leadership free throws

Here’s where many leaders go wrong: they don’t acquire, practice, and develop leadership skills.

It’s been said many times before, but leadership is not about the job. At its most fundamental level, the ability to lead is the ability to influence others. Your job position or title doesn’t make you a leader – it merely gives you the formal opportunity to lead and the responsibility to lead.

Leadership isn’t a title, it’s a skill set. But, for some reason we don’t tell managers and supervisors that. We keep it a secret and they flounder either blaming themselves for not being a genetically gifted leader or they blame their team for being so stupid and difficult. Unfortunately, both approaches are just playing the victim and keeping the solution outside of the leader’s control. Effective leadership isn’t innate and it’s not something that only works with the employees we like. Effective leadership is simply a well-honed skill set.

If leadership is a skill then it is something that can be taught and improved. As with any skill, some people are probably more naturally inclined than others, but all of us can improve through practice and effort. The challenge is that we don’t. We don’t study. We don’t practice. We don’t obsess about what went right, what went wrong, and how to do it better next time. We don’t work really stinkin’ hard to get better as a leader. It seems easier not to.

Professional athletes relentlessly practice the fundamentals of their sport. Why? So in the difficult moments, they can react correctly and deliver results reflexively. They spend hours mastering the most basic skills of their sport over and over and over again. You will never hear a successful pro-athlete say, “I never practice – I know that stuff already. I just like to go out there and wing it – keeps it more natural.” But you will hear amateurs say it.

It’s the same with leadership. I’ve met plenty of leaders who seek to improve the fundamentals, who strive to find better ways to communicate, give feedback, coach, develop, hire, discipline, align the team, adapt and adjust to different personalities, influence without authority, etc. Leaders who are always looking for new ways to become even more effective.

I’ve also met plenty of leaders who say, “I already know this stuff. Why should I have to learn this touchy-feely junk?”

Guess who gets better results?

We can choose to do the work to become better leaders or we can choose to make right now as good as we are ever going to be. Do you develop the skills to get better or do you settle for getting by? Your call.

it’s not about HR (repost)

This was originally posted a couple of weeks ago and I’m reposting it to celebrate today’s Carnival of HR. Enjoy!

 

It’s not about Human Resources. It’s never about Human Resources. HR is a means to an end, not an end onto itself. It’s about creating great business results by building phenomenally good companies by finding, hiring, developing, and supporting fantastic people so they can make the right decisions and take the best actions.

When we make it about HR we turn inward, build the walls and fill the moat, and start checking the boxes regardless of whether or not they make sense. We hide behind legislation, regulation, and policy. We focus on NOT GETTING SUED. We operate out of perpetual fear and we marginalize ourselves and our contribution. We overbuild processes and policies that weigh people down with complexity.

When we make it about getting really great business results through people (and that’s the only way to get great business results) we become inclusive, expansive, and invaluable. We are aware of and help the company meet it’s legal obligations, but we see that as the start, not the finish line. We build, honor, assist, and create. We push for what’s right and what’s smart. We hold ourselves accountable for performance, outcomes, and results. We understand that people are our customers and provide the highest levels of service. We strive to make things simple.

And we get to choose. Every day we get to choose. What are you going to choose today?

Great stuff happening on today’s Carnival of HR (yes, I’m a contributor for this one). Big thanks to Gareth for hosting it.

Gareth Jones's avatarInside My Head...

Well here it is folks – my first ever hosting of the illustrious Carnival of HR and what an honour. Hopefully it won’t be my last 😉 To make things a little more interesting I decided to pick a theme, which turned out to be “challenging the future of the organisation”. It’s been a hotly debated topic of late on twitter and the blogoshere and I’m sure the conversation will run and run. You can see my brief to bloggers here.

So without further ado, lets take a deep dive into the contributions and what a great crop they are too. First up is a new acquaintance of mine, Broc Edwards, or @foolwithaplan as he is known on twitter. In his first post for Carnival – Why hierarchies? Pizza and Beer Syndrome – he explores why most organisations ‘settle’ for the status quo when there appear to be…

View original post 1,404 more words

hr: bring the noise (repost)

I originally posted  this a couple of months back and am reposting it because I think it is an important topic worth repeating.

 

Gareth Jones recently blogged on the question, “HR: Where’s the Passion?” There are some massively talented, bright, and passionate people in HR. I’ve worked with a few, met a few, and regularly read blogs by a few. There are some really inspiring superstars out there, but on the average…? Gareth got me thinking a bit and maybe you really don’t see much passion overall.

I think HR is one of the best fields there is because it lives at the intersection of Business and Humans. Companies die, survive, or thrive based on the people they attract, retain, and develop and HR is thedepartment that can make that happen. What could be cooler?! (If you want more of my take on the awesomeness of HR, try why HR rocks or human resources’ top goal? .)

Of course, I also wrote why I wouldn’t hire an HR person for an HR job so even though I’m passionate about the field I do have concerns. So, as Gareth asks, where is the passion? I don’t know for sure, but do have a few thoughts:

  • Until recently, HR was very administrative as a field and it still is in many organizations. Processing and filing paperwork as the focus of a job does not require passion to be successful. In fact, having passion probably makes you ill-suited for any long term success at the job.
  • HR in some organizations can get overly focused on bureaucracy and make policy enforcement the core function. Again, not a place that rewards passion.
  • HR managers who believe their #1 job is to prevent lawsuits end up with HR departments that are fearful, rigid, and focused on everything you can’t do instead of what you can do. Passionate people want to be engaged and  active and accomplishing, not timid roadblocks.
  • HR theoretically extends throughout the organization yet can end up very siloed or excluded. That doesn’t attract or keep people who want to make a difference.
  • In times past, HR was often a dumping ground: a place for people not meeting expectations who the company didn’t have the heart to get rid of or a place to “promote” secretaries to when the company didn’t know what else to do with them. These were people who didn’t love HR to begin with and were just coasting out the end of their careers.
  • HR is a tough, tough job. Employees and managers are often only involved with HR when things are intense and going badly. Tough decisions have to be made. Laws and regulations are often ambiguous, confusing, or even contradictory. People get nervous when you call them, fearing the worst. Not many people stop by just to say thanks. So, even those who enter the field all full of passion and zeal can get beaten down pretty quick.
  • Finally, because of all this, I think there are very few role models to teach newcomers that it’s ok to be enthusiastic and love your work and do great stuff and HR is the place to do that.

But, I think it’s changing. I’m seeing more and more blogs by folks who see HR as the place to make a difference. Social media is letting like-minded folk across the planet connect and share ideas and see that they are not alone. We are getting more and more role models in the field.

Speak up, make some noise, and rock the HR banner a little higher!

why hierarchies? the pizza and beer syndrome

Why do organizations look the way they do? Why are command and control hierarchies so popular? They seem like relics from days gone past. We spend a lot of time complaining about all their sins and proposing alternatives so why don’t we see flatter, collaborative, and self-directed organizations? They should be more adaptable, create more engagement, and be higher performing. Yet we keep perpetuating the command and control hierarchies that we spend so much time railing against. Why do we say we want one thing and make the choices and actions that lead to another?

Good questions and here’s the answer (you might want to write this down): pizza and beer.

No, really. Call it the “Pizza and Beer Syndrome” if you like. We can learn a lot about organizations by looking at human behavior. After all, organizations are a reflection of the philosophies, strategies, and approaches of individuals.

As much as we might wish otherwise, us humans are pretty good at choosing what’s easy and pleasurable over what’s best. Consider what most people choose when given the long-term, day after day after day choice between:

1. Eating super lean and healthy, drinking only water, exercising vigorously every day, having regular tests and check-ups at the doctor’s office, getting the proper amount of sleep, etc.

OR

2. Staying up too late, sitting on the couch, watching movies, and eating pizza and drinking beer.

It doesn’t take a 10-year study or deep statistical analysis  to figure out what most people choose. Look around: people are getting heavier by the day. That’s the Pizza and Beer Syndrome: we know what we need to do to create the results we want yet we choose the opposite. When given the choice we tend to choose easy and good enough over best; the ok over the exceptional (Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, you’re a superstar. Keep it up. I’m talking about the other 95%.)

Oh man, that answer chafes. I hate that answer. But when it comes down to it, we can argue all day why open, flatter, collaborative, and self-directed approaches are better. We can loudly proclaim that we hate hierarchies and we want – must have – flat, collaborative, and self-directed organizations. Then we choose hierarchies. Perhaps because hierarchies are easy and good enough rather than the best. Consider:

1. Command and control hierarchies work ok across a wide range of situations.

2. Effectively creating open, flat, collaborative, and self-directed organizations is really, really hard.

3. Us humans like to stick with what we know works, even in situations when what we know doesn’t really work.

Wait a minute. Am I actually saying that command and control hierarchies are the best solution? Nope. I don’t think they are any more than I think pizza and beer are the cornerstone of a high performance diet. I’m saying that to most people, in most situations, hierarchies are good enough compared to the effort required to create and maintain a flatter organization. I personally prefer the open, self-directed organizations, but I get why companies are slow (resistant?) to adopt a different structure. Let’s take a look at these three reasons in a bit more detail.

1. Command and control hierarchies work ok across a wide range of situations.

We want and seek the one universally perfect solution, but it doesn’t exist. Different situations and problems call for different answers and solutions. All organizational structures have their advantages and disadvantages and, like it or not, hierarchies are a valid option. Hierarchies have limitations, yet can (and do) work.

Hierarchies have a built-in organization and structure that is easy to set up and understand: do what your boss says and tell your employees what to do. Simple. This simplicity makes hierarchical structures robust and durable in most situations. They may not always be the best answer, but tend to work good enough. Hierarchies are very tolerant of dysfunctional culture, poor leadership and disengaged employees (truly – just look around).

Also, I suspect that most of the complaints about hierarchies are more about lousy companies than the organizational structure. Quick question: when we look at the alternatives, would you rather work in a hierarchy with great leadership and top notch peers or a flat, collaborative organization with dysfunctional relationships, mutually exclusive and competing goals, no feedback, and no support? A poor idea done well is often superior to a great idea done poorly.

 

2. Effectively creating and maintaining an open, flat, collaborative, and self-directed organization is really, really hard.

Creating and maintaining open, self-directed organizations is difficult. Hierarchies are a known model. We know how they work and how to think about them. Effectively using alternative structures requires thinking about leadership, direction, structure, and work differently and playing by a different set of rules. That’s not a bad thing, but it is more challenging.

Whereas a hierarchy will survive dysfunction with little effort needed to maintain the structure an open organization requires much, much more of the leadership, people, culture. It also requires diligent and ongoing maintenance.

Valve is a software company that caught several bloggers attention when its employee handbook surfaced a little while back. I discussed it here, but the gist is that it is a completely flat and collaborative organization. How collaborative? Check out their current job openings and you’ll see one of the options is: “Have a better idea?” Asking candidates to suggest a new job doesn’t work in a check-the-box organization with a rigid structure and top-down-the-boss-is-always-right management. Read their employee handbook and you’ll either get excited by the possibilities it suggests or completely freak out and declare it an impossibility.

To go flat is hard because it creates ambiguity. It requires people who are self-managing and self-driven AND who are able to work with others, accepting of different perspectives and styles, and willing to design the future instead of waiting for the boss to define it for them. In my experience that’s a relatively scarce combination. There are a lot of exceptional people out there who would not do well in that kind of environment.

Also, I hate to say it, but I suspect that the average person would prefer a hierarchy if given the choice. Going flatter requires more individual responsibility and results focus while hierarchies often allow individuals to give up their personal responsibility and let others direct and control them. Many (most?) people don’t like or want responsibility, are not driven, and just want to do a consistent and certain job and then go home. They want to know EXACTLY what is expected, do it, and get on with their lives. They want a clear, visible career path and routine (mundane) expectations. It sounds like a private hell to me, BUT it is a common attitude. Flatten an organization containing a large number of those folks and you’ll see frustration, mayhem, and chaos. Or maybe just bewilderment and complete inaction as they sit down and wait for someone to tell them what to do.

Likewise, a flat organization creates places additional demands on leadership. It requires people who can lead but don’t want or need the glory, status, and control that is so natural in a hierarchy. It requires more influence and less command and control. Someone who can and wants to lead and influence others without making it about themselves is a rarity. Collaborative and self-directed requires giving up a lot of certainty and control for the possibilities that the group can create. That’s far beyond scary for many, many people. They’ll stick with the known, thank you very much.

Further, we just don’t do a good job training people to be collaborative and self-directed, to thrive in ambiguity, give and receive feedback, to be autonomous and self-directed, etc. We don’t yet develop the skills required to move away from hierarchies. That doesn’t mean we can’t, just that it’s one more step.

So a flat organization requires exceptional people, leaders who think bigger than themselves, and an organizational tolerance for ambiguity. We can forget bureaucratic box checking and that right there will prevent many HR groups from ever getting behind changing the organization. Easy and good enough trounces best. Known evil is welcomed over unfamiliar good.

 

3. Us humans like to stick with what we know works, even in situations when what we know doesn’t really work.

We have very few examples and role models of flat, collaborate, etc. organizations and there is tremendous comfort and safety in doing something the way everyone else does it – even when it’s not the best way. There’s the old trader’s saying: “No one ever got fired for buying IBM.” It may not be the best possible choice, but it gets the job done and no one will fault you for sticking with the tried and true even when it underperforms. They will, however, dismiss the unconventional success as a fluke and absolutely nail you to the wall for trying something unusual if it doesn’t work out. Better to fail with the known than risk success with the unknown.

Also, thinking back to pizza and beer, when faced with a change that requires effort, discipline, and a different way of doing things, we tend to quit when it gets difficult OR we go back to our old habits after initial success. For example, a new exercise and diet program is painful and we often give up before we start seeing results OR we lose some weight but then slack on the discipline and drift back toward our old habits.

*           *           *

In many ways, I think that the majority of folks ultimately want hierarchies. Sure, we say we don’t. We gripe and complain about them. But it’s like diet and exercise. We say we don’t want to be overweight and out of shape. We complain and talk about alternatives. But, we don’t make the choices and take the actions that would create a different outcome. Flatter orgs, like being in shape, appear to require higher levels of commitment, diligence, and discipline. AND, I suspect that, like being in shape, the perceived benefits far exceed the perceived cost of the effort required.

That said, the difficulty in getting it right leads me to believe that those organizations that do get it figured out have a distinct and difficult to copy advantage. If you truly want to win, if you’re willing to risk being different to be the best, take note. If you’re ok with the status quo then carry on.

The Pizza and Beer Syndrome. We know what we need to do to create the results we want yet we choose the opposite. Sure, I’ll exercise in the morning. Or maybe tomorrow afternoon. Wonder what’s on TV tonight?

 

 

do robot overlords have more fun?

Why is FUN at work so taboo? What is so bad about enjoying our time and our days. I’m a big fan of the “Fun is Good” approach by Mike Veeck. Mike has managed to create a unique and successful business with the philosophy that when employees have fun they are more engaged, work harder, and provide superior customer service. When employees have fun, customers have fun. When customers have fun they tell people and come back.

A cornerstone to his approach is the idea that, although they don’t take themselves very seriously, they take their business very seriously. How unique, different, and refreshing is that? I’m a big fan of businesses (and people) willing to be different and authentically stand apart. I’ve previously written on: playing it safe is too risky, vanilla passion, and fear of a human business (the freak flag advantage) so I won’t spend too much time on it here.

This weekend, while playing around on ebay I came across a business willing to have fun and stand apart, yet be laser focused on the business. I know nothing about the business other than what they posted in their auction, I have no idea if they back it up or not, but I REALLY respect their approach.

Lotus of Portland is selling a 2011 Lotus Elise in “chrome orange”. I don’t know how long the auction will be up, but you can see it here. The ad reads (in part):

This is our very last NEW Elise. Lotus is no longer making these!

You know what this 2011 Lotus Elise SC in Chrome Orange doesn’t have? Navigation. Sure you could add one. But ask yourself this: don’t cars do too much for us already? Cushy heated 74-way adjustable powered seats with memory for eight people and lower lumbar support, 34-speaker Bose Kardon theater surround sound with 3D center screen technology, more than one cup holder… they all isolate the driver, you, from the experience and thrill of driving.

You know what this Elise SC does have? The Touring Pack, Lifestyle Paint, hard top, and Star Shield. Also available as standard equipment is an absolute zero-likelihood that this will turn against you in the inevitable global robot uprising. Sure, we’ve been enslaving our robot companions for almost a century, and it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ before our iPods™, Roombas®, and Swiffer WetJets force us to do their insidious mechanical bidding. But rest assured that your Lotus will still obey your every command during the Robocalypse.

And when that day comes we, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

 

It finishes with:

Lotus of Portland is Oregon’s only official Lotus dealership and service center. We have one goal: Simply to be the best Lotus dealership in America.

Focusing on the guiding principles of Lotus, we keep everything as uncomplicated as possible for the greatest in speed and performance. You will deal with only one person from start to finish and you will receive the best car buying experience of your life. Anything less is unacceptable. Resistance is futile

This is a $60k sports car and they’re trying to sell it by going on about robot overlords? Hilarious. They’ve taken the possible negative of a bare bones sports car with no luxury (and few standard) features a and a radioactive paint color and turned it into a funny and eye catching positive. Would this work in a luxury car ad? Nope. But anyone excited about dropping that much money into an impractical car that SCREAMS “LOOK AT ME, ME, ME!” probably has a sense of humor about things. (Yes, I want one and I want to buy it from them. Unfortunately, I’m a few bucks short this week…)

Then they draw a big line in the sand about with a bold claim about how seriously they take their customer’s business. They tell us that anything less than the best car buying experience of our lives is unacceptable. Average, vanilla dealership for the masses? Um, no. And thank goodness.

Again, I have NO experience with them and don’t know how well they back up their claims, but I love their stance. It makes me realize just how much bigger I need to be playing in my own job. Bring on the fun!

 

descent // death spiral

Profit equals revenue minus expenses. To increase profits you can increase revenue, reduce expenses, or both. Any savvy business strives to be fiscally responsible and keep a close eye on expenses. However, it is possible to cut the wrong expenses and save money right into bankruptcy.

As a regular customer, I have a front row seat watching a formerly solid corner store / gas station implode under the management of new owners. It’s sad, but they are providing a nice case study on how to run a successful business right into the ground. Some things you might want to avoid doing in your own business:

Ask the long-time manager to take a 50% pay cut. Get a new manager willing to accept management responsibility for a shade over minimum wage.  Instead of paying staff well, “save” money by hiring and training new employees who lack the skills, experience, or options to command a living wage. Ignore the cost of excessively high turnover and horrendously poor customer service.

Assume employees are interchangeable and replaceable and treat them poorly. Refuse to realize that in a small community the your customers are friends and family of your employees. Don’t notice how a negative reputation is rapidly spreading throughout the area. Don’t keep shelves stocked, even when the items are clearly sitting in inventory in the back room.

Defer maintenance and repairs. Instead, just hang “out of order” signs on everything that doesn’t work.

Irritate your vendors by not paying them reliably and / or don’t restock key items to save a few dollars. For example: be the only gas station in the area going into the weekend without gas.

Create a noticeable drop in both the number of customers, the number of regular customers, and the sales per customer.

As sales and revenue drop at avalanche speed, accelerate your savings by cutting employee hours so you are perpetually understaffed, allowing more items to be out of stock, and perhaps becoming even slower to pay your vendors.

It’s a neat cycle: the more corners you cut to save money, the lower your customer service drops, the fewer the customers you have and the more corners you need to cut to save money. Repeat until annihilation.

run what ya brung

It was his first time sparring in front of judges and the first of his age group to compete and my son wasn’t faring well. His opponent, the eventual second-place finisher, was clearly experienced with martial arts tournaments, knew what was expected, and was significantly taller. With about 8 extra inches of legs, his competitor had a large advantage and knew how to use it. My son made a great attempt, but there would be no trophy for him.

If it were a movie, he would have won against the odds and earned the respect of his mortal enemy while learning to appreciate true friendship, etc., etc. In real life, he was just a slightly overwhelmed six year old trying his best and probably wishing he were somewhere else.

We all have different strengths and weaknesses. No matter how hard we try, we may never fully get rid of weaknesses or be able to learn or develop to the level of other people’s strengths. We’re not all 6’ tall, we don’t all have 150 IQs, we don’t all start life with a nice trust fund, we haven’t all been to an Ivy League school. Yes, life is not fair. Agreed. Move on.

It’s cliché to say, but it doesn’t matter where we start or what our innate limitations are. Not because with enough heart and perseverance we can create a Hollywood ending. No, that’s the happy myth we are routinely sold.

It doesn’t matter because there isn’t a thing we can do about it. NOTHING. We cannot change our starting point. So not much use putting any thought into it.

The more important question is: What are you going to do about it? How can you use your strengths, weaknesses, and the package of brains and heart and talent and interests and life experience that is you to your advantage?

 

 

the paradox of letting go

Jason Lauritsen did a post on the idea of letting go that really resonated for me. I strongly recommend dropping by his blog and reading it. He did a great bringing to the forefront some ideas and issues that have been kicking around in my own mind for quite a while. This post is a result of the ideas Jason sparked.

I can’t control everything. I know this. I mean, I know this in an intellectual sort of way. I have a much more difficult time knowing it on an emotional level. I “know”, but I don’t always “do”. I can explain, but I don’t always act accordingly.

Four decades and a couple of years of life lessons have taught me that the more I try to control, the smaller I must play. Playing bigger means going out beyond my comfort zones into the fields of the unproven, unknown, and uncertain. Scary stuff out there. To stay out there very long I’d have to accept a lack of control – to feel out of control – and trust beyond myself. To stay inside the mental fences I’ve staked out and patrolled and have complete control over is very, very comfortable. Yet, I can never play bigger. And playing bigger is really, really important to me.

I read a quote the other day. I can’t remember who said it, but the gist was: If you know how to accomplish your dreams, you’re not dreaming big enough. That’s it! Control reins my dreams in because it forces them to be small enough to understand and plan out.

Playing bigger, bigger, bigger requires letting go. It means accepting and allowing the freakingscary sized dream and committing to it and taking it on anyway. No detailed planning. Not even a full understanding of what the dream can grow to be yet. Only a direction.

*          *          *

The lesson I keep coming back to and re-learning has been said by many people in many ways. It is simply to focus on purpose rather than outcome. Outcome is about control. It’s holding on tight. It’s about insisting on results that I may not have total control over. It is actually debilitating, because it limits me to what I think I’m capable of rather than opening me up to the potential I’m truly capable of.

Think of it this way. It would be focusing on results if I were to enter a marathon with the goal of winning. And it would be ridiculous and frustrating. But I’ve got to have goals, you say? There’s no way I can control or even influence the drive, genetics, training, and experience of other runners. But I can choose to focus on purpose. I can choose to focus on being the best runner I can be; being prepared, rested, having fun, and pushing beyond my previous times.

No matter how much it looks like it, the race is never against others. Only with myself. I can never be the world’s best writer, speaker, facilitator, husband, dad, etc. But I can be the best writer, speaker, facilitator, husband, dad, etc I can possibly be today. I can pour my heart into everything, not knowing where it is going but seeing where it takes me.

Everyday.