The Heart of Engagement : Leadership Development & Executive Coaching : Mike Cook of Vitalwork Inc. / The AMJ Group : Management Education, Retreat Facilitation

Entry into a new realm of working expectations is a big deal; it needs to be related to like a big deal. The process whereby a new employee is taken into the working community ,a new manager is introduced into the clan of management or a manager is elevated to an executive or officer rank are all cultural rights of passage that hold the possibility of being seminal events in any career.

The complexity of the transitions commonly referred to as employment or promotion is far greater than often acknowledged or recognized and the preparations and monitoring processes should be developed accordingly. To describe the process of facilitating these transitions with the use of a “term of art”, ‘Onboarding’, not even a recognized word in our language, is to my way of thinking an insult to the spirit of the events themselves. I do not mean to imply that anyone means to insult or not take seriously these events. Rather, what I am pointing out is that in many ways people in the HR profession appear to be insensitive to the very fact that they are dealing with human beings. It does occur to me more frequently than I enjoy that the HR profession has often drawn not so much people who appreciate people as much as it draws people who appreciate rules and regulation.•

·         I cannot imagine the thought has not crossed many of the readers’ minds as well, whether you are inside or out of the HR function.

If, as I do, you subscribe to the type of thinking represented in this video of Steve Zaffron, author of ‘The Three Laws of Performance’  talking about the work he and co-author Dave Logan have been bringing to companies for the past 17 years. You’ll immediately recognize the counterproductive effect of the use of the term ‘Onboarding.’ The foundational principle of my work as a consultant over the years is this; relationship is the origin of all results in an organizational context. Further, relationship is function of how situations occur, i.e., are perceived. Steve Zaffron points out that performance will correlate to how people ‘see’ or how a situation ‘occurs.’ As importantly as this first postulate is the second; that situations ‘occur’ for people in language.

• …We see the world, not as it is, but as we are—or as we are conditioned to see it.

                                                                      Stephen Covey

When we introduce employees, managers or executives to their new roles and relationships by using a mechanical term, ‘Onboarding’, we instantly communicate that an event is taking place. These occurrences are not events, they are transitions, they are in fact state changes, ones that require the reinvention of who one is in order to perform with full engagement inside a new field of relationships. Viewed from an organic perspective these transitions are much more akin to organ transplants than they are to changing the tire on a car.  Unfortunately, the later perspective often prevails in many of our workplaces.

In view of the persistence of the mechanical,event, transactional based perspective that seems to pervade much of the HR profession I'd like to share some recommendations:

Personally I am in favor of the dissolution of the HR function as it currently exists as an extension of the industrial age economy when employees were at best resources and at worst always expense, therefore expendable.

Specifically what would I like to see? Glad you asked!

I’d like to see all matters currently considered the responsibility of HR come under critical strategic review on the following basis:

• Consider. If, as employers need to be reminded, their employees are their most valuable asset these days their care should be in part the responsibility of the company’s asset managers. Compensation and benefits should become the purview of the treasurer’s group.
• Consider. If, as employers frequently need to be reminded, the actual real value of their company leaves the building each evening and then decides  whether to ever return whoever has accountability for Risk Management should be closely involved with matter related to the evaluation, development and retention of employees.
• Consider. There is an inseparable connection between recruitment, development and advancement of employees. The establishment of a function strictly devoted to this continuum would be strategic in nature and need executive level visibility at all times.
• Consider. All actions that involve shaping new performance expectations, employment or movement into management or executive roles are fraught with risk that should be shared equally by all parties involved. Trial periods, no harm no foul, where all parties to transitions of this type can mutually determine whether success has been achieved can save productive assets from being lost to an employer. (There is not sufficient room here to adequately discuss this suggestion)

At best ‘Onboarding’ suggests the movement of passengers up a gangway onto a ship, a mechanical function. At worst the term suggests the movement of a piece of cargo from a dock to the deck of a ship, another mechanical act.  If HR professionals are going to continue to employ language suggesting people as pieces to be moved around on a game board I suggest then consistency.  Henceforth all employee exits will be referred to as ‘Offboarding!’

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My Mom turned 86 last month so you know I am no kid, even though the image here might make it seem so. (This is actually an old photo! It's not my mom by the way, oh, and that's not me. Actually I have no idea who this is but I like the ocean and I like my mom, we did live in California for a while close to the Pacific so I decided to use this shot. I wish we had a photo of the two of us like this.Maybe we do and I have just never seen it!)

Does your Mom read your blog? Mine does and not only that she almost always sends me comments or questions based on the theme I have chosen for the week. She doesn't always get exactly what I am working on, she never worked in a very large organization like many of those I have consulted to over the past twenty years, but she does a pretty good job and mainly I appreciate the encouragement.

Having my Mom read my blog got me to thinking about engagement from another perspective than I had recognized in the past. Is there a connection, reflection or correlation between love, which I know is the motive behind my mother reading my blog, and a manager's engagement with the people reporting to them?

I recall that my very first "grown up" manager after graduate school really spoiled me by caring as much as he did. From the very beginning he took a personal interest, not only in me but in each person who reported to him. One of the events that truly impressed me back then was an occasion when I was really pressed for time on an assignment. Shortly after I turned in the work my manager appeared in the doorway of my office and asked if we could talk, of course I accepted his request. He had the assignment I had left with him in hand but began our conversation by asking me how I was doing personally as he seemed to know that I had been jammed up by the pressure of multiple deadlines. We talked for a while and then just as he rose to leave he handed me the assignment in his hand and suggested that I take another day before turning it in. He said that when he looked over the what I had presented he was concerned that I was stressing because what I had turned in was not my best work. Eventually this manager was one of two people I mention in the dedication of my 2006 book THRIVE: Standing on Your Own Two Feet in a Borderless World.

Did I experience being "loved" by this manager? No, at least not in the same sense that I feel with my mother. I did feel cared about as a person and honestly, in a work environment that was much more than I had anticipated would be available. It made a huge difference to me then and it made a huge difference to me later as an employer myself. I have always made it a point to let the people working in our organization know in obvious ways that they were cared about. We have never paid the most, in fact virtually everyone who has ever worked for my company has taken a reduction in salary to join us. It seems that over time we have developed a reputation for being something more than the ordinary workplace, some place offering a special experience, like the special experience of having your Mom read your blog.

With my Mom I know it's love, with the people that work for me, they can call it whatever they like, it is free and it is authentic.

• If you are a manager, do the people reporting to you have a sense that they are cared about as people?
• If you are not a manager, do you have the experience of being cared about as a person by the person you report to, by your colleagues? Do you care about them?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Probably the most common mistake I watch managers make daily in the workplace is addressing their reports as if they are in the same frame of mind. When people are nodding their heads, it means they are nodding their heads; that's it!

(* This post applies anytime you are counting on the collaboration of others., manager or not.)

Take a look at this group in the picture above. (Never mind the boats and water in the background, get back to business here!) Are they ready to contribute or have they assumed some pretense? Look, they have their paperwork out and turned to the first page and they seem attentive! (So do you when you assume this posture so now you know how much stock to put in their appearances.)

 You may have never thought about it but as a manager you need to be aware that engagement has at least three voices, Contribution,Compliance and Resistance, which are frames of mind your reports can be in at any time...

·         depending on the day

·         the conversation topic

·         what happened to them last night at home or this morning

·         what they were doing or

·         who they were talking to just before they came to your meeting

·         and, and, and …or, or, or…life will not leave us alone.

So now, what do I mean when I reference “frames of mind?”  Frame, like window frame, the place we are looking at the world from at any moment is more kaleidoscopic than fixed. (What you said to me yesterday was fine and welcome, say the same thing today after I have just had a tough conversation with a peer in another department and I may ‘jump down your throat, much to your surprise and dismay.) We are always giving voice to our frame of mind if others would just listen and watch

Engaged, associated by choice, is a condition of being, and there are both ultimate and interim conditions of being to consider. Ultimate engagement arises from commitments to choices made. Interim engagement is subject to the slings and arrows of everyday/every moment life and constantly in flux. Ultimately, I am completely committed to the success of my marriage; in the interim, my wife has asked me to check under the house for a water leak! Given my aversion to both maintenance and the underside of the house about the best I can muster up for this one is an “Okey Doke honey!” and grudgingly crawl under after just about anything else I can think of that just “has to be done” before checking for the leak. As it turns out my wife knows that my ultimate commitment to the marriage always wins out over my weasel mind and she will get her report on the alleged leak sooner rather than later, so she doesn’t try to handle my dawdling.

 What is this interim Voice of engagement  thing, the one we usually hear from in the moment?

 Voice of Contribution- “I am on it honey thanks for letting me know there may be a problem”, followed by action.

 Voice of Compliance- As above, “Okey Doke honey”, followed by going to the refrigerator ,making a sandwich, watching some of the ballgame and then crawling under the house.

 Voice of Resistance- “It rained last week and I don’t want to get muddy so I’ll get to it next week, its probably nothing.”, followed by no action until asked again.

 I hope that you can translate these personal examples into your own when addressing your team or another co-worker while engaged in getting something done.

Message for today: If you don’t check in with people (ask) you run the risk of talking to yourself and assuming that head nods, Okey Dokes and even “You got it boss” means that something is going to happen and you can count on it.

So, do you know your reports as well as my wife knows me; I didn’t think so.

• How many times have you been burned by talking with your folks as though they are right there with you?
• How many times have you known they were not right there with you and you went right on talking as though you could talk them into it?
• How many times have you taken their silence to mean assent and walked away hoping you were going to get what you asked for. 

Is this too basic? I wish it were and I don’t by any means want to insult anyone, unless it will help get this clear, when you are not winning as a manager start with where people are at. Address them where they are, not where you wish they were. Be curious, find out why they may not be engaged, ask what you can offer to address misunderstandings or fears directly. In the interim getting in communication is the result to be produced, ultimately it will get you where you want to go.

Where are you assuming engagement and getting egg on your face?

For an alternative to the manager's perspective, to see how "life at work" can impact the individual, take a look at All Things Workplace by Steve Roesler especially the post of February 25th, What Happened to the Talent? 

I recommend a regular visit to Steve's site, you'll get hooked.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It must be very complex, leadership that is. It must be or why would Amazon currently carry nearly 382,000 titles containing the word leadership? A quick Google query on the word "leadership" gives a response of over 143,000,000 entries. I smell a rat and I have been smelling a rat for several years now. Maybe there is something else afoot here and it is time to tell the truth about it.

In practice I have had occasion to have more than one senior leader say he or she was interested in seeing  more leadership from the people in their organization. A typical response from me might be to suggest my sincere doubt in this expressed interest! A provocative remark like this better have a good follow up and there is one available, if you can get that first line out of your mouth. Played properly this exchange can have the desired effect of creating a "teachable moment" or at least one where you have an opportunity at offering something I think is infinitely wise. When challenged in these cases, as I always have been my response is similar to that offered by Doug Sundheim, Executive Coach from New York City. I'll paraphrase Doug here; "I bet you have been taking responsibility for all of the critical decisions - and thus the critical thinking behind them. Your people feel alienated, with no sense of ownership, and you wonder why you can't get them more engaged.There is a direct correlation between employee's stepping up and whether there is any room to step up." This exchange often has led to a visible shrug of recognition and a sheepish question from the potential client, "It sounds like you are saying I am the problem?" So here the "teachable moment" presents itself. My response to the potential client will be to say "First, you are not the problem but you are certainly part of the problem and if you are willing to at least be part of the solution we can make some progress. And is there a connection between what you have been doing and the level of engagement you see, oh yeah!"

It is occasions like these that are also moments of truth for those of us who fancy ourselves organizational catalysts, the conversations that now follow are not only going to determine whether this potential client becomes a client, they are also going to determine whether you are going to go back out on that wire without a net yet one more time, make that promise that things can be different. From here the exchange might go something like this, " To begin with when you have been saying you wanted more leadership I suspect that what you meant was more do as I want you to-ship." This is always hard because invariably this assertion produces a flash of recognition coupled with awkward silence and the tension of embarrassment. But it passes fairly quickly!

I then ask the by now fully engaged executive or manager another question, "What are you willing to give up?" This question almost always requires further explanation so I just go right on. "There is a difference between 1) a 'desire to be in charge' and  2) a willingness to lead. The first is a matter of personal interest or motivation and not necessarily even a qualification for the second, where I imagine almost anyone asked about the topic would say that leadership and accountability are inseparable and many who wish to be in charge just want that, not that accountability stuff!  You very likely have no shortage of people in your organization who like the idea of being in charge, because of a number of incentives that go with that territory but they do not necessarily aspire to accountability because it doesn't work that way.Accountability isn't yours to give or expect anyway. It is, however, something you can request or offer and as in any deal there needs to be an exchange of value, something that provides for mutual, not necessarily equal, benefit . If what you truly want is leadership then you need to be prepared to give up something and generally the give up you are least likely to want to give is the final say."

This statement usually brings up the first " I am not really comfortable with that!"  My rejoinder to that might echo the words of Sue Tupling, "Feeling uncomfortable? So you should!" in the piece she authored recently describing the emotional hurdles many senior leaders face when they first begin to confront the need to let go in order to get what they want. Personally, I have seen leaders knowingly choose control over business results or staff development on more than one occasion, especially when they knew they could make their numbers without letting go.

When we reach this point the conversation turns solemn, like something ominous is about to happen. Thankfully, at least on some occasions something really productive emerges from the somber mood and the executive or manager sees that not letting go is going to constrain them to results similar to those they have already achieved and if they are up to anything more the give up is the price of admission into a new realm of possibility. But the positive thing does not always occur and on those occasions my mood may become a bit sarcastic , "If you can make your numbers without letting go what are you complaining about? Unless of course your intuition is telling you there is something more to be had than just making the numbers. Or maybe you simply want someone to blame if things don't work out?" Shortly after this I usually leave their office.

By the way, it was probably initiative they wanted anyway, much less expensive than leadership but to the control oriented, knowing what they would want, that distinction does not readily appear.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

All across the American business community 2010 budget processes are well underway. Unfortunately in many cases it is likely that training and development is taking a beating as a line item. What makes an employer think that when times get tough they can cut or underfund their employee development budget and not have to account for the cost in terms of ability to execute and levels of engagement?

I am not sure how you'd answer this question but I'll give you my view; the training or development that was cut from the proposed or even the approved budget was considered non-strategic and luxurious to begin with, something that was affordable at one point but is no longer. This reminds me of the "stay-cations" everybody was taking this year and and other similar changes people have been making in the wake of the continuing economic downturn. I guess the kids really didn't have to go to camp after all, it was simply affordable.  Employee Development cannot be seen in this same light.

There is a pretty important difference here, vacations were always luxuries, at least the kind that involved travel and resorts. Cutting back on your training and development investments when the going gets tough signals

1. A surrender to the short term
2. An indication that this type of investment is non-essential
3. Future training or development opportunities your employees have been seeking or looking forward are always going to be subject to cancellation

As far as expensive vacations go I can understand that sort of thinking. When it comes to having my organization in a state of readiness to be at the top of our game, I am sure it is not that optional. Your employees are either your most valuable asset or they are not. Their ability to perform is either always of critical importance or it never is.

Beyond these fundamental questions there are other issues that are related and demand continuous attention. It is always going to be important to keep in mind that a certain portion of your work force (likely those that are essential) may have many options as far as places of employment. You can certainly expect some churn among this group as other companies tempt them away with more rewarding financial packages. What you don't want to be doing is giving them reason to be looking elsewhere by cutting back on their opportunities to develop professionally.

As for the rest of your work force, they will not be as readily on the move. Since they are not, there is even more need to keep continually adding to their knowledge base, skill sets, and exposure to ideas  and experiences. Otherwise they are being asked to deliver in the face of new challenges using recycled ideas and thinking available in the closed space of your own organization.

As a development professional maybe it seems like my thinking is aimed at feathering my own bed. That is a cynical perspective. The expenses associated with the maintenance of a strategic workforce are indeed among the largest an organization faces. It may seem that with all the basic expense associated with the workforce that cutting back on development and training is small by comparison, and it is. However, the savings usually associated with this type of thinking leaves out the costs of insufficient levels of performance and in some cases replacement of key resources, a far greater expense in the long run,.

You may not be comfortable with the intensity of my message or the suggestion that follows, but you'd be well advised to listen well to the words of Gary Hamel, currently recognized by the Wall Street Journal as the leading expert on business strategy. Much of his recent work describes the development he sees needed at all levels of an organization in order to remain any competitive advantage. Reading what he has to say you'll realize that he is talking about your development as well.

So what would I recommend? Honestly,  and without hesitation, I'd cut back executive compensation before I touched the training and development budgets. I'd make the same recommendation if I was one of the executives facing these choices. There is a lot of business to be done after this recession is finally fully understood.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link