June 30, 2009

Many managers are trying to determine how to develop high performing teams. They rake through the variables, attempting to find the “final solution,” only to be dismayed when employees continue to underperform.

Let’s look at the numbers: 72% of the workforce is disengaged (Gallup); 66% of corporate strategies are never executed (Ernst and Young); in one year $544 billion dollars were lost due to disengaged workforce (Inc. Magazine). As the list goes on, we can logically conclude that the employees are at fault, right? In fact, some are just out-right lazy and have no sense of what a solid work-ethic is, yes?

The fact that some people embrace the above logic is a significant “elephant in the office” for companies. And it’s costing them in mighty ways.

Consider that the primary reason for poor performing teams is the leadership being applied. Sadly, all too often, the suspect manager rarely looks at how they’re leading, but rather points the blame at the workforce.

As a friend shared, “That’s like blaming the bread for burning in the toaster.”

This blaming approach (called the B-Lame Game in our book, Stomp the Elephant in the Office) distracts teams and breaks the trust and communication necessary to move forward and achieve.

Burnt Toast: Up as well as Down

Of course, the “it’s-the-bread’s-fault-for-burning” approach works when you attempt to lead upwards as well. Think of it: “Yes! If I criticize my senior leadership enough, if I talk behind their back, if I display bad body language – if I make them feel the heat and burn – then they’ll change! Yeah, that’ll do it.” This approach is a waste as the logic is flawed.

Do you know someone who’s using the “toaster approach?” Are they burning the bread? Help them understand: The problem isn’t bad people. It’s an unproductive leadership approach…and a weak culture that tolerates such.

The midterm elections in Mexico are approaching. On July 5th Mexicans will vote for and elect mayors and other representatives. There is a developing story: A movement is gaining momentum – one where people are encouraged to vote “nulo.” Nulo means ‘no one,’ as in “I’m checking the box that says ‘none of the above candidates will do for me.’”

Many Mexicans are prepared to share their discontent with the people they have elected in the past to represent them.

What does this have to do with you? Consider the possibility that millions of people show up for work every day and vote “nulo.” They are saying, “I’m here for the paycheck. I’m not giving any more than the required effort to get the job done. Oh, and when is it Friday?”

Too many people have lost faith in leadership.

And here’s the HUGE elephant in the office: How does leadership respond? Too many leaders get upset – angry – at the lack of accountability on their team. They can’t understand why people won’t take responsibility, won’t give the extra effort, and won’t make decisions quickly. So they…make the fatal mistake of demanding more. They make more policies. They attempt to falsely motivate. And they stoop to blaming others.

And the cycle continues, because employees shake their head – and vote ‘nulo” even more often.

This ageless doom-cycle has to stop. Companies big (such as OI) and small (such as TP Mechanical), and in every sort of industry, such as software (LearnShare) and food (Nestle) are proving that there’s a more effective way to have employees vote more than “nulo.” The companies mentioned above (among others) all start with an understanding that:

• Everyone wants leadership, but they don’t want to be bossed around;
• Everyone wants to succeed, not so they can make other people rich, but so they can feel successful;
• And that leadership status in an organization has nothing to do with levels of intellect, wisdom, or the desire to win.

This has nothing to do with “just being nice,” or lowering standards. In fact, it has everything to do with raising results. Because people will come to work and vote with every ounce of energy they have – but only if you give them a reason to.

Using Work-Place-Crack has become so common, many business leaders accept the behavior as normal. Consequently, this “elephant in the office” has earned the nickname “The Silent Results Killer.”

Work-Place-Crack is the freebase form of the highly addictive substance with the street name of CTA, or Can’t-Take-Accountability. Initially, employees use the crack approach because of the intense pleasure they derive from avoiding responsibility. But like any addictive substance, increased amounts of the approach or behavior are required to achieve the high.

These are the top three signs you’ve got a crack addict on your team:

1) The person cracks when it’s time to make a decision. Every decision means change. This means risk is involved. The resulting pressure can be too much – thus the employee “cracks” and avoids making decisions.

2) They crack when events or results don’t go their way. Like a child in a candy store who isn’t allowed to put their hands on anything, some employees “crack” when they don’t get their way. Their emotional cracks ensure this person is doomed to a future of failure as their focus will not allow them to see the opportunities that lie in every situation.

3) Employees crack when they misinterpret outcomes as failures. Instead of seeing every outcome as an invitation to learn and move forward, these addicts see failure – and crack and quit.

And now the most horrific fact of all: In an effort to eradicate the use of Work-Place-Crack, most organizations actually perpetuate and increase its use!

In next week’s blog we’ll explore the three steps things bosses are doing to create Work-Place-Crack addicts – and the proven method used to eliminate this elephant in the office, this “silent results killer.”

There’s a little known fact of Mount Rushmore that, once you know it, changes how you look at the colossal carvings of the four U.S. presidents on the side of the granite mountain in South Dakota.

From left to right, the images of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln appear. But that wasn’t the intended order. After finishing Washington’s face, the sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, began work on Jefferson’s image to the left of Washington. For 18 months they hammered away at the stone, and repeatedly they ran into difficulties: the granite had too many cracks to hold the carving. They had to make a change.

As you approach the half way point of 2009, what adaptations are you making to ensure your goals, your vision is achieved? Too many leaders make these crucial mistakes and create elephants for their teams: 1) They stubbornly insist plans be executed as originally designed. And 2) they think they can advance results by focusing on what’s not working and who or what is to blame.

Can you imagine if these two approaches had been used at Mount Rushmore? If “stubborn insistence” would have been used, it’s likely Jefferson’s face would have fallen down the mountain by now. And, if they had focused on what’s not working and blame, they could have convinced themselves that the project – the vision – was not achievable. And we would be left with only Washington to take a picture of.

Instead, Borglum demonstrated the same sort of leadership as the presidents he was memorializing: He allowed his vision to evolve. He refused to be confined by an original idea; his vision advanced because he didn’t use a “why we can’t” focus, and instead used a “how do we” mindset.

Consider the possibility that the second half of 2009 will reveal your greatest leadership – and that it will look far different, far greater, than you have originally imagined.

Vannoy and Ross
May 10, 2009

This is what’s taking place on the average team: Sally is a strong contributor, but she doesn’t give her ‘A’ game because Ted drives her crazy. Ted is average, and he refuses to give his ‘great’ effort until John quits taking all the credit. John’s pretty good at what he does, but he refuses to “raise the bar” until…you guessed, Sally brings her ‘A’ game.

This affair of “conditional effort” is a HUGE “elephant in the office” (and frankly marriages, as well).

Are you ‘all in’ – or not? It’s safe to say that most people live and lead with “conditional effort.” These are people who withhold their best ideas and the discretionary effort. They focus on what they are not getting from their colleagues and the company for which they work. And they often have a “people never change” mentality.

“Conditional effort” people have, well, conditioned themselves to a ho-hum life. And isn’t it ironic: They commit to giving the conditional effort to protect themselves from being hurt, but in the end, it’s their commitment to mediocrity that limits them.

Unconditional leaders know that it’s their decision to experience the exhilarating feeling of living and leading full-on. “The reward for giving the unconditional effort is as rewarding as my paycheck, if not more so,” shares a friend, Tim. “It’s also the only way I can ensure that every day is a great day – because I determine my effort.”

It’s trite, but true. One person can make a tremendous change. On the team above, the moment Sally or Ted or John change their conditioned approach – is the moment the team delivers a breakthrough.

Who do you work with that has affected your effort? Change that now.

“Conditional effort” thinkers believe life is like a game of chess. But it’s not: Because in leadership, it’s always our move.

Where will you lead – where will you stomp elephants – today?

I saw a man walking down the street with a bulb of garlic hanging around his neck. He smelled terrible, and looked worried. “Dude. Why are you doing this to us – and yourself?”

“There’s no way I’m going to fall victim to the flu pandemic,” he replied. “This garlic will save me.”

As crazy as that seems, do you know people who still lead the way they did prior to the economy becoming afflicted with its version of the flu? As outdated as wearing garlic to save yourself from the pandemic, some leaders are still ‘thinking’ and ‘leading’ like they did before – even though we all know much more effective ways to drive change within organizations.

As an example, consider accountability. “You have to hold people accountable,” is uttered in leadership meetings around the globe. Yet, how do you and your peers respond when you know you’re being forced, told or demanded to do things? It smells as much as garlic – and is as ineffective at driving change, too.

It’s time to end the misconception, the illusion, that you can force others to be accountable. Lack of accountability in an organization is a consequence, a failure of leadership; blaming others for not being accountable is often a confession that a person isn’t able to foster and create the natural accountability that resides in most employees.

Accountability is a mindset – not a task.

What strategy is your organization about to launch? Before pressing the “go” button, ask:

• To what extent are WE driving this change – rather than the people who will be doing most of the work?
• What questions can we ask to co-create ownership of this idea?
• How can we better incorporate participants’ ideas and tap into their motivations?

Are you changing with the times? Of course, you don’t have to take steps to develop accountability. You can always demand it – and wear garlic around your neck.

Where will you lead – where will you stomp elephants – today?

 My eleven-year-old daughter unearthed a new, highly technical business term: the mollusk. While preparing for a science test she asked me if I knew what such a creature was. Because I’d fallen asleep in 10^th grade science class (I didn’t tell her this), I replied, “Nope. Do tell.”

“It’s an invertebrate, meaning it has a hard outer-shell and no backbone.”

Unbeknownst to my daughter, in that moment she helped me prepare for a test – an important leadership exam. Recently, I had made a mistake at the office, and rather than owning up to it I was being defensive. And I was delaying, delaying, delaying the steps needed to rectify the situation.

Translation: I had the outer shell: defensiveness. And I had no backbone: I was unwilling to take action. I was an office mollusk.

Mollusks turn into big elephants for a lot of teams, evidenced by the fact that so many organizations move at a snail’s pace. (Those who didn’t fall asleep in science class caught the intended pun: The snail is a mollusk.) Teams with mollusk-mania often hear these phrases:

• “I could never have that conversation with him. He’s my boss.”
• “Let’s ensure we have 32 meetings to discuss this before we make a decision.”
• “I didn’t do anything wrong. He’s the butthead.”
• “Don’t even try. The budget will never get approved.”
• “I wouldn’t say anything if I were you. CYA, baby.”

It’s time to lose the defensive shell and grow a backbone. Here are the words our team will hear me utter more often:

• “I take responsibility for this.”
• “I recommend we…because…”
• “What can we do to move this forward – faster?”
• “These are the facts…and here are possible solutions.”

How strong is your backbone? Will you pass your leadership exam today?

Where will you lead – where will you stomp elephants – today?

We’ve had a special request to share our blog from February 2008 that talks about the importance of focus because it is relevant to the current business climate. So here goes.

The marathon is beginning. You’re at the starting line. Suddenly, you look at the contestants around you – and are shocked! One person has a piano strapped to their back. Another is pulling a bath tub. And there’s someone carrying an elephant!

As crazy as this sounds, consider that many people bring similar burdens to their day– and it destroys their chances for success.

Backward Focus Thinking:

• “This project is going to be tough,” says a colleague as she starts a meeting.
• “We’re going to take a hit in employee morale,” laments a teammate as an initiative is launched.
• “Productivity is going to dive when word spreads about this,” shares a well-intentioned employee – who is not adequately skilled.

Do you see the burdens these competitors are carrying as they enter the race? Yet, what they’re concerned about is real. So how do they best compete?

Forward Focus Approach:

A team led by a woman named Natasha knows the key: “It’s all about focus,” she says. “Because we go towards our focus, as we enter any change initiative, we’re going to create more of whatever we focus on.”

Natasha and her team take it further. They ensure greater results by addressing concerns directly – and in a way that creates greater results. Here’s how they turned the above concerns (burdens) around:

• “How do we simplify this project?”
• “What can we do to build employee morale through this?”
• “What steps can we take to increase productivity during this change?”

What subtle backward-focused attitudes are you carrying around? Unload those burdens by changing your focus.

Are there people on your team who are confused because the manner in which they conducted business in the past isn’t working anymore? And, do you know people who are frozen, unsure what to do next, because they’re puzzled about the future?

Welcome to the Era of Confuzzlement.

Confusion and puzzlement reign, leaving too many teams arguing about their past (a complete waste of time) and ridiculously slow to respond to the future. So slow in some cases, that the future becomes the past before they can do anything about it. Which means, of course, these teams then have new (old) material to argue about. And the cycle continues, in some cases leaving entire organizations confuzzled.

Lead by Stepping Out and Up.

“This is a crisis economy,” shares a friend named Rich. “You can’t follow the same rules. You can’t think like you used to. You have to step out and up. You have to lead different.”

Rich should know. He’s part of a team that is guiding an organization through difficult – and successful – changes. Below are some of the reasons why they’re winning. Use these steps with your team to step out and up:

1)    Create a culture where everyone is responsible for leading – everyone is expected to step out and up.

2)    Ask forward focus questions – and lots of them. Rich’s organization knows that the moment they get comfortable with “answers” that in time, people will become confuzzled. Leadership is in the questions – not the answers.

3)    Build a thinking system that responds to new ideas with “how do we make that work?” instead of the confuzzled approach of “here’s why that won’t work.”

If you are approaching business like you did three years ago, your customers will most certainly become confuzzled, too, and take their scarce dollars elsewhere.

You can lead today by clearing up the confuzzlement that grips so many. Today, step out and up.

Where will you lead – where will you stomp elephants – today?

A reader, Sara, recently wrote, “I have a boss who is a ‘fear manager.’ He has been told to read your book. If this manager stays true to form, he’ll manipulate the material of the book to show how he is the organization’s savior among incompetents. I have my doubts he is capable of recognizing himself as an ‘elephant in the office.’ Quite a conundrum, huh?”

First, congratulations to Sara: By seeking ways to effectively influence her boss, she elevates her leadership. Instead of complaining, Sara is seeking solutions.

The task in front of Sara isn’t easy. There are no “magic-leadership-wands.” But there are steps Sara can take to “lead upwards”:

Elephants are Behaviors, not People

It is vital that Sara doesn’t see her boss as the elephant; it is his behavior that is destructive. This paradigm shift in viewpoint creates new possibilities because it is easier to change behaviors than people.

If Sara’s boss, upon reading Stomp the Elephant in the Office perceives he’s being fixed, he’ll become defensive. The “fix-that-person” approach always backfires. Conversely, when the boss knows Sara is fighting for him, trust begins to build.

Focus is a key! Many people have harmful conversations behind their boss’s back. But bosses are human; their intuition informs them of these conversations. Sara can dramatically affect her culture by focusing on – and providing feedback – in those areas where the supervisor is delivering constructive behaviors. This isn’t about “being positive.” Because the boss, like everyone else,  goes toward his focus, this is about moving behaviors forward.

Developing a Relationship of Trust

As a relationship of trust develops with her boss, Sara can enter into conversations where she can address behaviors collectively. “It’s important that we function with greater integrity…” And, “Where can we all improve in this area?”

Dad was right when he said, “You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.” We applaud Sara and others who demonstrate the courage to proactively “lead upwards.”

Where will you lead – where will you stomp elephants – today?