  Tell us how you recognize your staff and what impact it has.

If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to post below (sign up for a free Google account), or email me directly at jbezz@shaw.ca.

Have a great week!

If You're Not In, You're In the Way!

A reader wrote me a few weeks ago with a request for resources on the topic of how to deal with individuals reluctant or unable to embrace change. He asserted that as much as leadership requires courage to take calculated risks to move the organization along the path of transformation and ultimately change, it requires a different type of courage to deal with some of the organizational obstacles that might be standing in the way. Namely, this colleague was asking about how to go about removing these obstacles, which in some cases are individuals in the organization who are not able to embrace the change. Touchy topic.

Let’s start by admitting there are no straightforward solutions to this issue even though this seems to come up regularly in any leadership and management practice. Some leadership gurus stress the importance of teams and team skill building, like Peter Senge does in his widely acclaimed book The fifth discipline: The art &practice of the learning organization.  Senge contends the best approach is to consider the collective, and not the individual. But what if you assess your team on an individual level and find that one person is underperforming?

As a change leader, you already know there are numerous steps and measures to take into account while leading up to a change and eventually to the execution of the change. During each of these stages, you have the opportunity (and dare I say, the responsibility) to assess the environment, to gauge staff morale about the change, to evaluate staff and management uptake on the notion of the change, and to identify problem areas. If you suspect one of your team members is struggling with a change, you also must perform an objective assessment of the individual’s competency to cope with the change.

The experts also recommend an assessment of whether or not the individual possesses the emotional preparedness and attitudes to change. And what if there still isn’t any commitment? At that point, you would probably categorize this individual as a low performer as described by Quint Studer in Hardwiring Excellence.  I like Studer’s nifty recipe to tackle this head-on:

·         Describe the behavior you see and what you want to see change (I asked you to speak to your team about our new strategic direction and you didn’t follow through on this.  Your colleagues are worried about proceeding without your team on board with the change.)

·         Evaluate how you feel  (I am really disappointed and concerned because we are rolling this out to our stakeholders and your own staff are not yet aware of our new direction)

·         Show how you’d like it done (I’ll join you at the next staff meeting and lead a discussion on this important subject)

·         Let them know the impact of not following through next time (You have to demonstrate that you’re onboard with this our new direction or we will have to talk about serious consequences)

Of course, Studer’s message regarding low performers is clear: you give people a chance, but if all else fails, you MUST ACT. Simply put, low performers need feedback to pick up, or move out.

As difficult as it is, low performers can really affect the rest of your team’s performance and your efforts to change.  Act swiftly and decisively once your objective assessment reveals you have a low performer in your midst, and when necessary, help them move on.

If you have comments you'd like to share with me about this blog, please write me at jbezz@shaw.ca

Leadership and Negotiation

Funny how, because of a recent situation, one is reminded of something read a long time ago.  This week I dug out a book I read almost twenty years ago.   I wanted to once again review parts of the book to help me set perspective on a few matters.  Fortunately for me, when I did retrieve the book, I found that I’d highlighted several sections which made it easy for me to find what I was looking for.  Yes, I made an assumption that nuggets of knowledge that helped me put things in perspective in the past would help me again today.  And guess what?  I was right!

This is not a classic book about leading change, but The Tao of Negotiation by Joel Edelman and Mary Beth Crain (1994) does offer an interesting perspective for leaders of change.  I like the Preface (p.xi):

In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.

In speech, be true.

In business, be competent.

In action, watch the timing.

No fight: No blame.

                                                                The Tao Te Ching

This reminds me somewhat of the SCARF model by Rock (2008) that we’ve talked about the past few weeks.  But what additional skills does a leader of change require and what can we learn from The Tao of Negotiation?  Well, there is considerable discussion in the book about conflict and how to approach situations involving conflict.  As we know, where there’s change, there is conflict.  I don’t want to be making too much of the potential for conflict in the workplace when change is about to take place, is occurring, or has already transpired, but let’s face it: change itself and the potential for change moves people at a personal level.  And it is because of this personal impact there is a breeding ground for conflict.  

Edelman and Crain (1994) set the stage by giving their views on the source of conflict as “…real – and what are perceived as legitimate – grievances on both sides” (p.1).  This is an important point for change leaders to remember – by this definition of conflict, there are opposing views on both sides.  It isn’t that the conflict arises from one person or the staff resisting change, it exists because of the polar positions of BOTH sides.  Knowing this, what is the leader’s responsibility to deal with the phenomena of conflict in the workplace and what are some practical best practice approaches we can consider in dealing with this dynamic? 

Well, from what I understand, at least ONE of the parties involved in the conflict has to be unwilling to move into attack mode.  Remember, the leader here is one of the parties, so let’s assume that the leader has to be the one to step up to the plate and to be of the mind that attack mode is not an option.  That’s a tall order in some circumstances, even with very experienced leaders.  It is admirable to watch a leader interacting in a conflicting situation step back, and not attack.  I’ve seen it many times, and I recognize it every time I see it.  I have to add, for some of you who might view this as caving or giving in to the conflicting view that it never looks like the leaders give up.  It looks like the leader wants to hear more of the opposition to understand the issues better, and it definitely looks like the leader wants to reflect on what s/he can do to make the situation more comfortable for those struggling with the change or issue.  When I witness this leadership approach in the workplace, I appreciate the mastery of negotiation.  And I admire it. 

The Tao of Negotiation might not appeal to all audiences because it requires readers to be introspective as to their own inner conflicts and to critically assess how they deal with conflict.  Some people are just not interested in this.  However, those of you who were interested in Rock’s material and the SCARF model (2008) might find it interesting to pick up the book still widely available, and give it a read.  I’ll be putting my copy back on the shelf later on this week, but only after I get a chance to leaf through it to be reminded of a few key principles. 

Take care till next week, and let me know if there are other topics you’d be interested in reading or discussing. 

Autonomy: Do we really need it?

Let’s start by looking back at Rock’s SCARF model (2008): This model asserts that five particular domains elicit specific human reactions: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness (Rock, p.1, 2008). This week, I want to focus on the A in SCARF – Autonomy.

Autonomy is the freedom to make discretionary and binding decisions consistent with one’s scope of practice (Lewis, F.M. 2006, p.1).

While the autonomy definition posted above doesn’t spell it out, I’m of the opinion that autonomy also provides individuals with the right to act on the decisions they make within the scope of their practice –leadership practice, or otherwise. Personally, I believe there is a growing need for autonomy in today’s organizations, despite the demand for increased organization-wide accountability. But not everyone shares this view. This week I heard an experienced leader discuss the topic of autonomy. His contention was that in modern organizations, there is a need to balance the need for autonomy with larger, system-wide needs. In fact, this speaker asserted that in order to optimize organizational integration, a “top down”direction would be required. I don’t think the speaker was saying that we had to find a way to rid ourselves of autonomy, but he was pointing out that it could be an impediment to broader organizational goals.

How then, does a leader balance holding the reigns loosely enough to promote leadership, growth, and creativity (all inherent in the concept of autonomy), but at the same time hold the reigns tightly enough to avoid classic pitfalls resulting from too much autonomy (e.g. silos and divisiveness)?

As leaders, what options can we consider in our leadership and management practices to achieve large organizational goals as well as delivering on the growing demand for individual empowerment? Let’s discuss our options by examining two complimentary leadership styles, namely transactional and transformational leadership, with a view that both are necessary in today’s leadership world. I know some folks will argue that transformational and transactional leadership styles are contradictory, but hear me out.

Transformational leaders keep three things in mind when leading: the first one is how to achieve current organizational goals and secondly how to raise it to a higher standard, and thirdly, how to develop staff and subordinates and others who are part of the organizational infrastructure so they can lead and achieve the intended changes within their areas of responsibility and leadership in the future. Sounds like there is a high degree of autonomy and empowerment included in this leadership style.

Also focused on productivity, transactional leadership primarily focuses on the individual and less on the organization as a whole. Nguni et al. (2006) says transactional leadership draws out the selfish attributes of followers: staff is expected to produce some results and is rewarded accordingly. With this leadership style, leaders exert influence by setting goals, clarifying desired outcomes, providing feedback, and exchanging rewards for accomplishments. This style also includes a degree of autonomy and empowerment.

I summarized a table of metrics for each type of leadership for you (some references included at the end of the blog, and more available if you contact me at jbezz@shaw.ca):

Transformational Measurements	Transactional Measurements
Develops a compelling vision Creates a trusting environment Motivates and inspires employees Empowers personnel to make own decisions personnel Changes the existing situation Develops workforce Improves the culture Effects change by influence	Identifies clear goals and objectives for visible results Offers rewards for achieving goals Creates structures and processes for control Solves issues Maintains current situation and improves it Plans, organizes and controls operations Protects the culture Effects change by authority

Now, let’s step back to last week’s discussion again. If we know that a lack of autonomy activates a genuine threat response, and if we also know that working in a team necessitates a reduction in autonomy, how can leaders still get the best out of staff at both an individual and group level and stay true to the organization’s overarching goals?

Rock’s solution to this question is to clearly establish the boundaries within which individuals can

exercise their creativity and autonomy. Furthermore, one should enable individual point-of-need decision-making without consultation with, or intervention by, leaders (Rock, 2008).

This past week, I heard about a beautiful example of Rock’s solution in action: a manager asked front line staff to do some problem solving so the team could circumvent problems from a recent staff shortage. Though the manager was well aware of options she could elect to put in place, she waited patiently for the team to identify their own solutions. She then supported them in implementing their ideas even though there were other obvious options that could have addressed the circumstances even better. However, seeing no damage coming from their ideas, she let them go for it. This is a classic example of all the steps involved in combining the transformational and transactional leadership traits, and in providing an environment to build autonomy and empowerment. I was amazed at this story, and know there are others like it out there –I’d love to hear some of your examples.

What’s the point of this week’s blog? I just wanted to point out that being a leader isn’t that simple anymore. Back in the early days, the fields of leadership and management were studied and written about in “either or” scenarios (either transformational or transactional; either building autonomy or aligning to the organization’s vision). Now days, leaders are tasked with blending all the best ideas gleaned from research and combining recipe ingredients to match the circumstances. I hope some of you reading this blog will feel comfort for those days when you face unusual circumstances and you aren’t sure how to resolve the issue. It might be that you have to use a combination of elements previously thought to be contradictory, as we’ve just discussed.

Until next time, take good care.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lewis, F.M. (2006). Autonomy in Nursing, Journal of Nursing, 3(2), 2006

Nguni, Samuel, Sleegers, Peter, & Denessen, Eddie. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness& School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.

Rock, D. (2008) SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others, NeuroLeadership Journal, 1(1), 296-320.