Influence & Insight | April 2024

Leadership Story | A Great Leader Changes the World

Many of us watched the film Oppenheimer win seven Oscars at the Academy Awards a few weeks ago. It’s fair to ask what type of leader Oppenheimer was. Ben Cohen explored this question 

https://www.wsj.com/business/oppenheimer-robert-movie-oscars-los-alamos-manhattan-project-7f753525?mod=wknd_pos1

by reading two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, “American Prometheus” by Kai Bird and the late Martin J. Sherwin and “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes.

The authors shared four elements of his success that apply to any sort of project—even the ones that don’t involve gigantic explosions. Let’s take a look at three.

1. Oppenheimer the recruiter

Oppenheimer built a great team.  Cohen shares that Oppenheimer understood that hiring was essential to his team’s success and made it a priority from the very beginning, when he told a colleague they should adopt a “policy of absolutely unscrupulous recruiting of anyone we can lay hands on.” For example, when the physicist Richard Feynman turned him down because his wife was sick with tuberculosis, for example, Oppenheimer found a sanatorium close enough to Los Alamos that he could visit on the weekends. Recall years later when then 67 year old now Nobel Prize-Winner Feynman memorably demonstrated how a simple O-ring failure at cold temperatures led to the Challenger disaster despite pressure to withhold his demonstration. Watching the film, we can see how an elite team, holding each other accountable, and driven to a common purpose, may achieve extraordinary results.

2. Oppenheimer the communicator

Oppenheimer exemplified leading by coaching. Cohen mentions Charles Duhigg who writes about “supercommunicators,” people who are “capable of saying exactly the right thing, breaking through to almost anyone, figuring out how to connect in even the most unlikely circumstances.” Oppenheimer, as it turns out, was a supercommunicator. He wasn’t the smartest guy on the team. Cohen learned that others in Los Alamos were better physicists, chemists and engineers. But what he could do better than anybody there—and maybe better than anybody on the planet—was take scientists with different perspectives and bring them to a consensus.

Oppenheimer listened more than he talked. “He would stand at the back of the room and listen as everyone argued,” Bird said. “Then he would step forward at just the right moment, summarize the salient points that everyone had been making that were in common and point the way forward.” “He would walk in, quickly grasp what the problem was and almost always suggest some leads to a solution,” Rhodes said.

Just what a great coach does. Cohen reveals what set him apart from the other geniuses at Los Alamos was his broad knowledge and breadth of interests, which allowed him to make connections across disciplines and see what others in the room couldn’t. They were specialists. He was a generalist. They were singularly focused on their narrow fields of research. He was curious about philosophy, literature, poetry and the Bhagavad Gita. “He was a good scientist precisely because he was also a humanist,” Bird says.

Oppenheimer was curious, perhaps the greatest trait of a coach. Groves was so impressed by Oppenheimer’s range of interests that he once declared: “Oppenheimer knows everything.” He also could explain everything he knew without condescending, another trait that distinguished him from other eminently qualified scientists who interviewed for the job.

3. Oppenheimer the collaborator

Recall collaboration is the best conflict leadership strategy - truly a win-win outlook. Cohen: Oppenheimer himself was so allergic to hierarchy that he objected to making a basic organizational chart. He was intense but informal, someone who commanded respect without demanding it, and the biggest difference between Oppenheimer and Army generals was how they believed teams should operate. The military relied on compartmentalization. He insisted on collaboration.

Collaboration, or actively sharing knowledge, accelerates crossing the knowing-going gap. Cohen describes that demanding a flatter structure, Oppenheimer might as well have asked the Army if everyone in Los Alamos could have a mullet. In fact, when Groves learned that Oppenheimer was in favor of instituting a weekly colloquium for hundreds of scientists, he tried to shut it down. Oppenheimer prevailed. He understood the value of gathering people from different parts of a project in the same place, encouraging them to discuss their work and combine their ideas.

The team worked hard and played hard. Cohen: They worked six days a week, but Oppenheimer made sure they weren’t only working. On their off days, there was horseback riding, mountain climbing, skiing, hiking and some of the geekiest basketball games of all time. When a local theater group staged a performance of “Arsenic and Old Lace,” Oppenheimer brought the house down with his surprise cameo as a corpse. And he was especially famous for his parties, where Oppenheimer paired his deadly gin martinis with his favorite toast: “To the confusion of our enemies!”

Oppenheimer ‘decided he was going to be the best lab director there ever was,’ said author Richard Rhodes. ‘That’s what he became.’

A Great Leader Changes the World.

Gentelligence | Book Review

Most existing efforts to transform organizational cultures
to appeal to multiple generations focus
exclusively on the layer of artifacts. (p. 166)

Megan Gerhardt, Josephine Nachemson-Ekwall and Brandon Fogel offer a well-researched how-to guide for existing and emerging leaders interested in transforming a widespread organizational challenge into a transformative strategic advantage.

Just as legendary basketball coach John Wooden taught incoming athletes to first tie their shoes, we may think of gentelligence as basic behaviors we must perform to become championship leaders as coaches.  The authors share that that gentelligence champions every generation and is born from intergenerational curiosity (p. 3). In a way, this is an extension of Pfeffer and Sutton’s The Knowing-Doing Gap call to treat knowledge as an active, continuous process. Our mandate: Development and retention require attention to create inclusive organizational cultures where all generations are given a voice and expected to learn from each other (p. 20).

This review centers on Chapters 3 and 4, or things we should stop doing and things we should start doing, respectively. Gentelligence offers a solid historical basis for the following generational identity birth years (pp. 29-37):

Stop Doing These Things

Gerhardt identifies four major roadblocks that prevent the development of Gentelligence: generational shaming, age biases, value perceptions, and knowledge differences.

1. Multiple generations are attempting to work together without a solid understanding of their age-related differences, leading to conflict, miscommunication, and frustration (p. 46). Imagine an Energize2Lead (E2L) Workshop intentionally populated by multiple generations with a specific focus on our expectations dimension. We could explore differences is not only how we want to be approached, but further the generational “why” behind such differences.

2. The authors are struck by how ageism in the workplace seems to be more widely accepted and tolerated when compared to other types of discrimination (p. 50). Perhaps we’ve been conditioned by our traditional concepts of working and retirement – put in your twenty years and collect the golden ring. In Arthur Brooks’ From Strength to Strength, he introduces our Vanaprastha life stage, when we purposely begin to pull back from our old personal and professional duties, becoming more devoted to crystallized intelligence, teaching and faith. This approach may serve as our antidote.

3. Four workplace values have been found to span all generational boundaries (pp. 54-55):

• A desire to feel valued to the organization.
• Competence: being perceived as knowledgeable and skilled.
• Connection: collaborating with colleagues and experiencing mutual trust.
• Autonomy: having the freedom and independence to exercise judgement and make sound decisions.

We can overcome our value differences by creating a motivational environment. Each of the listed four values are genuine motivators, reminiscent of Dan Pink’s identification of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose (Drive).

4. There are five different types of knowledge that can be valuable to an organization (p. 59): know-what, know-how, know-when, know-why, and know-whom. Whitney Johnson’s S-Curve of Learning provides a terrific way to visualize overcoming and harnessing knowledge differences:

Recall, Whitney recommends 70% of our teams should occupy the engaged state, with only 15% each in the other two. This model also illustrates how our more senior teammates may transfer knowledge mastery, further increasing engagement in younger, less experienced generations.

Start Doing These Things

To break down barriers of intergenerational tension and bias (p. 65):

1. Resist Assumptions
2. Adjust the Lens

To build up the capacity to leverage intergenerational strength and power:

3. Strengthen Trust
4. Expand the Pie

Resisting Assumptions means pushing back against human tendencies to draw automatic connections based on stereotypes about someone’s generational identity (p. 66). Be a leader as coach or resist the temptation to evaluate rather than observe. Listen first, listen more.

Adjust the Lens, aims to better illuminate the intent behind the actions and behaviors of those from other generations (p. 70). Ask someone from a different generation to share their Personal Leadership Philosophy. Explore the differences and the why behind them.

Strengthening Trust is vital to helping people at all levels in an organization see the potential in depending on and collaborating with those across the perceived generation gap (p. 77). Our age related differences are likely captured in our E2L instinctive dimensions, where the requirements for developing trust, safety and security are revealed.

To Expand the Pie, it’s important to cultivate the habit of proactively searching for those win-win opportunities (p. 82). An actively collaborative leadership style or being both assertive and cooperative, serves us well here, minimizing conflict.

Moving Forward

On page 137, the authors summarize a future talent strategy:

Remember one of our primary findings from Culture Shock, that supervisors should have one meaningful conversation per week with each employee. That’s our starting point for increased engagement. To stay engaged, twenty-first century workers across generations will need continuous learning and career-development opportunities (p. 143).

Summary

Much of the gentelligence approach is having the humility to look past our own generation and to understand and embrace the contributions of others. 

We challenge business leaders to unlock the talent potential of our
diverse, intergenerational workforce by proactively attracting
developing, and engaging employees at every age. (p. 187)

Coaching Story | Leaders Embrace the Human Connection

Twice in the past month, clients in coaching sessions have mentioned a colleague requiring support.

In the first case, the client described feeling a bit like a counselor or nurse while addressing a subordinate.

While listening the the client, I imagined a Venn diagram — two overlapping circles. One circle contained the primary roles and responsibilities of a counselor, the second circle contained the primary roles and responsibilites of a leader as coach. Then I imagined the two circles overlapping, leading to the question: What roles and responsibilities are common to both? Perhaps listening, perhaps avoiding evaluation, perhaps expressing appreciation, and perhaps ultimately asking the question: “What can I do to help?”

Interestingly, the client didn’t send the direct report immediately to HR or Counseling. Perhaps instinctively, the client understood a leader’s role is first to listen and understand, driven by both empathy and curiosity. Hats off!

In the second case, a client was eager to share new behaviors practiced since composing an Action Plan created at the end of our recent three-day Leadership Excellence Course.  Turns out one of his subordinates received pretty isolated and even harsh feedback when sharing her project results. The client shared further that when others on the team had similar project results, there was no harsh feedback from the same supervisor. What was the difference? The ones not receiving the tougher treatment were men.

This greatly bothered my coaching client and pretty quickly he reached out to his direct report who informed my client that she was already exploring how to report this behavior internally. Over the next thirty minutes we discussed this and I wanted to let my client know he was not only doing the right thing in supporting his subordinate, he was actually living his leadership philosophy and was aligned with his organization’s core values. Well done!

Leaders Embrace the Human Connection.

Influence & Insight | March 2024

Leadership Story | Accountability Starts With You

“How do you know when accountability is present or not?”

The Meeting After the Meeting.

During Accountability Workshops on the third day of Leadership Excellence Courses, I’ve often shared that my large-company executive experience frequently consisted of attending meetings held immediately after the meeting. At first, sharing these stories felt a bit defensive, as though it was an unusual experience.

How wrong I was.

Susan Lucia Annunzio wrote How Bosses Can Stop the ‘Meeting After the Meeting’ in the Wall Street Journal on January 25th.

Not only is this a common phenomenon, the meeting after the meeting comes in two forms. Annunzio shares:

The first is when participants text or chat with one another while the meeting is still going on, noting that the person speaking has said something inaccurate, or that they disagree with the direction the team is taking. The second type takes place in person or on a separate video call. Typically, a group has agreed on a decision, but after the meeting participants privately call it into question or play down its importance with their own teams, dooming it to failure.

In my experience, both types occurred. If memory serves correctly, we employed the first method using our Blackberries (yeah, it was awhile ago) signaling disagreement or the need for the follow up meeting. When the main meeting ended, non-verbal exchanges (head nods, etc)  confirmed the need for the second meeting as we quickly found an empty room and restarted. Sometimes this led to a third meeting, usually at the local steakhouse over a cocktail and bottle of wine.

You get the idea.

Annunzio offers several suggestions to minimize the meeting after meeting tendency, and her second idea resonates well: Model the openness and honesty by addressing controversial subjects yourself at formal meetings. This could also be launched in the form of a question such as “What’s the most difficult topic we’re not addressing right now?” In both cases,  if we want more accountability among our teams, it starts with us as the leader. Another helpful idea is to evaluate any meeting near the end. This provides an opportunity for additional feedback, especially any topic discomfort or reluctance to bring up the real issues.

Leaders Model Accountability.

Multipliers | Book Review 

“The biggest leadership challenge of our times is not insufficient
resources per se, but rather our inability to access the most
valuable resources at our disposal.” (p. xii) 

Stephen R. Covey

Liz Wiseman’s revised 2017 work serves as a “how-to” guide for any leader interested in increasing engagement levels within their teams or overall organization. She contrasts Multipliers and Diminishers throughout the book and we may also think of a Diminisher as an evaluator or subject matter expert (SME) and a Multiplier as a leader as coach.

The Diminisher’s view of intelligence is based on elitism and scarcity (p. 17), and Wiseman shares five comparative disciplines of Diminishers and Multipliers in a terrific summary chart (p. 23):

Note the fourfold-plus difference in results, or that multipliers create synergistic teams, often performing well beyond expectations. Wiseman believes Diminisher bosses still exist, but like old BlackBerry phones, it is only a matter of time before they become obsolete and people upgrade to newer models (p. xvii). Both Multipliers and Diminishers may certainly be intelligent, but how their intelligence is used is what distinguishes the two approaches. Multipliers applied their intelligence to amplify the smarts and capability of people around them (p. 5), according to the following logic:

1. Most people in organizations are underutilized.
2. All capability can be leveraged with the right kind of leadership.
3. Therefore, intelligence and capability can be multiplied without requiring a bigger investment.

Descriptions of the five types of multipliers, The Talent Magnet, The Liberator, The Challenger, The Debate Maker, and The Investor, form the heart of the book, and this review specifically comments on the practices of each.

The Talent Magnet | Leader as Coach

Wiseman defines Talent Magnets as people who attract the best talent, utilize it to its fullest, and ready it for the next stage (p. 35). The Talent Magnet spawns a virtuous cycle of attraction and the Empire Builder (Diminisher) spawns a vicious cycle of decline (p. 36). Recall in our Coaching to Develop People workshop, what we do with the average performer, over time, becomes our leader report card.

Talent Magnets (p. 43):

1. Look for Talent Everywhere
2. Find People’s Native Genius
3. Utilize People at Their Fullest
4. Remove the Blockers

Fundamentally, Talent Magnets are optimistic, have an abundance mindset and are continuously searching for and developing others. In contrast, Empire Builders, or Diminishers, are often prima donnas, insisting that they get maximum time onstage and that scripts are written to feature them (p. 57). Multipliers aren’t thinking of themselves, the focus is on others or the team. Ultimately, Talent Magnets encourage people to grow and leave (p. 61).

The Liberator | Motivational Environment

Wiseman describes corporate environments and modern organizations as the perfect setup for diminishing leadership [that] have a certain built-in tyranny (p. 66). She’s right. At multiple client sites, remote worker space is now actually separated into hoteling and leadership hoteling, depending on whether the space is a cubicle or an office with a door. Yikes! Wiseman defines Multipliers, as leaders who liberate people from the oppressive forces within corporate hierarchy (p. 67). Liberators are masters at creating a motivational environment, rather than self-centered managers under the mistaken impression that compliance is energizing.

Liberators (p. 77):

1. Create Space
2. Demand People’s Best Work
3. Generate Rapid Learning Cycles

These Multipliers expect a lot from a motivational environment. Liberators create an intense environment that requires concentration, diligence, and energy (p. 72). On the other hand, Diminishers jerk around the organization as they swing between two modes: 1) militant insistence on their ideas and 2) passive indifference to the ideas and work of others (p. 87).

Continuous feedback is required to sustain such a high performance level. Wiseman informs us that Liberators are more than just good listeners; they are ferocious listeners (p. 79).

The Challenger | Expectations

How are your expectations expressed in your Personal Leadership Philosophy? Are you sharing an inspirational future vision? This is what Challengers do. Challenger assumptions seem to be that people get smarter and stronger by being challenged (p. 104).

Challengers (p. 107):

1. Seed the Opportunity
2. Lay Down a Challenge
3. Generate Belief

Notice Challengers are describing what to do, but not how to do it. Their role is inspiration. These Multipliers provide a starting point but not a complete solution (p. 110). They’re masters of delegation. Diminishers stay in charge and tell others – in detail – how to do their jobs (p. 119).

The Debate Maker | Collaboration

Many of us are natural conflict avoiders, frequently unassertive and uncooperative. Our Conflict Leadership Strategies chart (from Leveraging the Power of Conflict workshops) illustrates the best strategy, both assertive and cooperative, is collaboration. We can think of Debate Makers as collaborators, multipliers who don’t focus on what they know but on how to know what others know (p. 132).

Wiseman reveals that Debate Makers (p. 138):

1. Frame the Issues
2. Spark the Debate
3. Drive Sound Decisions

Consider curiosity, or a habit of continuous learning, as an underappreciated leader trait. As leaders, probably the most important role we can play is asking the right questions and focusing on the right problems (p. 139). We may then adopt an After Action Review (AAR) approach focusing on informed forward-looking decisions. The opposite: Diminishers tend to make decisions quickly, either based solely on their own opinions or with input from a close inner circle (p. 148).

The Investor | Performance Coach

Academy Leadership defines Performance Coaching as:

The process of equipping people with the tools,
knowledge and opportunities they need to develop
themselves and become more successful.

Wiseman calls this type of coach The Investor, multipliers who invest in the success of others (p. 159).

Investors (p. 167):

1. Define Ownership
2. Invest Resources
3. Hold People Accountable

Multipliers understand that their role is to invest, to teach, and to coach, and they keep the accountability for the play with the players (p. 163). Just like elite military teams, individuals hold each other accountable. These Investors have a core belief that people are smart and will figure things out (p. 178). Like the subject matter expert boss, the Diminisher operates from a very different assumption (p. 179):

People will never be able to figure it out without me

Summary

Early in the book Wiseman shares Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace study finding that across 142 countries, only 13 percent of people around the world are fully engaged at work (p. xix). That’s what this book is meant to tackle, the upward engagement climb. Be the engaged curious coach.

It is not surprising that the highest-rated [leadership] practice
for Multipliers was Intellectual Curiosity. (p. 122)

Liz Wiseman generously provided a copy of her book for review.

Coaching Story | Leaders Multiply Not Diminish

Highly educated and highly technical Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) attended multiple leadership programs this past month. When we’ve been well trained and become very good at something others rely on us. We get results. It feels good.

But it doesn’t make us a leader. 

In fact, we may become our own worst enemy. In this month’s book review, Liz Wiseman describes two very different type of leaders, Multipliers and Diminishers. She describes five types of Multipliers:

• The Talent Magnet
• The Liberator
• The Challenger
• The Debate Maker
• The Investor

and describes each in detail, and likewise compares them with their opposites, or Diminishers.

Fundamentally, according to Wiseman, Diminishers assume “People won’t figure it out without me” and Multipliers assume “People are smart and will figure it out.”

Several of the SMEs attending courses this past month realized changes would be necessary - not only to become a better leader — in order for their lives and health to improve.

Here’s a way to keep the ball rolling once we make this realization. We can visualize, or think of:

The Talent Magnet  as The Leader as Coach
The Liberator who Creates a Motivational Environment
The Challenger who Sets Inspiring Expectations
The Debate Maker as a Super Collaborator
The Investor as a Performance Coach

Each of the Multiplier archetypes employ one or more of the skills found in our Leadership Excellence Course workshops. Each of us, whether we realize it or not, have Diminisher traits, and Wiseman offers an extra chapter devoted to The Accidental Diminisher. Terrific. As we become a stronger Multipler, evidence of our success will be  a pipeline of continuously developing leaders, those that we invested in and coached.

Leaders Multiply Intelligence.

Influence & Insight | February 2024

Leadership Story | Living a Leadership Philosophy

Years ago the President of a local Project Management Institute (PMI) chapter asked me to give a talk about what it means to live one’s Personal Leadership Philosophy. It was a terrific question and led to an engaging series of talks shared since. While reviewing Culture Shock these past few weeks feelings of deja vu surfaced. In Culture Shock the authors share that a major challenge for senior organizational leaders is the lack of a common culture. 

A recent Wall Street Journal article provides an excellent example of deliberate efforts to improve a common culture by having individuals adhering to a leadership philosophy. Ben Cohen’s recent article about airline safety (https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/plane-safety-airlines-boeing-never-been-safer-adbe2453?mod=hp_lead_pos9) asks: “How did hurling through the sky in a giant metal tube become this safe?” noting that the biggest U.S. commercial airlines have now gone nearly 15 years without a fatal crash, and is something of a miracle as there have been more than 100 million flights and 10 billion passengers since then.

Pretty astonishing when we look at the numbers. The interesting part though is that this amazing safety record is the result of intentional changes made about three decades ago. The old Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system focused on explaining accidents after they happened. The new idea, or FAA philosophy, depended on pilots, flight attendants and dispatchers voluntarily reporting safety issues and individual mistakes. Think about that. This required the entire airline industry change the idea of reporting, encouraging everyone to speak up when concerned rather that live in fear of sharing honest thoughts.

Other organizations, not in the headlines, are doing the same. Great Southwestern Construction has been encouraging open sharing of safety concerns for years, driven by a culture of safety and led by company president who lives his leadership philosophy daily. Both the airline industry and Great Southwestern Construction are crossing the Knowing-Doing Gap, or treating knowledge, especially newly encountered safety concerns, as something to be shared immediately and openly in order to strengthen a corporate culture.

Bravo.

Leaders Live by a Leadership Philosophy.

Culture Shock | Book Review

Gallup estimates that low employee engagement costs
the global economy $7.8 trillion in lost productivity
 – a staggering 11% of global GDP. (p. 72)

Jim Clifton and Jim Harter provide extensive Gallup findings about employee engagement in our post-Covid environment. At the core, this is a pioneering work about engagement.

Only about 30% of employees are truly engaged, another 20% are miserable and 50% are just showing up (p. 14). Why improve engagement?

Engaged customers create your growth, earnings, and stock price – your engaged employees create your engaged customers (p. 21). Fundamental findings from our Covid experience: 56% of 125 million full-time workers said they don’t have to be in the workplace anymore (pp. 4-5). We have a skills/training gap worthy of attention:

Fewer than one in 10 managers or leaders have
received training or coaching on how to
manage effectively in a hybrid environment. (p. 151)

This review centers on Gallup’s Q12 (p. 31), highly tested items leading to increased engagement, adding findings from Part 1: What Work and Life Do People Want? Part 2, Future Culture, and Part 4, 70% Manager. Relevant Academy Leadership workshop observations reinforcing the Q12 are also shared.

Q1. I know what is expected of me at work.

Gallup’s findings indicate a preference for autonomy and collaboration. 88% of those in remote-ready jobs reported that they have a mix of independent and collaborative work, and the sweet spot was two to three days in the office [per week], with a slight preference for Tuesdays, Wednesday and Thursdays (p. 47). Our Personal Leadership Philosophy can greatly improve job expectations along with improved SMART (Specific, Measurable, Agreed-Upon, Realistic and Trackable) goals.

Consider delegating to teams what method works best when collaborating, especially in a remote environment. The option most associated with high levels of employee engagement – my work team decides together – was the one companies used the least (p. 48).

Q2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.

If instead of shortening the workweek, employers focused on improving the quality of the work experience, they could nearly triple the positive influence on their employee’s lives (p. 63). Chances are employees experimented and discovered what methods work best when working at home. We can simply ask and learn. Employers should create environments that mitigate high blood pressure, tension, anger, stiff necks, fatigue, lower back pain and obesity (p. 41) associated with long commutes – conditions likely when returning to offices.

Q3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.

Engaged employees spent 4x as much time using their strengths compared to what they don’t do well (p. 99). Clifton and Harter enthusiastically promote StrengthsFinder and CliftonStrengths. Their suggestions mirror use of the Energize2Lead Profile, in that we each have preferred energizing activities while others drain our batteries.

The authors offer a useful definition of Self-actualization (Maslow) based on fulfilling your greatest potential through your talents (p. 107). Or put another way, if we stay in our E2L Preferred energy dimension for an extended period we’ll move to the upper level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Q4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.

Eight in 10 senior leaders (81%) say recognition is not a major strategic priority (p. 94). Years of surveying Feedback workshop participants confirm many of us tend to evaluate rather than express appreciation or provide genuine coaching. The authors validate emphasizing evaluation is an energy loser. The one conversation topic that employees perceived as less meaningful was discussing their weaknesses or things that they don’t do well (p. 143).

Q5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.

50% of U.S. employees now want their work and life blended (p. 9). Think of our Life’s Compass Rose from the communication portion or our Feedback workshop. We’re multidimensional entities and don’t want to lose who we really are just because we’re at work. This may make managers uncomfortable, but it seems Covid has forever changed employee expectations of both supervisors and corporate culture. Senior leaders beware: Only 21% of employees strongly agree that they trust the leadership of the organization (p. 137).

Q6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.

The demand for leaders as coaches has never been greater. Great managers know their employee’s strengths and give them a role they can grow in with no limits (p. 29). One client over the years has distinguished between Career Managers and Job Leaders. That’s a good start. Maybe we need to evaluate Career Manager effectiveness based on the frequency and quality of developmental results of those in their charge.

Q7. At work, my opinions seem to count. Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

Employees want coaches, not bosses. Clifton and Harter report that managers account for 70% of the variation in team engagement (p. 137)! People leave bad supervisors, not companies. Not only do employees want coaches, they want an environment that supports leaders as coaches. Only about one in four U.S. employees feel strongly that their organization cares about their wellbeing (p. 77). So, there’s lots of work to do.

Q8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.

A major challenge for senior leaders of large organizations is that there is no common culture (p. 138). That’s probably why Jim Collins’ books such as Built to Last are so popular. Rather than simply plan business strategy and goals year after year, we should first create alignment based on values, purpose, and mission. When we’re making decisions based primarily on values, rather than say financial expediency, then others will really notice. The best run organizations build cultures where employees feel like leadership genuinely cares about them (p. 85).

Q9. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.

Another way to phrase Q9 could be My associates or fellow employees hold each other accountable. Evidence of such an environment might include lack of repeated mistakes and increased engagement.

Q10. I have a best friend at work.

In-person social time had the largest positive impact on mood – but the total amount of time mattered less than the event itself. (p. 44) Interesting finding. If we don’t know our employees well, we’re likely spending resources on things like recreation rooms without knowing if that’s what employees really want.

Summary

The takeaways: Lead don’t manage. Coach to lead.

Make sure your managers hold one meaningful conversation
per week with each employee. (p. 155)

Coaching Story | Leaders Focus on Engagement

A recent coaching session both made my day and affirmed the power of coaching and promoting engagement. Since this was the second of our three coaching sessions following our Leadership Excellence Course, the client wanted to share progress on commitments made during the first session, or “my homework.” The challenge: Finding out why minimum requirements haven’t been made, a chronic and frustrating issue.

Here’s what the client did: First of all, he compared Energize2Lead Profiles with the individual with the most significant performance issues. Not surprisingly, their profiles were opposite in three colors: Green, red and yellow. In fact under stress the direct report tends to become very quiet and to take a great deal of time and care in making decisions. The client shared these observations and both realized the pair were ignorant of each other’s needs.

This was a game changer. In the past, the client would simply assign a project including deadlines and just hand it over to the team. Now, rather than telling other’s what to do, he’s asking about other’s needs and project development is collaborative. Not surprisingly the client has already noticed performance improvements.

Recall in Culture Shock Gallup has developed a set of 12 engagement factors, called the Q12 — and the client, maybe without knowing, was employing several of them:

• Q01 I know what is expected of me at work.
• Q05 My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
• Q07 At work, my opinions seems to count.
• Q11 In the past six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.

It’s pretty clear that one of the best ways to migrate from manager (evaluator) to leader (coach) is employing Gallup’s engagement model.

Leaders Focus on Engagement.

Influence & Insight | January 2024

Leadership Story | Deliberate Practice and an Abundance Mindset

Taylor Swift is in the news quite a bit these days.

Ben Cohen wrote a piece on Swift this past month in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), about many of her fears, especially of being average. 

“I’m intimidated by the fear of being average,” she said.

Cohen continues: It sounds like the sort of thing Swift might have said to explain how she became the biggest pop star in the world this year. In fact, she said it when she was all of 16 years old. Swift had just released her self-titled debut album and was sitting across from a reporter who had interviewed every icon of country music from Dolly Parton to Willie Nelson. But if she was nervous for her first major interview, this girl with a twang and tangles of curly hair didn’t show it. Stardom was one thing she did not fear.

Why not? We can look to two terrific leadership traits that Swift adopted long ago.

First, is Deliberate Practice, as defined by Anders Ericsson. 

Cohen continues: She was 10 years old when she decided she was going to be a country-music singer. Before long she was knocking on doors in Nashville with a demo CD of her LeAnn Rimes and The Chicks covers—and a pitch for Music Row.

“Hi, I’m Taylor, I’m 11, and I want a record deal,” she said.

When industry executives made the terrible mistake of not taking her seriously, the girl who described herself as the most competitive person she knew took matters into her own hands.

She returned home to Pennsylvania, learned the 12-string guitar and practiced until her bleeding fingers had to be taped so she could keep playing. She began writing songs after school and before it was time for homework. She scribbled down unforgettable lyrics on the pages of her spiral-bound notebooks and Kleenex tissues. And she came up with the idea for “Tim McGraw,” the first track on her first album, a song that she’ll be playing for the rest of her life, while she was in freshman math class.

Deliberate practice is a highly structured form of practice where one is improving with each session, often short and intense sessions. It seems likely that Swift was deliberately practicing, perhaps instinctively knowing what to do, for many years in her pursuit of excellence.

Second, is an abundance mindset, an optimism fueled by the belief that anything is individually possible - that our dreams can come true.

Cohen: It’s her defining trait. At a time when ambition has become contrarian, there was something not just defiant but inspiring about her fierce determination, the animating force of Swift’s career since the very beginning.

“I’m a big advocate for not hiding your enthusiasm for things,” she said last year in her New York University commencement address. “Never be ashamed of trying. Effortlessness is a myth. The people who wanted it the least were the ones I wanted to date and be friends with in high school. The people who want it the most are the people I now hire to work for my company.”

To understand why she was unstoppable this year, it’s worth flashing back to Swift’s early years—her formative era. Even before she had released a single album, Swift was unapologetically ambitious. She was a teenager who knew what she wanted and how to make it happen.

She also knew that her success in the music business would be as much about her music as her business.

She has combined artistic genius with corporate savvy for as long as she can remember—and even before she was born. Swift has said there are two reasons she was called Taylor: because of James Taylor and because her mother felt it would help to have a gender-neutral name atop her résumé and business cards. Her father was a stockbroker, and when teachers asked what she wanted to be when she grew up, a young Taylor Swift stood out in her classroom of aspiring ballerinas and astronauts.

“I’m going to be a financial adviser!” she declared.

Then she realized some bigger dreams of hers.

She looked fearless.

If one looks at the comments section following Cohen’s article you can readily see many examples of a scarcity mindset, perhaps driven by envy, insecurity or endless comparisons. What’s missing from these comments is any expression of appreciation or support. Wow!

Leaders Deliberately Practice and an embrace an Abundance Mindset

Listen Like You Mean It | Book Review

Being interested is more important in cultivating a relationship and
maintaining a relationship that being interesting. (p. 19)

Ximena Vengoechea organizes her work in a three part format (Set The Stage, Navigate the Conversation, Rest and Recharge) similar to John Boyd’s OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) Loop.

Vengoechea and her colleagues are researchers, continuously interviewing volunteer participants in a variety of settings covering numerous topics. If we think about Team Vengoechea as a group of coaches and their participants or conversation partners as subordinates or direct reports, then we may apply the stories and lessons learned as relevant coaching tips and techniques.

This review both validates Team Vengoechea observations and compares selected stories and techniques with relevant Academy Leadership Excellence Course workshops.

Set the Stage | Observe & Orient

When we stop paying attention to our conversation partner and let our own thoughts and opinions run the show, we miss learning what our conversation partner really has to say (p. 5). When we’re doing this, we’re likely formulating our response, or waiting to speak rather than listening.

Vengoechea distinguishes two types of listening. First, when we fall into a passive state of listening, we partake in what is called surface listening (p. 6). This is similar to waiting to speak. One of the most common – and easiest – listening mistakes we can make is surface listening mode: Projecting our own feelings, ideas, or experiences onto others (p. 7).

The second and recommended form of listening, empathic listening, which at its core is about connection (p. 8). As we learn in our Communication and Feedback workshops, our role as a leader is ultimately about making connections via our words and actions.

Staying present is essential for empathic listening to occur (p. 30). Removing distractions such as smart phones and/or selecting a quiet location for 1:1 meetings are two simple ways to start. Another tip: One of the key ingredients to managing your focus in conversation is to ensure you have the energy to take on the work of staying present (p. 39).

Recall our Brief-Back exercise from our Feedback workshop. Rather than attempting to retain every word our partner says, we can aim to understand the gist, or overall idea, to help us stay present (p. 47). Just as a researcher documents their findings, as coaches we may capture summary ideas and thoughts in a coaching journal. Try reserving time immediately following your conversation to briefly jot down your thoughts (p. 49). It’s also a good time to follow up with any commitments made and to schedule the next coaching session.

Navigate the Conversation | Decide & Act

Each of us has a natural way of stepping into conversation, call this our default listening mode (pp. 95-96). Vengoechea shares eleven (pp. 98-101):

• The Explainer
• The Validator
• The Identifier
• The Problem-Solver
• The Nurse
• The Defuser
• The Mediator
• The Empath
• The Interrupter
• The Interviewer
• The Daydreamer

We may think of these modes as distinct coaching techniques, a tool box for a variety of situations. Consider The Nurse, completely focused on another’s health or The Empath, able to feel what another is feeling. Two powerful coaching techniques.

Rather than having an evaluating mindset, keep a curious coaching mindset. Vengoechea suggests connecting questions -- questions, and sometimes statements, neutrally framed to elicit an open response, without suggesting or biasing toward a particular reply (p. 120). Further, we may express appreciation with encouraging phrases such as (p. 127):

• Say more about that
• Tell me what this means to you
• Walk me through…
• Tell me more
• What else?

Chapter 8, Guide the Conversation, is essentially a call for having mutually agreed-upon objectives established prior to a coaching session. Think of Action Plans created at the end of a three-day Leadership Excellence Course. Vengoechea also mentions that if others are stuck (p. 188) on a particular topic, it’s ok. Recall that dosed objectives are preferred to bombarded objectives in our Coaching workshop.

Not everyone wishes to be coached. In the lab, we may end a session if our participant isn’t a good fit, or if we have all the information we need from them (p. 214). Likewise, an enduring coaching relationship requires chemistry. Vengoechea recommends keeping the line open to energizers, in contrast to takers, who demand more from us than they are willing to return (p. 231).

Summary | Rest and Recharge

Our effectiveness as leaders and coaches is directly tied to our energy levels. Vengoechea finds the same with listening:                   

Empathic listening is a dynamic and active process, calling for
strong self-awareness about what is happening to us
physically, emotionally, and mentally in real time (p. 270).

Vengoechea thinks the key is not to have anything planned right after so that you’re not in a rush, and you can continually process it after with yourself, and not feel like you’re running out of the situation (p. 277).

Coaching Story | Overcoming Imposter Syndrome

The last Leadership Excellence Course (LEC) of the year - ten attendees. Each attendee list their own leadership areas of improvement during the registration process. Additionally during introductions at the beginning of the LEC, each attendee introduces themself to the group, and at the end shares their individual expectations of the three day course. Often the shared expectations align with the listed areas of improvement from the registration process. What is perhaps more interesting is when a theme develops between the attendees as they hear each other share expectations. 

Confidence immediately surfaced as a shared expectation. Six of the ten mentioned improved self confidence as a course goal, expressed in different ways. One mentioned a desire to be more authoritative when speaking. The boldest response, in perhaps a capture statement for the group, mentioned the strong desire to overcome imposter syndrome. Wow!

The good part is we spent three days working on this, and combined with our three follow-on Executive Coaching Sessions, we have a good chance of overcoming leader confidence issues.

Let’s explore this a bit more. If we look up a definition of imposter syndrome we’ll see phrases such as undeserving of achievements and/or the esteem in which one is held. Keep in mind this LEC group of ten are highly educated and quite competent in their respective fields. The group also works at a highly regarded company keen on supporting and developing the many professionals that work there.

Here’s what it looked like to me: While confident in their respective technical fields, or areas of subject matter expertise, most of the group did not feel confident, or worthy of leading others. It’s probably a reasonable assumption that lack of confidence is whey they enrolled in the course. 

But why did this happen? The experience seemed to validate that most professionals put into a leadership, or career management role in support of others, are given no training in how to do it. This doesn’t happen with technical skills though. We’re not going to hear an airline pilot address the passengers:

“Welcome aboard everyone. Just wanted to let you know I have no pilot training but I was just promoted to Captain and it’s a terrific opportunity.”

It’s as though organizations continue promoting professionals into leadership roles without offering training and/or confirming whether or not the individual really wants the leadership role beyond to the promotion itself.

When we read books such as Jennifer Deal’s What Millennials Want From Work, it affirms all these observations. All generations, and especially the younger ones (Millennials, Generation Z), are keen on support and development as they advance within an organization. It appears the development and training gap persists, which explains continued perceptions of imposter syndrome.

Leaders Overcome Imposter Syndrome.