Will anyone call in for the meeting?

I'm not sure it will be enough.  I can show my team members that they can trust me.  I can show them compassion.  I can support them.  And I can give them hope.  But will they still show up to the meetings?

I often get poor attendance on conference calls.  This might improve as I apply the ideas in "Strengths Based Leadership" and "Stomp the Elephant in the Office".  But I'm not sure it will be enough.  Why?  Because these people don't report to me.  If I do everything right, they may want to follow my lead.  But they won't do this if their leadership pulls them in a different direction.

I often make the mistake of trying to persuade the members of the team to take a given path without first persuading their leadership.  I'm too eager to penetrate the details with the people who are going to do the work.  I'm not interested in describing the work in brief, general terms to get their leadership aligned.  But without getting their leadership aligned, I may build enthusiasm that ends with frustration when team members are told by their bosses not to participate.

I'm still going to work on trust, compassion, support, and hope for team members.  I want to see what happens.  It feels like the right strategy.  But I've got to work much harder than in the past to also align with leadership.

What followers want from Leaders

I'm also reading "Strengths Based Leadership" by Tom Rath and Barry Conchie.  This is one of several books published by the same Gallup organization famous for it's Gallup Polls and Surveys.  What I like about these books is that they base their recommendations on exhaustive, objective research.  Most business books develop theories based on more limited experiences and on speculation.  These other books MIGHT be right, but I like the way the Gallup books are built on empirical data.

What I've read in the book that has had the biggest impact on me is its findings on what FOLLOWERS want.  To evaluate what makes a good people, they did a survey of 10,000 people who FOLLOW leaders.  The survey was simple.  First they asked if the person ever had a leader who made a positive impact on their life.  Then they asked them to list four words describing what the leader provided for them.  This was "fill in the blank", not multiple choice, lest they bias the responses.

The Gallup folks looked for the most common themes and came up with these four:

• Trust (as in the leader was someone who the follower trusted, someone with integrity and honesty who they could depend on)
• Compassion (the follower felt that the leader cared about them personally)
• Stability (the follower felt safe with the leader because the leader was making sure the organization was stable and that the work environment had some continuity rather than constant change for the sake of change)
• Hope (the follower felt that the leader was guiding them toward a better future)

These themes seem to explain which of the teams that I lead are going well and which teams have few people showing up to any conference calls.  For one information systems team that is going well, I've had lots of opportunities to welcome conflicting opinions and adjust based on input (trust), to spend quality one-on-one time addressing individual concerns (compassion), to show that I can gain alignment with leadership at all 5 sites so that our initial proposals don't get reworked during rollout (stability), and to define a couple of big improvements in systems that everyone is excited about (hope).  In the calls that have had poor participation and low ownership, above all, I've failed to meet many deadlines due to conflicting priorities (loss of trust) and  the changes in timing and priorities probably have affected confidence in future of the project (lack of stability).  It isn't too late to address these issues, but it helps to get clear on their priority.

Respect the Sololist

My favorite way to meditate is to listen to instrumental music on Pandora.com, bringing my awareness back and forth between my breathing and the sound, imagining at times that I'm breathing the music in and breathing it out.  If the Buddha had an iPhone, I'm guessing he would have enjoyed this form of meditation, too!  But often I lose focus, as I assume most folks do.  I'm no longer hearing the lead, no longer appreciating the texture of the guitar, the vibration of the cymbals.  The entire melody escapes me and my mind wanders to thoughts of past or future.

One trick that helps me sometimes is to think about respecting the sololist.  Who has the lead right now in the song?  The saxophonist?  The pianist?  The vocalist?  I try to imagine that this person is someone I care about--a son or spouse or friend--and I owe them the respect of listening to what they are playing and how it sounds.  I try to create a sense of personal connection with whichever musician is currently the center of the music's attention. What emotion are they conveying?  Can I feel it too?

More Elephant Stomping

I had more opportunities in the last few days to practice maintaining awareness of the idea that the people around me are naturally motivated.  I was trying to solve a problem on one of the worst performing production lines in a poor performing plant.  The plant has had a dysfunctional culture for many years.  They can't seem to complete any follow-ups, define any problems, use logic, or come up with solid action plans.  I always thought of the culture as being passive-aggressive with outsiders, nodding when they hear recommendations but having no intention of following through.  I knew before I flew down there on Monday that it was going to be a challenge to look at these folks and convince myself, "These people are naturally motivated.  All I need to do is convince them that something will lead to a great result, and they will want to do it."

I repeated the mantra to myself over and over as I worked on the factory floor, "They want what is best.  They want the line to run well.  They are motivated to contribute more to the company than they have before, and they want to make life at the plant more pleasant for everyone."

Did it work?  At a minimum, I felt that they sensed and appreciated the positive nature of my thoughts.  They felt that I was focusing on our common ground.  Our common desire for more success, better performance, and a better work environment.  Our common human condition.  Theirs is an unhealthy work culture, with self-defeating habits and attitudes.  They may no longer believe that they can solve their problems.  But the desire to be released of these problems, the desire to perform, the desire to have an enjoyable experience at work never goes away.  Hope fades, but the desire remains.  And this is what I tried to focus on--not the doubts or sarcasm or feelings of futility.  But the fact that we all wanted the same thing.  And then I sent the message that I was there to help them achieve that thing.

I did, in fact, solve several problems.  And they were motivated to help, at least while I was there.  I'm sure they will still be dysfunctional when it comes to completing tasks while I'm not there.  But the working experience was pleasant, I felt appreciated, and they were willing to align to my recommendations the whole time I was there.  It definitely felt like a better experience than some of my past visits in which I've focused more on the negativity.  Forget the negativity.  Look past it at the shared desire for something better, and emphasize that in all of my communication to awaken the motivation that has been buried by years of hopelessness.

Stomp the Elephant

I've been reading "Stomp the Elephant in the Office", by Steven Vannoy and Craig Ross.  One of the key ideas, as I understand it, is that people at work are often far more motivated than we think.  They may not be energized right now about anything they are doing.  They may say no when you ask them to do something.  So we assume that they don't care or that they are lazy.  The authors of this book, however, claim that most people are NOT lazy.  If you can persuade them that a task or project will improve their lives or the lives of others, the authors claim that most people will surprise you with their desire to do the task.  The authors say that people are naturally motivated, naturally inclined to get excited if they really believe the work will make a difference.  Years of boring work might make them skeptical and cynical that the project WILL make a difference.  But if they can be convinced of this, they respond.

I'm not sure if Vannoy and Ross are oversimplifying here.  There are so many differences between people with regard to empathy, energy level, etc.  Can we really generalize this way?  It sounds too good to be true; as if laziness and indifference to others are myths.

But it's worth trying.  What do I have to lose?  So, for the last few weeks, I've been playing with this concept at work.  I've got a project that requires a lot of people located in 6 cities who DON'T report to me to do a lot of work for me.  Just to see what happens, whenever I get a lack of cooperation to do a task, I've had one primary strategy:  explain the benefits of the task for people in the company and for profit and loss.  I'm telling myself to assume that the only thing I need to do to gain cooperation is explain the benefits.  Then, assume that the people will be naturally motivated to do the work, as Vannoy and Ross claim they will be.  As much as possible, I'm avoiding other motivation techniques like talking to people's bosses, pestering folks, etc.

It's probably too early to tell how this is working.  I'm still in the process of explaining the benefits of this complex project.  But my gut is that it's been helpful so far.  And it feels better than going to people's bosses to complain about lack of cooperation.  Less damaging to relationships.

It's my Birthday

I turned 51 today. I have a wife, two kids, and two dogs. I knew that I couldn't make it all about me today, just because it is my birthday. How to find the balance?

It was especially important that I help my wife, Chris, with chores because I learned something about myself that I wish was not true. I want to have a "To Do" list going into the weekend, and then I assume it is "my" list to do whenever I see fit. All that matters, I think, is that I get "my" list done. The problem is that it is NOT "my" list. These are the things that WE need to do as a family. This is "our" list. The choices I make, from moment to moment, need to reflect what WE need as a family, and to reflect this when WE need it.

Case in point: my mom was coming over yesterday afternoon (Saturday) to visit our family for my birthday. What did WE need to do? WE needed to pick up the house, do laundry, and make hors doeuvres. What did I do? I worked on MY "To Do List". I made a flyer for my son that he would not need until Monday. I remember thinking that I was making a good choice because it was on the "To Do" list that Chris and I had agreed to. So it was something we were both good with, right? The problem is that I don't think of us as a team with a shared goal. If I did think of us as a team, and if I thought of the "To Do" list as a FAMILY list, I would think, moment to moment, "What does the FAMILY need right now?" Then it would have been obvious: we need to get ready for the visit.

The change I need to make in my mindset is this: it is OUR "To Do" List, not something I go off and do alone as soon as it is made.