Leading
groups when an extraordinary event instantly changes people's priorities can be
a challenge.
We refer
to a sudden, surprising point in time when a group's process is interrupted as
a "Strategic Moment." As a leader or facilitator, you will often
confront strategic moments when the group faces a choice about what to do next
and how to do it. A strategic moment that impacts everyone, happens
unexpectedly, and is outside the control of the group.It intensifies emotions and refocuses a
participant's attention. How you guide the group through a significant
strategic moment can either undermine your success or enhance it.
At such
times, you may find it helpful to use the following thought framework to
calibrate your attitude, thinking, and behaviors in order to serve the group.
Collaborative
Attitude
Start by
checking your attitude. Do you genuinely believe that the group has what it
takes to work through the strategic moment together? Or, do you believe that
it's your job to refocus the group's attention? Collaboration (literally,
"working together") depends upon an assumption that we operate better
together than separately. You may need to let go of a natural tendency to
direct the group and trust that a collaborative process will surface the
group's wisdom and, ultimately, the best approach.
Strategic
Thinking
A
challenging situation calls for clear thinking. You can serve the group well by
helping clarify both the current situation and what the group wants to get
done. The current situation will include the process outlined in the original
agenda and the thinking and feelings of the participants in reaction to the
strategic moment. You will want to consider both the original desired outcome
and the possibility of a revised desired outcome.
First,
the group needs to externalize its reactions. Secondly, the group needs to
build agreement on what it wants to accomplish. Finally, the group will be
ready to entertain process suggestions for how to proceed.
Facilitative
Behaviors
Signal
your flexibility and receptiveness. Encourage and model careful listening to
create a safe place for people to speak their minds and their hearts. The
strategic moment may create uncertainty and anxiety for people. Ignored fear,
sadness, and anger will quickly derail a meeting and could potentially damage
relationships. Try expressing your own emotions and uncertainty to model the
openness you hope others will demonstrate.
Shared
Responsibility for Success
Alignment
of a group's attitude, thinking, and behaviors creates shared responsibility
for success. You'll know you've succeeded when the group is committed to the
outcome of the session (results), values the way everyone agreed to work
through the strategic moment (process), and senses a stronger connection with
one another for having shared a significant experience together (relationship).
About
Glowan
The
Glowan Consulting Group was formed in 1993 on the premise that individuals and
organizations needed more than just pre-designed, prescripted
"training" to meet their human development goals. Organizations and
our societies are changing at a rate never seen before in our experience and we
need tools, techniques and support systems to meet those new challenges. Glowan
has been meeting those needs via our broad and deep offerings of Leadership and
Management Development Services and Products. Visit http://www.glowan.com for
more information.
Watching
the coverage on the meeting between General McChrystal and Obama over his
statements in a Rolling Stone magazine offers an interesting perspective on
employee engagement concerns based on differences with leadership.
A very
useful book that I have referred to in the past is Leigh Brahnam’s book, “The
7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave.” In it Leigh describes these levels as:
1. The job or workplace was not as
expected
2. Mismatch between job and the person
3. Too little coaching and feedback
4. Too few growth and advancement
opportunities
5. Feeling devalued and unrecognized
6. Stress from overwork and work-life
imbalance
7. Loss of trust and confidence in senior
leaders
In
relation to McChrystal, I can see where #1, #3, #5, #6, and #7 may have played
a role in prompting a decorated General to proceed as he did and air his
concerns over the approach in Afghanistan.
Even though we are talking about life and death (and politics) the situation is
really not that different from corporate scenarios. When Vice Presidents
disagree with the direction a CEO is taking a company, challenges in ideology
can emerge. It’s not uncommon for executives to boil over and make inflammatory
comments, inappropriate or insubordinate, and create a stir in the leadership
chain. As a leader dealing with publicly aired disapprovals, the choices are
straightforward – either you fire the person outright, or you reflect on why
this reaction and behavior is occurring and seek to understand the root cause.
Obama is facing that choice. He has to reconcile with an employee who has
become disengaged based on decisions made from the top and the philosophy that
followed. While the comments themselves were not as bad as they could have
been, given the circumstances and worldwide visibility and impact, the comments
should not have been shared outside the inner circle – let alone a reporter for
a pop culture magazine.
What should Obama do? Should he take a hard line and not tolerate any
insubordination or weakness in policy by firing McChrystal or from an employee
engagement perspective should he make a first stance about is expectations of
the role and rebuild trust so that McChrystal can go back in the field
re-energized and productive?
In my opinion McChrystal shouldn’t be fired because I think it will create
repercussions down to the folks in the trenches which can only result in more
casualties. McChrystal may resign on his own accord amidst the differences, but
I’m not sure what that would serve either. Obama has a chance to show real
leadership and address dissension in his ranks. I hope that an understanding
can be made and everyone can re-engage and drive to solve the issues in Afghanistan and
bring troops home.
I am very excited to get more into the topic of Ed Muzio’s latest book: Make
Work Great: Super Charge Your Team, Reinvent the Culture, and Gain Influence
One Person at a Time. Ed previously wrote: Four Secrets to Liking Your Work.
Both titles available on Amazon.
Ed is no stranger to the dynamics of the work environment and what it takes to
succeed. Ahead of my review of his latest book, Ed was kind enough to answer
some questions for me about his background and inspiration for the book.
1. Can you tell us
more about your professional background?
I graduated from Cornell with an engineering degree, and I began
my technical career at Intel.As an
engineer I was always a little “different” though.While everyone else was analyzing data, I
always seemed to have my attention on things like group interaction or
appropriate levels of authority. Still, I loved working at Intel; I was
constantly learning new things and gaining responsibility, and that taught me
where I wanted to go.From very early
on, I realized that I wanted to help other people be productive, and also have
some fun and balance in their lives. Within my first 18 months, for example, I
had written an e-mail to Tom Peters asking about how to get into his line of
work.
By the time I left Intel, I had run a worldwide and industry wide
technology advancement initiative, helped with the redevelopment of the
company’s front line manager training, and run a group whose sole purpose was
to develop future technology leaders. Of course, the launch of my own firm
pushed me even further into investigating the pieces of social psychology and
human systems.I think it’s the
application of analytical, engineering thinking to the problem of human system
output that makes me uniquely qualified to do what I do.That’s why the tagline of my firm is
“Analytical Solutions Maximizing Human Potential™”
2. What is the main
premise of the book and what motivated you to write it?
A frequent side effect of my work – helping organizations and
their leaders to achieve more output with less stress – is that all kinds of
people tell me what they don’t like about their jobs. I’ve learned to welcome
these conversations, as they provide windows into important, often fixable
issues in the workplace.Using problems
to drive improvements is good practice.
But there is a difference between identifying needs and idle
complaining, or what I call “THEY syndrome.”When someone tells me that nothing can be improved until someone else
does something first, I get concerned.Usually “THEY” means management or leadership.For a long time, my standard response was,
“there is no ‘they,’ only you.You can
either quit, suffer, or make a change.”Dr. Deb Fisher, my friend and coauthor of my previous book, finally
convinced me of the inadequacy of that response.“Your solutions can fix the biggest problems
in today’s workplace,” she told me, “but only if people implement them.You can’t just tell people to do it
anyway.You have to explain how.”
Make Work Great explains how: How anyone, at any level, can take
actions that will improve their workplace experience and have a positive
influence on the culture around them. Certainly, if the reader is a manager,
it’s easy to see why system-wide changes may happen a little faster. But the
main premise is that anyone can start an improvement.Nothing in the book requires anyone else but
the reader to do anything.
3. What is the unique
value proposition of your book (i.e. how is it different)?
For one thing, it works for every level, from executives to new
employees.I was thrilled when one
reviewer called it a must read for CEO’s, and another called it a first-day
guide for new employees.Whoever you
are, you can pick up this book and find something you can do at work tomorrow
that will help.You can give it to your
boss, to your employees, to your CEO, or just read it and do it yourself,
without having to spend time on anything other than the work you’re already
doing.In that way, it’s very practical.
The other unique thing is that within the book are sidebar
references to my whiteboard videos, produced by CBS/BNET and posted on the
book’s website, www.makeworkgreat.com.The videos provide depth and refreshers for
readers, as well as an easy way to share the book with colleagues.If I tell you to buy a book, you may never
get around to it.But if I send you a
link to a 4 minute video, you’ll probably take a look and see what you
think.I’m hoping that the videos will
provide other avenues to spread out new patterns of behavior. That’s the whole
goal. (See one of the videos at the end of this post).
4. Did you have to do
any special research for the book?
There were a few areas in which I had to dig a little deeper to
make sure I had things right.In many
cases, my biggest challenge was to go back and find the references for things
I’d read, heard about, cited previously, and/or incorporated into my thinking.It was one of the more tedious aspects of the
writing process, but the compilation of the bibliography was worth doing even
as a standalone project.
5. What is the impact
of your book to individuals and/or organizations?
Every worker must constantly walk a balance beam between task, or getting
the work done, and relationship, or interacting positively with colleagues and
customers.Lean too far in either
direction and you fall! My book encourages individuals to begin to think
extremely specifically regarding that balance, overtly defining what they are
trying to accomplish, and clearly determining the approach they will use with
the people around them when they need answers or support.
At the individual level, this puts the employee or manager back in
the driver’s seat at work, and increases engagement, accountability, and even
enjoyment. At the organizational level, as members of the group become more
overt and clear about what they are doing, everyone’s attention gets focused on
having the right conversations, and ignoring distractions.That’s good for overall output.
One of my earliest reviewers read the book, began to follow it,
and within a few weeks told me he was seeing improvements in his own activity,
and in the workplace around him.That’s
the kind of impact I love to see.
6. What is the one key
message you want readers to take away?
As the band LinkinPark says, “It starts
with one.”Whoever you are, whatever
level you are at, YOU have the power to make your workplace better, to make
your own job better, and to increase output and reduce stress.You don’t have to wait for authorization from
anyone else to get started, and you don’t have to put your career in jeopardy
either.
7. What else would you
like to share with our readers?
My vision is a world in which professionals at all levels are
productive, engaged, and (I daresay) happy at work. One of my strategies for
achieving that vision is to give away a lot of useful tools!Please invite your readers to visit the video
page on the book’s website.The videos
are self contained, free, and (I’m told) extremely applicable and helpful.It’s an easy way to get a feel for the
purpose of the book, and at the same time to get some tools you can use in the
workplace immediately.
8. Where can people
get more information about you and the book?
Thank you Ed. Wow what a fantastic broad view you have. Your
passion comes through as well where you challenge both organizations and
individuals to achieve the best results possible. I can’t wait to read the
book!
As a workplace guy myself, I strongly encourage people to check out Ed’s work. He
understands how the work environment has changed over the years and his insight
is right on target. Check his company, Group Harmonics, for more information on organization
level solutions.
A
CNN article released today talked about how recruiters are increasingly
more discriminating between unemployed workers and those with a job. It’s a
fear for thousands of out-of-work job seekers who, like passive job seekers,
are looking for new opportunities thanks to a better job market. The new competition
that has emerged stands between the employees who were impacted due to restructuring
and business closure and the waves of disengaged employees who kept their heads
down waiting for companies to start hiring.
Now the dilemma
arises around perception. Are unemployed job seekers less qualified or
competent than those that managed to “keep” their job? You can see how this can
spiral out of control where the profile of the person is questioned more than
the circumstances that lead to why the person s unemployed (e.g. company or
division closure vs. the employee’s performance). If this perception is
growing, should unemployed workers lie on their résumés to ensure they get in
the door? Are we perpetuating bad recruiting practices as a result of these perceptions?
When two
equally qualified candidates are separated only by employment status as a key
decision factor; then we are treading into dangerous waters. Due diligence in the
recruiting process to find the best candidates is really all that should
matter, in addition to how that person fits the culture and systems of the organization.
Author of Make Work Great: Supercharge Your Team, Reinvent the Culture,
and Gain Influence -- One Person at a Time
Recently
my desk phone rang, and the caller ID showed the name of a large, well known
organization. I answered with my name, as usual. But judging from
the reply I received, I might as well have been a prank caller at three in the
morning.
“Who
is this?!” The caller’s voice was incredulous, and more than a little
annoyed with me. When I replied again with my name and company, I heard
only an annoyed sigh, a click, and silence.
In the moment, I found the whole interaction more
amusing than anything else. It was only on further reflection that I
realized the potential peril in which the caller had placed herself: As
it turns out, I have some relatively influential contacts in that organization,
and thanks to Caller ID, her direct number. I have no intention of taking
any action, but the whole situation reminded me something I’d seen on Facebook
recently: a status update from a friend that said, simply, “you never
know who’s listening.”
I think one of the reasons that sites like
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and LinkedIn are so enjoyable is that they give us
insight into what our friends and colleagues are thinking and doing.
Whether someone is recounting a vacation, a conference, an enjoyable dinner, or
even just a mundane meeting or grocery run, status updates provide a little bit
of insight into someone’s life that we wouldn’t otherwise have. Perhaps
this makes us feel more connected. Whatever the reason, we obviously like
the feeling, because so many of us keep returning to the sites!
But there is a down side to giving such a wide
audience visibility into your thoughts and actions: the potential impact
to your reputation.
Reputation is not a new idea. We’ve known
for decades, for example, that if you become known around your office as
someone who doesn’t follow through on commitments, your chances of career
advancement decline considerably. As children, we all were taught various
forms of the maxim that actions speak louder than words; as adults, we have all
seen what can happen when that maxim isn’t followed at work: diminished
trust, diminished output, and diminished morale. Nobody wants to work
with someone who acts unpredictably, erratically, or
inappropriately.
The problem with social networking sites, from the
standpoint of reputation, is that they give people visibility into parts of
your life that they wouldn’t otherwise have: they connect otherwise
detached social networks. Think about it: would you want your boss
eavesdropping on a conversation with your significant other about your
workday? Would you want your toddler son or daughter carefully absorbing
your choice of words during an adult night out with your best friends?
Many of us have been to a bachelor or bachelorette party at least once; few
brought our parents along. These are detached social
networks!
And yet, many people seem to think nothing of
posting a status message that is intended for only one of their networks, in
full view of all the others. After all, it’s so easy to do! Just
key in your thoughts and click send. Who really remembers everyone on
their “friends” list anyway? Worse yet, the information provided by such
status updates is usually vague and open to broad interpretation. The
fact that it is text-only just compounds the problem. (If you’re unsure
what I mean by this, take a few moments to watch “Why Email Starts Fights” and
you will.) So, the chances for misunderstanding and misinterpretation
multiply, even for an innocent posting.
In other words, be careful what you say. As
in the case of my aggravated caller, you never know who’s listening.
When it comes to social networking, I don’t think
anyone has a perfect solution to this problem. Some people closely
control who gets to be on their lists, or simply decline to post updates.
These are certainly valid approaches; exercising discretion in terms of list
membership and status content is surely wise. And yet, too much
restriction here will defeat much of the benefit of social networking.
At the
other extreme are those who simply don’t give any of this a second thought, and
post whatever occurs to them. There is merit here too, I suppose, but
personally I would be worried about the long term implications of this
strategy. And my worry is not without supporting data; there have been at
least a few well-publicized instances of social networking faux pas that came
back to haunt their owners, in tangible and even economically measurable ways.
My suggestion is this: your brain is better
with clusters than with individual list items. So, don’t try to remember
everyone who is on your friends list. Instead, come up with around five
categories of people who appear there, and then personify those categories with
individuals you know. Before you post a status update, think about those
five individuals, and mentally check whether you would be ok with each of them
reading it. If it’s OK for that sample population, it’s probably fairly
safe for your wider audience.
Personally, my five are my mother, my nephew, my
client, my close friend, and my spiritual advisor. And I will admit that
on more than one occasion, this seemingly innocent list of people has stopped a
status update in its tracks. “On second thought,” I muse, “I’ll just keep
that one to myself.” Of course, this process isn’t infallible, but it
only takes about ten seconds, so it is a pretty cheap insurance policy.
It
is also far less of an imposition than one might think, at least for me.
As it turns out, I’m rarely at a loss for words. There are plenty of
things I can talk about in front of all five of my test people – not the least
of which was a recent anecdote about an odd telephone encounter in which I was
treated like a prank caller.
Author Bio: Edward G. Muzio, CEO
of Group Harmonics, is the author of the award winning books Make Work
Great: Supercharge Your Team, Reinvent the Culture, and Gain Influence One
Person at a Time and Four Secrets to Liking Your Work: You May
Not Need to Quit to Get the Job You Want. An expert in workplace
improvement and its relationship to individual enjoyment, Muzio has been
featured on Fox Business Network, CBS, and other national media, and he has
been cited in many publications including the New York Post,
the Austin American Statesman, and Spirit magazine.
He lives in Albuquerque, NM.
