Resistance Is...

by Scott Airitam

President, Scott Airitam's Leadership Systems, LLC

As I was coming in from taking my youngest to the bus stop this morning, a friend tells me that she has to go to the dentist. I actually cringed. Then, the measure of self-awareness I've been blessed with kicked in and I started asking why I was having that reaction to the dentist. Sure, I've had unpleasant and uncomfortable visits to the dentist's chair, but my life would be so much worse if I hadn't gone through those experiences. Stopping to think about it rationally, the short-term pain or discomfort of visiting the dentist (let's label it 1% of my time) makes the rest of my life (let's call it 99% of my time) much higher in quality.

With that being said, another side of me kicked in after all of that and I started making the reasonable parallel that many adults react to training in that way. Of course, I had to ask why. So, now you have a blog to read.

So, in my experience, there is a healthy percentage of people who do not want to be there in most of the classes I facilitate. This generally has nothing to do with me or my company, it would exist regardless of who created or delivered the session. They resist the very improvement opportunity that would make them better. Now, if they stopped and thought about it rationally, they might change their approach, but, I'm not mad at them for their resistance. Their reluctance to learn, grow, develop, and to better themselves isn't always born of a lack of desire for those outcomes, instead, it is often much more deeply rooted.

You see, many people resist because they want control. As adults, they have a lot of responsibility, and, the surface level excuse for their lack of enthusiasm is that they don't have time for the training class. They've got important stuff to do. I try very hard not to take that one as an insult. Anyway, that's often all surface talk. I know it is because I've honed my craft to a point that most people who spend any time at all in a Leadership Systems class forget that they didn't want to be there within the first hour. What it really boils down to is control.

Most kids don't like to go to school for the same reason. Other people, who claim to know what's best (parents, teachers, school administrators, even politicians and police) FORCE children to go to school, regardless of what they want to do. I'm not questioning whether kids should go to school or not, of course they should. But, for every action there is a reaction, right? In this case, by forcing someone to do something for so many years, when they are an adult and can choose, they often choose to go against that which was forced upon them. Regardless of how good it is for them.

So, we meet adults who can certainly benefit from the sessions we offer, but, have a compulsion not to...because they can.

Organizations are only as good as the talent they bring in and the synergy they can create among the people. When organizations foster an attitude that self-improvement and team-improvement are not priorities, those organizations are weakening their position in their market space.

For this reason, we purposefully develop all of our sessions based on an adult learning model that engages people--that's why I can say that people forget that they were forced to be there inside of an hour. People let down their guard in our sessions, mainly because our sessions don't feel like school at all, even though we are conscious of the learning milestones that are being reached. We look to actually create behavior change. It has to be this way, or those who resist continue to throw up passive or active roadblocks to their own learning in the classroom. For this reason, I can't fathom how training organizations that aren't proficient in experiential learning, accellerated learning, and adult learning continue to thrive. They do mainly because they find clients who just want to document that training hours have been made available. I guess there are some companies out there that just want to check the box.

For me, though, helping people to learn, grow, and develop is important. Helping organizations to come together and take the next step is a passion. I would love a world where people were conscious about getting better, being better employees and better people, and where everyone's self-awareness kicked in and made them inquire of themselves, "why?"

Building (and Rebuilding) Your Team

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

In my last blog, I promised to dedicate some time to the topic of building an effective team. I stressed the importance of giving team relationship adequate attention and outlined a couple of risks if the relationship is neglected.

In my work as a facilitator, there is one question that I get a lot. So what should you do if your team isn’t in sync? The answer depends on several factors, which include: the team, the problem (or pain, as I call it), and the cause of the pain.

It’s often best to start by unearthing the potential contributing factors to the problem. Have there been changes in the work environment? What are the demands that the team is being challenged with? Has there been a change in personnel? Has the personnel change impacted the group dynamic? There are endless scenarios that I could highlight here, but the important thing to remember is this – try to get to the root cause so you’re not just treating the symptoms, but you also understand the disease. You may or may not be able to change the cause, but understanding where the team’s pain is coming from can be important as you begin to work through the challenges.

I recently facilitated a customer’s staff retreat that provides a great example. In this customer’s scenario, there had been staff changes that had taken place at an executive level. This had resulted in a great deal of upheaval. The trickle down effects were additional personnel changes and a new methodology for running the business. New processes were put into place, and old, long-ignored processes were reinstated. No longer could an employee do something because “that’s the way we did it before.”

These changes created some interesting team dynamics. Some of the team members were excited by the new challenges and the potential for growth and success. Others resisted the change and were fearful of what was going to happen next.

When we designed and then delivered the retreat, we kept all of the above factors in mind. We spent two days focusing on the rebuilding of this team. Part of the process involved sharing information. This alleviated some of the fears of the unknown that the team members were experiencing. We also provided new tools in communication and leadership to equip the team to meet the business standards being set by the new director. Lastly, we combined social events and facilitated discussions to allow people to dialogue and solidify their relationships. At the conclusion of the event, definite progress had been made. The participants were open in their sharing, and the atmosphere was positive.

It’s important to point out that this team’s work was not done. They will need to continue their dialogue and follow up on commitments made at the retreat. The building and sustaining of a healthy team is an ongoing process.

This is just one example of how a team decided to navigate a major transition. The solution for another team scenario could be completely different. I’d recommend beginning by taking the “pulse” of your team. How’s the team’s morale? How’s communication going? What are the challenges that the team is facing? Are any of these factors impacting the effectiveness of team? When you’ve drilled down into the cause of the issues, you’ll be much more likely to create an on-target team building effort.

A Look at Office Politics

by Scott Airitam,

President, Scott Airitam's Leadership Systems, LLC

Most people desire to get ahead in their career, and, a vast majority of people would prefer to be considered a success by others. There are many factors that go into how much a person can attain in their career and numerous difficult decisions affect the level of success a person realizes. People that do not have personal aspirations and a sense of aggression about their career will often get left out in the cold, stepped on by others, and left waiting a promotion time. As we move forward in our careers, though, it is as important to know how much carnage we’ve piled up behind us as it is to see how far we’ve gotten. It isn’t just accomplishments that are considered whenever someone looks at the sum total of a career; there are other aspects to consider as well.

Because humans are political beings, many of the difficult decisions a person has to make in the navigation of a career involve office politics. The more successful we consider ourselves, generally, the more politics we have to deal with. This type of politics often carries negative results. There are those who recognize these negative politics and try to do the right thing in spite of pressure to the contrary. There are those who recognize the politics and don’t make a particularly courageous effort to do the right thing because of perceived personal gain, because they choose to avoid or can’t handle conflict, or because of fear or manipulation. There are also those who simply don’t understand the politics around them—thus they sometimes luck into the right thing and other times fall into doing the wrong thing.

How can we determine the right thing and the wrong thing when it comes to office interactions and our ability to get what we want or need done? Just like any ethical dilemma, it will depend on personal values. Obviously, the laws of our land are a guide and the policies of the company are a guide, but there is so much more to it than that. Which is more right, for you to receive personal benefit or for your organization to benefit? When these things are at conflict, it is a difficult question to answer for most, and it should be. After all, we are in a society and a time where if you don’t look out for yourself, you will be hard pressed to find anyone else that will. The tenured and loyal employees get laid off just like anyone else. Companies with all the “success” in the world are failing overnight due to ethical blunders. So, it is difficult to say that a person should give 100 percent, all the time, to the company they work for, but it is true. Without that company, there would be no paycheck and no opportunities to reach the individual goals ambitious people set for themselves. It becomes a risk that every employee should be willing to make as long as they choose to be with an organization.

The bottom line is that if you’ve chosen a life within an organization with people, you will experience politics, and the rule of thumb is that while we are employed by an organization, what is good for the organization is good for us. Therefore, if we make decisions based on negative politics and personal gain (or personal avoidance of conflict) instead of making the decision based on doing the right thing, we are creating carnage in our wake. We may get in good with the right people or garner the right person’s attention at a timely moment, but the damage we leave behind stands as a testament of how we operate. Certain people may believe that the negative results of our actions go unnoticed, but they do not. In most cases there is someone who sees it and there are definitely people that care.

Here are a couple of examples of scenarios that help put all of this into perspective.

1) Policy Violations/Discipline:
Frank is the assistant to a vice president with whom you feel you need to have a good relationship in order to be successful in your job. The VP has said on many occasions that Frank is one-of-a-kind and invaluable to him. A female employee in your department has come to you, hesitantly, to report that Frank has been sexually harassing her over the past couple of weeks. She is uncomfortable with the situation, but “doesn’t want to cause any waves.” As a manager, you know that the VP might not favor you as much if you pursue this, but you have an obligation to your employee, right?

In this case, there is clear benefit for you, the manager of the department, to play the political angle. The ease in which you are able to get things done, to succeed with this VP, is at stake. If this were a real-life scenario for any of us, it would be a difficult position to be in. Playing out the example though, not taking formal action in this situation may enable you to avoid being in the political doghouse with this particular VP, but it can have devastating effects on the company and you. Because, in this example, you are a member of management, you are a representative of the company and can be held responsible for your actions, or inaction, in a court of law along side your company. Going with the political decision here can cost the company hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars as well as possible court ordered company policies detrimental to the long-term success of the organization. Clearly, the carnage left in the wake of a decision made on political criteria is detrimental to the organization, is seen by others, and can have a negative affect on the ability for you to achieve your personal goals in the future. Nobody wins.

2) Promotions/Hiring/Firing
You are a supervisor in your company’s customer relations department. You are good at both leading other people and at taking care of the company’s valued customers—especially when they are upset. Over the past year you have been asking to hire another employee because your department, working hard the entire time, has fallen two months behind on answering correspondence, averages a hold time on the telephones of over three minutes, and works almost eight hours of overtime per person a week. You know you really need two or three new employees, but you’ve finally been given the budget and go-ahead to hire one new person. You have been interviewing and believe that you have found a person with that hard-to-find mix of talent and attitude to be a long-term success in the company and on your team. Before you can make an offer to that person, the CEO, inserts a new candidate into the equation. This new candidate is someone that is the daughter of a friend of the CEO and she went to the same college as the CEO. She clearly lacks the work experience of the candidate you’d like to hire and her degree is in a completely different field. She could possibly get the job done, but you are sure the leading candidate can do the job better. If you do not hire her, you may have to answer to the CEO and if you do hire her, the CEO should be very happy with you. What is the right thing to do?

Here too, there is a benefit to be considered by hiring the person the CEO recommended. By hiring the person the CEO put into the process, you could win some favor for you and your department and avoid tough questions and scrutiny in the future. The negative aspect of making that decision, however, has to do with what is best for the department and the company. By not hiring the best available person for the job, attitude and skills, you are risking losing the employees on the team that have gone above and beyond for a year. If the new hire doesn’t alleviate some of the workload on them, they will either leave for a different job or they will physically stay and mentally depart. When that happens, you will likely face some tough questions anyway. Nobody wins.

Without a doubt, there are many more scenarios that could be brought up. Situations with vendors, circumstances of gender, race, or sexual orientation, and decisions on how we spend our time are all examples of this. Playing office politics has repercussions that affect more than just the people involved. By being about the right thing, being honest, having a clear understanding of our own personal ethics and values, and developing the skills to handle conflict productively win-win situations are created for the company and for ourselves. Most of all, in the end, we will be respected, not just liked. There is a huge difference.

The Fatal Flaw of Planning

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

So, check this out. I'm sitting here, doing my work and minding my own business when people I admire very much, my county commissioner and his assistant, ask me to represent them on a pretty important board of directors. Now, I don't have any ambition at all to serve in public office. I'm very thankful to those that do serve because it's important to be represented, and, because we need options in order to get the right people in office.

But, I digress...

Anyway, I have a plan for my life. It's not rigid and it's not all written down, but it is a legitimate plan. Then comes this opportunity, and, whoa, I'm considering it. Not only am I considering it, but I've all but said yes, barring any potential conflicts of interest with my work. No doubt, this, and the recent appointment to a Dallas Area Rapid Transit Quarterly Incentive Committee for their Blue Line extension from Garland to Rowlett will throw some kinks into my plan. I mean, I didn't even know about these things when I created the plan.

And, I'm finding that to be the fatal flaw in small business planning. I get to work with companies of every size and industry in so many different cultures and communities. Life has truly dealt me a special hand when it comes to my career. Just over the course of the summer, I've gone from working with the Air Traffic Controller's Association (a union), to juveniles, to hospital directors, to bank officials--just to name a few. Also, I've chatted with more than one small business owner about improving their business. These conversations generally come down to knowing their business plan. The sad, but realistic, thing about this is that small business owners are so busy keeping the business going that they do not reappraise their plans. Years and years after creating the business plan, they are still relying on it to guide their decision making. Of course, they've made adjustments, but they are in their mind, nothing concrete, and thus are subject to how powerful the influences pulling in different directions that day happen to be.

The real tragedy though, isn't that they don't "officially" adjust the plans they've created. No, the real issue here has much more impact on the big picture. What happens, by maintaining an old plan, the organization keeps hard-charging in the direction that it had originally set. Opportunities are missed. Opportunity spurs opportunity in this life and if a true opportunity is overlooked, so is the path that could have been by seeing it.

Like I said, I have no doubt that by being a part of the DART committee and the board of directors that the commissioner would like to name me to is going to open up new doors I could never have seen before. People I wouldn't have ever spoken to will become familiar and their influence will affect me and vice-versa. The same things happen for organization (of all size, by the way.)

I tell the kids I coach in basketball that their defensive effort isn't completed until we have the ball. In this case planning isn't finished until an the plan is changed to take into account opportunities that might not have ever fit into your plan in the first place.

A Day In The Life

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

Picture yourself as the head of a tech firm. You've got your MBA and you've put some skins on the wall. Your accomplishments are well recorded. And you see many more in front of you. You are a hard driver, rarely stopping along the way to celebrate, to rest, or to enjoy the ride. Your life is about accomplishing things.

Now, picture one of your VP's saying that you should talk to this guy, Scott Airitam. Evidently, he has some really good training that let's companies accomplish more together and leaves people with a true sense of loyalty and commitment to the organization.

Your first question is what? "How much does this cost?" The VP says he's not sure, but let's bring Scott in and talk to him--at least that part is free. So, as not to be a complete jerk, you say, "sure."

This Scott guy comes in asks a bunch of questions. Some of them make you mad because his questions come with the assumption that there is something that could improve about the company. He's doing a needs assessment right here in front of you. The nerve of that guy! He leaves with the promise to put a few options for what he could do for the company in a proposal and have this to you tomorrow. Tomorrow? What, does this guy not have anything else to do?

Later that day, you are thinking about some of the things Scott said. Some of it was surprisingly insightful for someone that hasn't worked here. Too bad he owns a company and isn't looking for a job. Nevertheless, his services are probably going to be expensive, and, you have to save all of your training and development budget for technical training for your people. After all, it's the sales force and production work that really pay the bills around here. Not some psychobabble training about the "people-side" of business. So, you put Scott out of your mind and work until 9pm that night, and, in spite of yourself, you do peek at who leaves at five and who stays late. A couple of your managers stay later than you. You remind yourself to mention to their VP what a great job they are doing. See, you have people skills!

You arrive back at work at 7am. You were tired before your eyes completely opened, but that is what coffee is for. The company depends on you to survive. Yes, you make a mental note of what time certain people arrive for work. We'll see how many hours they put in today. By 9:30am, you have an email from Scott. A proposal. You go to open it, but before you are able to do so, your assistant tells you that Scott is on the line. What, did he send the thing by mistake and now, unable to recall it, he's calling you?

You get him on the line and he wants to walk through the proposal with you--like you cannot read. Wow, this thing is pretty comprehensive both as a potential contract and as an action plan! Unexpected.

Ugh. All three options require you to take part in the training sessions. Is he nuts? Why would he blatantly offend you by saying that you need work. He must really NOT want to work with you. Wait, he's saying that you should take the sessions as a way to model how important you think they are to the organization. You do not have time for this. This Scott guy doesn't know how many hours you already put in. He's suggesting courses that teach better leadership skills, how to handle conflict effectively, hiring right the first time, the value of diversity, performance management, and some stuff about culture like internal customer service, cooperation and collaboration, and the use of power. Interesting stuff...and according to him, the company would be more efficient. You wouldn't have thought about a bunch of this stuff for your organization because, you are already doing it, right? But, there are definitely some poor conflict management skills around here. Not sure about the hiring session, though, your management is doing a good job with HR's help, right? Performance management could be helpful--you remember some of that stuff from college, but you really have just been winging it. Hmmm. And this culture stuff is pretty cool. And he's claiming it will make our culture and our people a competitive advantage over the competition.

But, let's see what he's charging. Whoa. Didn't expect that. That's a large chunk out of our training budget to do what he's suggesting, and we still need the tech training. You could move some stuff around in the budget and do this, but do you?

Building an Effective Team

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

I want to spend the next couple of blogs focusing on building an effective team. It’s a key principle and priority in my business, and it’s certainly important to the customers that I serve. In past blogs, I’ve circled the topic with the discussion of effective communication and building trust. Now I want to expand the discussion to include the challenges, the rewards, and a few keys to success for building a GREAT team.

Teamwork is all about people. It’s about creating a place where the talents and energies of individuals can combine to create something great. It’s also a tremendous challenge. It takes ongoing work and focused effort. A common misconception that I encounter in the business world is the idea that you can “team build” once every year or two and then check it off the list and get to the “real work.”

Imagine a family that only has “family time” once or twice a year, maybe at a gathering for a major holiday or family reunion. The rest of the year, the family is busy – work, chores, school, bills….I’ve seen my own family get into this mode – we call it the frantic family syndrome. There isn’t time for quality time, family dinners or fireside chats. Have you ever noticed that this is when the family fighting starts? It’s the same with a work team. If you don’t take the time to communicate, connect, and build relationships, eventually you’re going to see some dysfunction.

When a team isn’t cohesive, you can see the signs. Is there an absence of trust? Does the team avoid conflict or handle it badly? Are the individuals in the team more interested in their own self-preservation and advancement as opposed to the success of the team?

If you’ve noticed signs that your team isn’t syncing well, that’s a start. Awareness is the first critical step, but it must be combined with a commitment for improvement.

To start you off, I’d like to recommend a great read that my friend and colleague, Scott Airitam, shared with me. Patrick Lencioni’s, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. It’s a simple fable that simplifies and defines the importance of a healthy and effective team.

In future blogs, I’ll discuss some practical tips that can strengthen a team from both a leadership and a contributing team member’s perspective. If you have any team stories or tips, please add your comments. I’d love to hear them.

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.