To Tear Down? Really?

by Scott AiritamPresident, Scott Airitam's Leadership Systems, LLC

It's really interesting to me that after my last post, I've had four outside conversations with people that want to get me to say that we should leave the door open to use The Last Man Standing Approach.

One of those conversations was pretty brief because there was a misunderstanding--the person was trying to apply it to hiring. So that one doesn't count.

Nevertheless, I cannot say that there is prudence in leaving yourself an out to use a destructive practice.

In each of the conversations, the common denominator was that the person I was talking to had a true need behind the desire to "have permission" to use The Last Man Standing Approach. That need was that they felt they would be setting themselves up to be weakened by not being able to be direct.

What they weren't able to see at the beginning of those conversations was that Leadership allows for directness. It calls for directness when it is appropriate and needed. Sometimes that comes in course correcting someone, other times it is needed when there is no time to allow for "learning by trying" and instead the Leader has to step in and make the decision.

The other side of the discussions revealed another need. In two of the people, the habit of venting anger and frustration on employees is so ingrained that they were having a hard time imaging not being able to do that. The success of the last blogpost is that it made these people think, and, to some degree, question what they have been doing.

The Leader will shield his people from as much of the junk that obscures productivity and development as possible. This includes the Leader's moods as well as high level politics, dysfunction in other groups, lack of tools necessary to do the job, and quality co-workers. In short, the Leader is going on the offensive against anything that might tear down productivity and development of his or her people.

I've worked with too many groups where the head person brings me in to "fix" the group, and, after analysis, it's either the obstacles that person is throwing in the way of their people or the lack of removing obstacles that is the real problem with the group.

Holding onto that crutch is not a way to build up--it is a recipe for tearing down.

The recipe for building resides in developing more capable Leaders. I've worked with groups such as National Air Traffic Controllers Associations, Southwest Airlines, and Lake Pointe Medical Center because they are interested in building up their Leaders. All have seen significant success from the process because it is holistic and it doesn't bring any negative side effects other than hard work and discipline.

If those were my organizations, that is the "negative" side effect I'd sign up for as well.

To Build Up or To Tear Down - That is the Question

by Scott AiritamPresident, Scott Airitam's Leadership Systems, LLC

Before I get into the heart of this blog, let me apologize to any loyal readers out there. I have been absent from here while I tried to help my city, Rowlett, Texas, win the All American City Award from the National Civic League. It was a grueling process for the past three weeks, and, in the end we did not win, but it was an amazing thing in which I was a part. You'll probably hear more than one story from that experience in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, back to the show.

In earlier blog posts I've established that managing people is not an easy task. Ask anyone that's had to create a work schedule for their employees and maintain that schedule in spite of absences, apathy, and disloyalty. Ask any manager that has had to fire someone they liked personally, but who wasn't performing on the job. Ask any manager that has had to ensure the job got done in spite of difficult personality conflicts.

If you break down the art/science of managing people, there are two distinct schools of thought that create the outer extremes regarding how we go about this. On one end, we have the school of thought that says that you place as much adversity in front of those you lead and the superstars will shine and rise to the top. This Darwinian approach is typified publicly in television shows such as The Celebrity Apprentice and is probably demonstrated somewhere in view of you in your workplace. It is very popular and it works. It wouldn't be popular if it didn't work. On the other end of our continuum, we have the approach that if you provide those you lead with everything they need to do the job, then they will provide extraordinary results. This is not as popular as the previously mentioned approach, but it has followers nonetheless. When it works, it works in a huge, dramatic way. When it fails, the failure can be just as huge and dramatic. All managers' approaches to managing the people they lead fall somewhere on this continuum.

If we explore each approach independent of comparison for a moment, we will see that each has merit. It is where this merit falls that should influence your decision making about which approach is right for you.

The first approach, which I like to call The Last Man Standing Approach, works because the participants in it learn to work the system to get as much out of it as possible. This is good news because the system doesn't give up all it can naturally, and those that can massage and manipulate it will have the opportunity for better results. It also produces thick skin for the participants, creating a better chance of them performing under extreme circumstances, pressure, and criticism. Managers that employ this strategy get results, if for no other reason than the fear the employees have of failure and the consequences of that failure. The Last Man Standing Approach certainly claims a very high constituency among those in management. Simply look around and observe--it is not hard to find. Unfortunately, there is a downside to this strategy. The positive effects of this approach are short term in duration--because they are born of fear and compliance. When a person complies because they are scared of something, they will only comply when the thing they fear is present. If they fear the manager, then when that person goes to a meeting, leaves town, or is ill, the fear is removed and compliance ceases.

Also, by using this approach, another lesson is taught and learned. People learn that nobody watches their back and they develop self-preservation skills very quickly. Self-preservation skills often are lacking in loyalty and commitment (to the manager and/or to the organization.) the people learning this lesson are focused on one thing, themselves. This breeds unhealthy competition where one person in the organization is, at best, hoping for the failure of another so that they come out looking better. At worst, people sabotage one another. It is here that we can see how managers can be the architects of their own suffering in the long run.

Another downside of The Last Man Standing Approach is that it produces frauds. Because under this strategy what really counts is looking good, a person focuses on how they appear in a situation, not what they actually produce or do. This is the basis for a great deal of subterfuge and underhandedness. When the primary measure is the "surface" appearance, then that gets all of an individuals attention and energy. Remember that if others look bad, and I look good by comparison, then I am fine--regardless of how much better I could be doing. So, in this situation it would be in my best interest to make others look bad. The long-term prospects for this approach are meager.

So, if there is so much baggage associated with The Last Man Standing Approach then what is the alternative? The other side of the spectrum provides the next option. I call this choice Leadership. Some may argue that Leadership is simply getting people to do what you want them to do--and there is an element of truth to that. The reason The Last Man Standing Approach doesn't fall under the Leadership umbrella is that it doesn't get people to want to do what the Leader wants them to do. It's a subtle difference, but that difference has long-term implications.

Leadership is not as popular as The Last Man Standing Approach. This is because Leadership has downsides as well. The first downside is that it is not easy. Indeed, difficulty lies down this path. Getting people to follow you out of loyalty, commitment, and respect takes much more skill than getting them to follow out of fear. This method takes time as well. A person can instill fear into an employee in a matter of seconds or minutes and maintaining that level of fear doesn't require too much effort. Using Leadership skills to accomplish the same thing could take hours, day, weeks or longer. It requires much more mental and physical energy to use Leadership, at least at the beginning. But, there is an upside to this as well. Leadership enables people to follow, even when the leader is not there. Because it builds loyalty, true Leaders have proven an investment in their followers well-being. After this is established, followers often do not want to let their Leaders down. Followers often adopts a "whatever it takes" attitude toward getting their jobs done with quality, speed, and caring. As you can see, then, the emphasis is not on looking good, but doing and being good. Because true Leaders come across as selfless, caring more about the mission and the people than themselves, followers will often adopt a similar approach. No longer is self-preservation the ultimate goal, but, instead the mission and the team become the primary focus. This creates is long term commitment to the organization and to the Leaders--aiding organizational stability and forward momentum. Leadership is difficult, but the reward is worth it.

Each behavior executed from the perspective of either The Last Man Standing Approach or Leadership causes a ripple in the surface. Can a person using a Leadership strategy survive in the midst of an organization that primarily rewards The Last Man Standing Approach? The answer is not only can it survive, but it can produce real results that cannot be denied. It is true, that in that situation there is a political price to pay for being different, but, one must break through the surface in order to begin creating the ripples of change.

Creating a Career Vision

by Angela Gallogly
Vice President of USA Operations, Advanced Team Concepts
http://www.atctraining.com

Last week I had the opportunity to work with a group of young adults in a summer work program. If they successfully complete the program they’re given a summer job opportunity and a variety of training sessions for their career preparation. One of their prerequisites requires that they participate in a 2-day Work Readiness workshop with me. The class includes a variety of job related topics: interviewing, resume writing, job retention, professional conduct, communication, etc.

The section that resonated with me was at the beginning of day 1. The participants went through a variety of goal setting steps, including creating a career vision for themselves. It was exciting to see the goals that these young adults had. There was no limit to their hopes for the future. I encouraged them to identify the barriers in the way of their goals, and the actions it would take to remove them.

I decided to revisit my own career vision and give it some thought. Is my vision the same as it was 5 years ago? What’s changed? Are there new barriers? Should there be new actions? It was a very worthwhile experience for me. Often, we get so busy doing the work that we don’t think about how we’re doing it, why we’re doing it or even if we want to do it.

Organizations invest millions of dollars to map out their team’s vision. I have personally facilitated many strategic planning or vision planning sessions to meet this end. Most people in the business world have participated in this process in one way or another.

Why not take the time to do this as an individual? Think about your own career vision. A vision is not necessarily a “position.” It is more a statement of the quality and results you desire from your future work experience.

An example:
The ideal position will give me opportunity to expand my computer skills, surround me with great people at work, and give me the flexibility and income to enjoy more quality time with my family.

Why bother?
Vision, or purpose, is a strong force to help us move forward. We tend to deal with challenges and change better when we have a compelling purpose, or vision. Your vision should be creative and expanding. It should not be inhibited by your current assumptions about how things are, or how they have always been. A personal vision provokes you to think about a preferred future, and more importantly, the work that will be necessary to move toward that ideal.

When you create your vision, you can’t skip the last step that the young adult group went through. You’ve got to create actions that will move you toward the vision. Otherwise, the vision is just a dream, with no real substance. Last week, I encouraged the class to create a couple of actions each week, with deadlines, that would move them in the direction of their vision. As the journey unfolds, they’ll identify new challenges, opportunities and actions. The point is to keep the vision in front of you, and to keep working on it all of the time.

Careful! Sometimes Instincts Stink

by Scott AiritamPresident, Scott Airitam's Leadership Systems, LLC

I wonder how many of you ever got hurt trying to learn to catch a baseball or softball. Really think back. I can remember taking more than one baseball to the face and head learning to catch a fly ball.  Now, watching little kids learn, I watch coaches get exasperated with those kids whose instincts tell them to turn their back on the ball.  Or, sometimes, run and get the heck out of there!

How many times have we heard that a wild animal (be it dog, bear, or otherwise wild) can smell our fear and the worst thing we can do when confronted by them is run.  But, isn't that exactly what our instincts tell us to do? I mean, crazed dog or giant bear--my brain is saying, "don't walk, RUN!"

Some people can overcome their instincts when the situation calls for it. Others cannot. The problem is that our instincts are not always correct. Yet, our brain is sending signals to our body, in exactly the same way it does when our instincts are correct. And, our body is conditioned to get a message from the brain and go with it.  The difficult part, then, is to keep the logical, rational part of our brain going during these times of perceived "danger."  People old and young, have kept their brain from making them run from softballs and baseballs.  Instead, they raise their hand and catch the ball. There have been many people who, when confronted with animals, don't run, in spite of the fear.  Instead, they calmly execute techniques that save their lives.

So, I'll give you some insight into how this works and how to apply it to your world of work.

Now, it's amazing to me how we can see, in the above examples, that instinct clearly isn't always right.  Nevertheless, we defer to instinct in our Leadership roles at work all the time.  One clear example is in my line of work.  My company is used to seeing organizations that are going through tough times cut back or eliminate training.  

This is instinctual, and bad instincts to be precise.  Think about it.  This represents the type of insticts that will make an organization extinct.

If we just consider clear need, and answer a few questions, we can see the logic behind what I'm saying here.  First of all, when is it that organizations have the higher need to increase productivity...when they are doing well or when they are having troubles?  When is it that organizations have a greater need to improve communication...when they are doing well or when they are in trouble?  When is it that organizations have more of a need to elevate their Leadership abilities...when they are doing well or when they are in trouble?  Arguably, you could answer that the need is there in both cases, but, the questions posed are clearly looking for an answer that talks about a higher need.  With that being said, here's one final question. When is an organization more likely to cut back on training its people...when they are doing well or when they are in trouble?

Instincts will tell us that we need to stop training people and just increase results when things are in trouble. Unfortunately, these instincts are wrong.  If it were that easy to turn the faucet on, why wasn't it done sooner?  Specifically, raising the level of ability, increasing knowledge, and providing additional tools for people can only help a struggling workplace.

When circumstances pin you into the corner, don't turn your back on the ball and don't try to run and hide from your problems, instead, take them head on and make the situation into what you want it to be.  This means anticipating this problem and preparing for how you want to react to it. 

From my perspective, it's frustrating to watch organizations that I've developed a relationship with decide that their investment in their people is not a priority when things become challenging for the organization.  It is difficult to argue against the "we'll just push 'em harder and faster" mentality that organization leaders sometimes move toward during the tough times. The fact is, that approach doesn't work.  Building up the people-side of business does work.

To be clear, I'm not saying that an organization shouldn't weigh its decisions carefully.  Investing in people when times are good is very smart.  When times turn, though, what I'm saying here is that many organizations pull the people-side development down to nothing.  I am saying that although that is what instinct tells us to do, it is not the smartest thing to do.

So, in our example, the counter-instinctual response would be to increase the level of training and development in an effort to counter some of the negative effects of the troubles the organization is dealing with.  During difficult times you have the opportunity to increase the efficiency, productivity, morale, and commitment of your people.  By strengthening your position instead of weakening your position during these tough times, it stands to reason you can improve your chances of coming out of those times in a better position.