Bubble bubble toil and trouble

Posted on February 18, 2012 by Cherri Holland

Reflecting on the last couple of weeks,  I’m reminded that people (and organisations) have an extraordinary tolerance for  %^#&*. Like the boiled frog. People only act to deal with the %^#&* when things bubble over. When often it’s too late.

Why do things have to reach a crisis before people (and organisations) are driven to action…..to change those things pop psychologist Dr Phil calls “change worthy”? Up til then, these things lie submerged beneath life (and business)-as-usual.

Then a crisis hits, and people say: “why did they (whoever they is) wait for a disaster before doing something?”  Well, they (and we) don’t have to. And shouldn’t, if we want fulfilling lives and great organisations.

It boils down to ASPIRATION. Top performers (people and organisations) are aspirational. They want what’s best in a given situation.

When you tolerate what’s less than the best (possible), mediocrity seeps into your psyche and before you know it, you no longer aspire.

This is like acting under the influence of the lowest common denominator. This is true for both people and organisations. This influence is so profound, mediocrity can start to seem pretty damn good. It’s comfortable, and comfort is good, right? Fine; but be prepared to diminish with time and to be challenged by those who want more …….who want to be more (whatever their definition of that.)

If you want to live “full”,  or have a great organisation, decide to:

°          Aim for the best possible contribution and outcome in each and every situation

°          Make this a way of life (not a January rush of blood to the head)

°          Set up ways to get back to this path when things unavoidably boil over and toss you about

°          Seek improvement one degree at a time, so you become sensitised to micro temperature changes and are able to stay the distance during business (and life) as usual

°          Control the temperature shifts through anticipation and pre-emptive action

 Small adjustments today can mean the difference between thriving and expiring, for both people and organisations.

Posted in People at work | Leave a comment

Monkey business

Posted on February 5, 2012 by Cherri Holland

They say if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Well, believe it or not, we can learn something about how organisations succeed from monkeys.

 A few weeks back, I sat for about half an hour observing an extended family of vervet monkeys at a lodge where I was holidaying.

The smallest monkey was distressed at having been isolated on a lower roof while the elders, and other slightly larger youngsters, were frolicking on the top level. They appeared oblivious to junior’s plight. The distressed creature darted from side to side, unable to see them due to the roof overhang, but anxious to join them. It tried repeatedly to jump up, only to fall back and wobble precariously. It tried to climb up a drain pipe only to keep slipping back down.

 With my wide angle view, I was immediately aware that if the monkey moved to the tree to the extreme right, it could easily access the top level. But the monkey’s vision was fixed on the upper roof (and the rising panic perhaps did not help with problem solving.)

I thought about parallels with many organisations. A narrow field of vision can lead to wasted time and effort and cause much unnecessary angst. Observing the apparent lack of concern at the top level about the youngster’s plight, I pondered the disconnect between levels and “divisions” (interesting word) within organisations.

In my intrigue, I moved closer and almost simultaneously the mother (I presume) jumped into action. Quick as a flash, she leapt to the lower level, grabbed the monkey and leapt back up again. It would appear she was aware of what was happening below, despite evidence to the contrary.

 Here’s where the monkey “system” and human organisations differ:

°          Nature’s longer term purpose for leaving the baby alone to figure things out prevailed, until the imminent cost outweighed the benefit. Then, the elder solved the problem

°          The elders had a ‘finger on the pulse’ at the lower level and took necessary action

°          Junior never gave up its aspiration to that higher level

°          Human beings, despite being able to make a phone call or call a quick ‘brainstorming timeout’ for problem solving, often prefer to complain about the problem and blame those at the top for their plight

°          Those at the top don’t always see it as their role to stay in tune with others who don’t share their wide angle view. (Given that the latter vastly outnumber the former, collectively cost the organisation far more and generally determine how the organisation performs each day, begs the question “Why?”.)

If organisations functioned more like a family of monkeys,  capability would expand through experience, leaders would be tuned in to what matters, risk would be averted, challenges would be regarded as “business as usual” and an outside threat would unite those within the organisation family.

 All too often, staff are uninspired and don’t want to stretch. Often the law of diminishing returns applies to the payroll.  Leaders are disconnected; their actions destroy value and alienate people. External threats lead to internal conflict and chaos.

 Perhaps a step in the right direction would be to behave more like monkeys.

Posted in People at work | Leave a comment

Why people do what they do

Posted on December 18, 2011 by Cherri Holland

Your recipe for health and contentment during 2012

They say Actions speak louder than words. My take on this is: If you want to know what is REALLY important to people (their “currency”), watch how they behave.

It took me a long time, and many years both at university and through work experience, to discover that people are pretty straightforward. Yes, people are unique; they have an individual social history that has made them who they are. There are nuances that differentiate individuals as well as situational factors that cause variations of behaviour, even within the one individual.

But when you boil it down to the basics, all people take action for two reasons: to reduce pain and increase pleasure. And this is supported by basic biology.

How you can use this to live and work with people more harmoniously and with less stress to you personally

1. Realise that we’re all pretty much the same. Don’t judge others for something you most likely do yourself. (Even if there are differences in how you behave; the underlying motivators are the same, and the principle of self-interest overrides all else. Check it for yourself! Even those doing something for others do it primarily for the way it makes them feel, which is fine.)

2. Work out people’s currency and don’t trade in US dollars if their currency is Singapore dollars (metaphorically speaking.)

3. To change behaviour, if you are a manager, either change the consequences, or ask someone else to do what you want done. Make it clear that if you end up repeatedly asking Person B instead of Person A, the consequences are Person A becomes less and less useful, and eventually becomes commercially irrelevant. (It’s up to them to do what they want with that realisation.)

4. When someone says I don’t have time, translate this as: It’s not that important. Either make it more important or refer to Point 3.

5. When someone says I can’t or It’s impossible, refer to Points 3-4.

6. Don’t get frustrated by others. Mainly because it is counterproductive and an unhealthy lifestyle choice. Your frustration won’t change them. In fact, it could be your frustration (or any negative emotion) traps you and others in an addictive pattern increasing the behaviour you don’t want. Emotions are very sticky – like Velcro. It’s easy to get stuck when there are negative emotions of frustration, annoyance, resentment, guilt………emotions that represent the ‘low road’ according to Daniel Goleman in Social Intelligence. (See his book Emotional Intelligence for the scientific evidence of the physical price you pay for indulging these emotions.)

A tip:
Think of yourself as  Teflon – let people’s behaviour slide off the outside (and your own frustration slide off the inside.) This is a healthy lifestyle choice. Make a request. If you don’t get what you need through open, clear, calm, rational conversation, look elsewhere for what you want. Repeat until you have what you want, and not what you don’t!

It makes no sense to keep hitting your head against a wall and complaining about the pain. Unless you enjoy it! Or are addicted to it – Prof Cliff Abraham at Otago University has some great insight into addictive behaviours.

Make different choices during 2012 and don’t worry; be happy.

Posted in How to change people | Leave a comment

Why people and organisations fail

Posted on November 26, 2011 by Cherri Holland

You may disagree with these sweeping  views, but have a read of this story doing the rounds this week and decide for yourself.

“Professor Fails whole class – find out why
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class about socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an ‘A’. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a ‘B’. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a ‘D’! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an ‘F’.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.”

——————————————————————————————————-
How is this different to the widespread apathy we experience as customers – general  non-performance by service providers and suppliers? I don’t believe it is.

I was ridiculously happy this week to walk into my local photocopy shop and see the whole place had had a good tidy up. It has always looked a real mess but as the service and pricing is good, I have overlooked all of that.

To see how neat everything looked gave me renewed hope that it IS possible to pay attention to the seemingly little things, even in a small business  under the typical daily pressures. When I commented, there were proud smiles all round.

Being endlessly curious about cause-effect, I will speak to the manager in due course and find out what led to  this sudden shift in performance (and therefore  image.) I will be even keener to monitor the maintenance of this renewed vigour, and as keen to identify causal factors (drivers) with that too.

I still believe that if we commit to excellence in every corner of our national “shop”, we can conquer world markets. It starts with a reason (incentive) to do it. And it ends ………who knows where?

I believe the possibilities are endless, with the right motivation……….with the right leadership.

Posted in How to change people | Leave a comment

Conflict – curse or blessing?

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Cherri Holland

Listening to managers at an interpersonal skills workshop this week reminded me how crucial conflict negotiation is to business success.

It is inevitable that people see things differently. Different views challenge entrenched thinking and may reveal blind spots and invalid assumptions. Except when people become the source of the conflict. This is often where programmed viewpoints and behaviours cloud the issues at hand.

 Information should dictate the best course of action, not people. Accessing relevant information to make decisions (and viewing it appropriately in the context of business priorities) is important for a business to function efficiently and deal with daily fluctuations and challenges to its bottom line.

Issues to consider are:

  • What do the facts say?
  • What does the evidence point to?
  • What does our trading history/experience reveal?
  • How does this align with our goals and values?
  • Are our actions an example of great leadership for the many eyes upon us?

These questions put the collective good ahead of trivial spats and individual agendas.

Needing to be “right” is often at the core of conflict. If I am right, that makes someone else wrong. It is natural to react to negative judgements negatively. Simple cause-effect. Human beings are predictable in this way!

Negative judgements trap us into a perceptual position making us blind to what may be a significant portion of reality. Seeing things clearly – as they really are – is something different to the way we feel about things. The way we feel can cloud our vision – then,  how useful are we really?

Snap judgements can blind us to information that may turn out to be crucial. That represents risk in a business.

In my experience, those keen to identify their blind spots are:

  • Open to input from others
  • Commercially valuable (for decision making and risk mitigation)
  • Likely to act appropriately and execute strategy wisely
  • Better able to build relationships of trust
  • In touch with others and better at engagement
  • Better managers and leaders

A conflict situation can teach us where blind spots are – in people and in the business. If you listen and learn, you’ll be better and the business will do better.

Posted in People at work | Leave a comment

Billiard balls and business

Posted on November 3, 2011 by Cherri Holland

Most of us remember school physics and the cause-effect lessons in a game of billiards.  What interests me now is cause-effect in business. What is it that makes certain (target) outcomes certain? Is that not what we all want to know? The other side of the question is: what is causing the outcomes we don’t want (but consistently get) so that we know what to change?

In my experience,  business leaders make decisions with due consideration……….of a fraction of the facts. When you have a 90 degree view of what is a 360 degree landscape, you can end up changing the wrong thing, and then convincing yourself that what you got as an outcome was what you wanted, or due to some “external” factor interfering with the result. It was Jim Collins in From Good to Great who said that great leaders look in the mirror when things go wrong and through the window when things go well. No one says it is easy. Leadership is tough. Ask Graham Henry, Richie McCaw or indeed, Alan Joyce.

Some leaders don’t like to confer widely as they assume people’s expectations will be raised by this. In my experience, people who are involved and trusted make better partners than those who are left in the dark and alienated.

Often causation is complex. It is a multitude of factors that together cause a compound effect. Often, there is a range of sources  – each person or team has a piece of the answer.  If people understand the big picture and are encouraged to stay informed about “cause-effect” within the business, their thinking is more appropriate, decisions are better and their actions more success-driven.

People hold back a large percentage of what is available for contribution to a business. Of the keys to success, getting people to contribute fully has to be one of the most important. Challenging them to understand (and help to identify) what the cause-effect relationship is among elements in the business is the first step.

Posted in Managing for business success | Leave a comment

Who’s the Boss?

Posted on September 2, 2011 by Cherri Holland

A conversation with a client a week ago in the Cook Islands turned to the subject of a Parent/Child culture. I was quick to reassure her that this exists in every country and most companies I have seen i.e. wherever you have people and traditionally-structured organisations. (The common denominator from anecdotal observation is the nuclear family that hard wires parent and child thinking patterns. The only person I recall who does not have this type of thinking did not grow up in a nuclear family!)

I will leave it to the likes of Daniel Goleman, Daniel Seigel (author of The Developing Mind) and Eric Berne to explain how parent and child programming happens. For me,  the important questions are:
1. What impact do these widespread thought patterns have?
2. How do you change a predominantly Parent-Child into an Adult-Adult (self-driven, performance-focused) culture?

1. Impact on business
In my experience of businesses – from large to small – the single greatest impact on the bottom line is whether the business challenge is shared or owned by “those at the top.” Where it is the latter, management is often waging a war on two (or even three) fronts. By this I mean a constant struggle to keep on top of market demands, a constant struggle to keep on top of staff demands and possibly a third: a constant struggle to keep on top of executive/board demands. I was told by a manager a few weeks ago that 70% of his time is taken up with staff issues. This is a war on two (or three) fronts and the cost of this (and bottom line impact) is not measured by the typical accounting system nor reflected in financial reporting. (Neither is the personal cost to the individual manager……. and their sanity, never mind their health!)

The alternative is where staff understand the business drivers and keep ears to the ground and eyes everywhere to ensure that all the micro ducks line up. These are things the manager rarely sees (as they fall below the radar of the manager’s “span of patrol”) but add them up and they can be the difference between profit and loss. If staff are facing in the right direction, they will spot the gaps and fix them. Instead, they watch “management” go around in circles, somewhat bemused.

2. Changing a predominantly Parent-Child into an Adult-Adult culture.

Changing the business from one of Parent/Child to Adult-Adult (Performance Partnership) requires that managers stop parenting, molly-coddling and caretaking. It helps if they know what staff are actually holding back (or burying from sight) by way of value. It starts with managers checking their assumptions about people and questioning whether the view they have (based on the image people project) IS accurate.  From what I have seen over decades now, it is not.

The impression staff give of their capability is largely risk-averse, and people will not step up if they believe it is a step up to a gang plank. The market is FULL of great examples of staff-driven cultures. Nordstrom has been one oft-quoted example………
Nordstrom Rules – Rule #1: Use best judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.

Sends chills down my control-freak spine! An unusual organisation, that trusts so completely. Rather at odds with my risk-aversion, so my approach has goal lines and sidelines packed around good intentions. But I DO trust fully that people are ready, willing and able to make the business succeed IF “management” expects these behaviours, will not settle for less, and stops getting in the way.

The choice is simple: struggle on your own OR use all the resources you pay for each month, to make the business buzz. While this may seem like an exercise in relinquishing control, it is instead the first step to gaining REAL control of a business and the profit drivers. Your business is actually controlled where the critical mass lies – would you rather have them with you or against you?

Posted in Managing for business success | 1 Comment

Bad bosses the real reason behind Kiwi brain drain

Posted on August 12, 2011 by Cherri Holland

This is the title of an article featured on the Auckland University  website (http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/template/news_item) on 8 August 2011

Senior economist/Assoc Business School Professor  cites research into 152 New Zealand companies that shows our businesses rank 16th  out of 16 countries for addressing poor performance and 14th out of 16 for retaining high performers

She claims that the research is pointing to this as a key brain drain driver; that where there has been World Bank-funded  management support programmes for small-to-medium-sized firms in developing countries, preliminary findings are positive, and that management training is essential to address New Zealand’s prevalence of “bad bosses.” The article uses the terms “strikingly bad” and “significantly worse” than other countries.

She strongly condemns efforts to close the gap with Australia and reverse the poor capital-to-labour ratio while ignoring this critical area. The evidence is that management skill accounts for more than 30% difference in productivity and a single percentage point increase in management skill equates with a  65% increase in invested capital.

 “New Zealand’s productivity is low and falling; our gap with Australia is large and rising. We spend more hours at work yet produce less value per hour…. We need smart managers who make smart choices, and we need to get rid of nightmare bosses for good.”

But with ongoing cut backs, managers’ ‘span of control’ has expanded and stretched and without a workforce ready, willing and able to step up and help manage, it is a recipe for disaster. To get the workforce ready, willing and able requires effective, visible management and leadership, neither of which requires much time nor money to develop.

Speaking with another economist (coincidentally) this week, he told me that both he and a colleague had left companies due to a bad boss. The stress on both managers and staff is higher than ever. And the NZ economy doesn’t need more stress, especially that which is self-imposed.

A 2009 McKinsey Research report showed that staff value a performance conversation with their manager more than a salary increase. The staff who said this probably meant a discussion that they find meaningful and motivating, not one that leaves them angry, frustrated and disillusioned. Simple skills make all the difference. Surely we don’t need World Bank funding to put this right. Or are we going to wait until we become just another developing country statistic?

 

 

 

Posted in Managing for business success | Leave a comment

Get your head together

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Cherri Holland

Left brain right brain get your head together. That’s how a rap by Dr Jean Houston starts.

Among the many issues businesses identify, three are common to most:

  1. Too little traction with plans that all agree are important.
  2. Wasted time at meetings – when you dig deeper you discover their real frustration is that people say one thing and do another. (Yet they pour energy into thinking of excuses for inaction.)
  3. A seemingly unrelated (but in fact related) area is the constant complaint these days about the pressure people are working under.

How are these related? These situations show that individual and team brainware is underused.

When you take a closer look at project plans and what goes on at meetings, it is clear that LEFT brain functions dominate proceedings. Directives, requests, instructions, plans and minutes are all of a logical, sequential, analytical nature. Fine. But don’t be surprised when people spend their energy on what they consider to be more relevant to their role, significant and essential – the squeaky wheel. This is how the brain is designed. Why wouldn’t they?

Given that the RIGHT side of the cortex specialises in influence, attention, imagination and emotion, given that it is deemed to operate more quickly than the LEFT side of the cortex (Machado, 40 bits per second versus 1, 000,000 bits per second) and given that this is what many consider to be where true genius lies, it makes no sense to starve work situations of these thinking functions.

It is time to put the LEFT brain functions in their rightful place – a toolkit for the RIGHT brain to execute its purpose. That’s what it is there for:  RIGHT brain to decide where to head and why; LEFT brain to devise the plan and corrective mechanisms to guide you there. Instead, many do ALL the thinking – from beginning to end – using LEFT brain functions, then wonder why if they do indeed arrive at the target destination, they do so alone, or maybe realise it is not where they actually wanted to be after all.

It doesn’t take long to start any activity on the RIGHT side and when the time is right, switch to the LEFT brain functions to execute.

The payoffs are:

  • Quicker thinking and real progress
  • Original, more valuable thinking
  • Better quality thinking
  • Access to precognition – anticipation of future events
  • Telepathy – access to knowledge you are not currently aware of
  • At least a third more considerations at the start of a project (from anecdotal evidence – what people tell me)
  • Engagement of people
  • More influence over what people think, feel and how they act
  • More access to overall brain power – 25% (Neuroscience Leadership Institute)

There is a new field emerging, called Reservopaedia. It celebrates true human capability and explores teaching methods to develop people to their full potential. That’s about the future. But there is no time like the present. It is time to give people access to their full capability, instead of flooding them with demands, and watching them sink.

Watching Grant Dalton on this morning’s THE NATION was a reminder that unless Team New Zealand use all their brain cells (given relatively limited funding) they are unlikely to be competitive.  (It’s good that their approach sounds pretty much “whole brain.”)

Right brain, left brain, get your head together. This has got to be one of the best, sharpest (and cheapest!) competitive edges.

Posted in Managing for business success | Leave a comment

Dialogue Duels

Posted on June 25, 2011 by Cherri Holland

A participant at a workshop this week (let’s call him Person A) showed exasperation describing an important client (Person B) – someone he has known for many years, who appears to value his advice, yet frequently charges off in the opposite direction.

From Person A’s description of what occurs in their interactions, it appears that Person A tends towards the  risk averse/”away from” end of the spectrum while Person B tends towards the opportunity-focused/”towards” end of the spectrum. Person A sees himself as in the centre of the spectrum. Person B would mostly likely see themselves the same. (The other often appears as extreme from our perspective.)

What is the web that binds these two? Could it be that they are subconsciously influencing the other’s position? I believe so. This means that people’s positions are changeable. What seems like a fixed point of view may in fact be quite susceptible to change.

During interactions between A and B, B will appear overly-optimistic, lacking due caution and attention to detail. To B, A will appear negative, having tunnel-vision, blind to the opportunities and lacking trust. To bring the balance, each swings to the other extreme. The exasperation of Person A as he anticipates impending disaster may be experienced by Person B as negative and doubting his ability. Person A may experience Person B as blind to the obvious and putting the business at risk. As the risks are very evident to Person A, he can’t understand this behaviour. As Person B is seeing opportunity that Person A is not focused on, he wonders why Person B is ignoring what to him is a revenue opportunity, waiting to be tapped.

The strange factor in these transactions is how quickly people change their position when talking with others similar to themselves. Put Person B with a group of other optimists, and they may quickly swing to the other end of the spectrum, asking what the risks are and scrutinising the details of the proposed strategy. It is almost as though when the voice of optimism is being heard, the voice of caution needs airing and someone in the group will ensure this happens. And vice versa.

The best way to enter a dialogue duel is through the position of the other person. If you take their position, they will vacate it, and then you can have a dialogue that considers both sides of the argument. This may sound a bit like reverse psychology, but really it is demonstrating empathy with another’s position, seeing the world through their eyes and talking their language. This means they don’t need to guard this position.

This does require that you vacate your position and let go of any annoyance and frustration. These negative emotions often accompany a strong position, and the duels that follow.

Yes, it would be easier for me if the other changed their position. But why should they if I am not prepared to change mine?  The moral of the story: Change me to change we.

This is how you resolve those ding-dong duels. Give it a go!

Posted in People at work | Leave a comment