Tag Archives: leaders

Can’t do everything? Well, that is a good opportunity for advocates, ambassadors, and growth

Posted on by
Reply

Lately I’ve worked with clients as they struggle to build their organizations.  Usually the conversation contains something like

“I can’t do it all and I need help with people to care and perform as well as I do”

“I need to find advocates for our organization who can get our message out”

“I need people who can present our story to others in a passionate and convincing way”

At the core, what the conversation is about is…inspiring others.

It’s also about creating advocates, partners, ambassadors for you, your organization, etc. which can carry your message within your organization and to others “outside”.

In discussions with them, I’ve mentioned 3 things to keep in mind:

  1. You can’t do everything
  2. No one will do it you way
  3. You have to inspire, train, and appreciate others

Usually, the first one is easy to discuss.  In fact, it’s the impetus.  They already know they can’t do everything.  Yet, what they don’t realize is that it’s not about “can’t” and really about “shouldn’t”.  In other words, they should look to others for help:

  • to develop and implement
  • to communicate with others
  • to improve upon the current situation

The shift to “should” involves helping them understand their role as leaders.  Leaders must focus on their role to lead.  Often, it’s not to focus on implementation.  Rather, they inspire others.  They set the vision.  They set the tone.

The second and third items are related.

Yes, by definition, no on will do it your way.  Early in my career, I was part of a Nortel/BNR program for new employees.  We were trained to do it the ‘right way’–what to say, when, and how.  I didn’t enjoy delivering the program (and nor did the majority of my colleagues).  Why?  Because it was not designed to be flexible to meet local needs.  Variation and customization was frowned up (I was downgraded on an annual evaluation simply for reversing the order of topics). 

But isn’t standardization good?  Shouldn’t people follow guidelines?  I often am asked this.

Well, yes.  But also you need to allow for people to use their brains and not just their hands, as one of my earliest managers taught me.

The implications are this:

Select, train, appreciate, and monitor.  All of these elements are important to success. 

Recently, I worked with a client on a new Ambassador Program for their organization.  This involves asking members to become advocates within their organization as well as within the community.  This exciting program has already inspired more participation and dedication not just with the Ambassadors but also within the organization.  In other words, people have become inspired to use their unique talents.

It’s the unique talent that is at the core of “no one will do it your way”.  As well, because of the training and materials each Ambassador received, they are equipped and inspired.

What has been already seen with this client, is a renewal of participation at all levels in the organization. 

It takes a strong leader to create the environment.  They must become comfortable (and skilled) with letting-go, inspiring others, and focusing on their role as leaders.

Sometimes closing a door means other openings occur

Posted on by
Reply

Several weeks ago, I reconnected with an old friend and colleague.  It had been a few years since we’d seen one another.  Both of us have been busy.  Yet, it was fantastic to see each other.

During our conversation we talked about clients and projects over the past few years.  She’s been busy with several young entrepreneurial clients while I have concentrated on nonprofit clients (along with a corporate client that I’ve worked with for many years) particularly concentrating on strategic planning.

What we both discovered that we were at a crossroads, a change, a transition.

We then joked that as consultants who help organizations through change, we should have been able to recognize this!  And know what to do about it!

For her, the change lies in the evolution of her firm and work.  She’s getting less requests for consulting and more for training.  She expressed a mixture of comfort (she knows how to do this and is quite good at it) along with disappointment (it’s less creative and more formulaic than she prefers).

On my end, I expressed sadness in losing two very long-term clients (one of 15 years and the other for the past 7).  As a consultant, you hate to lose a client.

Don’t get me wrong, we weren’t drowning our sorrows or venting on one other.

Rather what happened was a discussion on ‘change’.

You see, change isn’t easy for anyone–even those who help others through it.

So we spent a couple hours walking through the various models and tools that we use with others–on ourselves.

We talked about SARAH–the model based on the work of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross that I frequently use with clients:  Shock, Anger, Reflection, Acceptance, and Hope.

Then about Lewin’s model of change–quickly realizing there was something to be said about those things that “help” you and those that “hinder”.

It was perhaps during this part of the discussion that I remarked to her “so your long-proven skills as a trainer, an educator, a mentor, an expert are helping you.  This return to training isn’t a return.  It’s a movement towards something at which you have expertise”.

In turn she said “what you forget is that you work to improve people and organizations and that part of that help is to get them a point of being self-sufficient.”

All fine and good but we had to then confront what was making us feel bad about these changes.  Then it dawned on us that it was back to the early stages of change–whether that be the “shock/anger”  of SARAH or “unfreezing”  of Lewin.

There was a bit of silence and then we both remarked that this was good–not the conversation but what we were going through.  It was forcing us to change.  It was presenting us with closed doors.  It was also presenting us with other channels to move forward.  Other openings were happening.

You see, both of us have a lot of options in the coming months.  We just couldn’t see them.  We were looking too much as the back of a closed door and, in doing so, were missing the many other ways to move forward.

As she remarked “one of my favorite things to tell others is that leadership is about how to cope with change while management is coping with the resultant issues and tasks”. 

This really hit home for me particularly with a current strategic plan project I’m doing with a synagogue.  I quickly realized that the reason it was going so well was because they have a very strong leadership team in clergy, staff, and among lay leaders.  Yes, to be a leader means you have to cope for yourself, others, and your organization.

Coping is about emotions and feelings–something we often push aside even in ourselves.

Of course, there is always some degree of sadness at an ending.  But, there is also time to look forward to new challenges.

We then scribbled a few notes for ourselves:

  • Moving forward and change happens to everyone, often without warning
  • Change isn’t always your choice–your reaction to it is
  • Take time to ponder your past–analyze what helped your success–and then make a plan to move forward
  • Find a trusted person to help you, to talk with, and that can be honest with you
  • When doors close, windows and other doors open–look at them instead of the back of a closed door

We chuckled towards the end.  We realized that what we had done together is consult with one another.  That added another one to the list:

  • Everyone experiences change

We ended by taking our own advice and with a commitment.  Don’t go it alone.

So we’re having lunch again in August.

 

© Copyright 2018, Dynamic Growth Strategies.  All rights reserved.

How many times are you going to slam your hand in the door?

Posted on by
Reply

Many years ago my VP asked me “So David, how many times are you going to slam your hand in your car door?”

He went on to add “Before you realize you’re causing your own pain!”

Pretty vivid, huh?!

It made such an impression on me that I’ve used this line repeatedly for the past 18 years since Wayne first said it to me.

See what he was saying is that I was causing the pain I was feeling on the job.  Others, while contributing to the pain, were actually not the cause.  I was.

How was this happening?

Simple.  I was doing nothing.  Yep, nothing.

The scenario was this:

I had empowered my team to come up with a new process for training customers on how and why we were changing our data collection process.  This was an important piece of a major process re-engineering. 

I thought I was a good manager–one who set directions and goals and then trusted the team to work on the details before implementation. 

Well, the team took the bull by the horns and sent invitations to our customers for an online training session.

Good empowerment, right?

Wrong.  In doing so, they had forgotten to include several important details.  On top of this, they scheduled the meeting in conflict with a sales meeting for all customers.  My VP was getting blasted by Sales VPs around the world.

Ouch.  Ouch indeed.

So how was I causing my own pain?  Well, because this wasn’t the first time I failed to appropriately oversee progress.  I had forgotten an important lesson–that when you ask your team for something don’t forget to follow-up.  Always communicate.  No, it doesn’t stifle them.  No, it’s not micro-management.  It’s appropriate management.

What I learned that day was that difference between hands-on and hands-off management.

Because I had taken a hands-off approach (thinking that I was empowering them and letting them creatively work on a project), I failed to understand that my role was to work alongside them.  Instead, I had abandoned them.

I had put my own hand in that door and slammed it.

Recently, I’ve seen this same phenomenon in two instances with clients.

In one, a CTO was frustrated with one of his engineer’s design for a new feature.  Yet, he was hesitant to provide initial feedback  for fear it would stifle creativity.  A few weeks into the design, the engineer had changed gears and was now working on a new project entirely.  Unfortunately this was now going to cost the company both a loss in time and money.  The CTO was furious and ready to fire the engineer.  Yet, I remarked that the engineer wasn’t the problem–the CTO was himself the problem.  Not only did he take a hands-off approach but he also knew the history of this engineer was to miss deadlines.

The CTO caused his own problem, not the engineer.

And I saw it again in working with a VP regarding employee issues–particularly in confronting problem employees.  Recently, he received strong feedback from colleagues that a particular employee was making some fairly costly mistakes.  These mistakes were so drastic that the company lost two customers over a period of six months.  And while not all could be attributed to the same employee, all could be linked to the VP’s inability to address the mistakes the employee was making.

During my discussion with the VP, he kept saying that he really thought that he needed to give people space to do their work.  He went on to insist that this was an isolated incident.  He felt that the feedback from his colleagues was not something he needed to address but, rather, isolated.

The VP caused his own problems, not the employee (and not his colleagues).

Both the CTO and the VP were slamming their own hands in their car door.  No one else was doing it.  This was self-inflicted.

I know, I did it many years ago.

So, how do you know when you’re slamming your hand?

If you’re making the choice to not intervene before a problem spirals, you could be the culprit.

If you’re not giving enough direction up-front on the vision, goals, and schedule, you may be the one slamming the door.

If you fail to give parameters and milestones, your fingerprints are on the door.

If you think they will figure it out on their own, you are the one causing the pain.

If you think doing nothing is an option, then learn to live with the pain.

 

© Copyright 2017, Dynamic Growth Strategies.  All rights reserved.

W@ys to get a#ention

Posted on by
Reply

Ok, so it’s happened again.  I’ve found myself in the midst of another spirited debate on social media and leadership.

I was at a luncheon a few weeks ago when the speaker presented each table with a question to discuss.  My table received “What are the best methods to advertise and get attention for your leadership”.

The discussion began rather predictably.  We discussed what it meant to be a leader.  We moved on to the philosophical discussion on whether a leader needs to advertise.  Frankly, I found this to be much more interesting since I tend to come from the camp that leaders become leaders because others want to follow, not because they are enticed to follow.

Actually, psychologically it goes a bit deeper.  Followers see in leaders something that rekindles a positive emotional memory which they wish to recapture and, more importantly, they want to use in their present situation.  That situation could be work, personal, developmental, relationship, etc.  The point is there is a connection to the leader because of a memory coupled with a desire.

We then moved on to discuss the importance of influence in the leader-follower relationship.  I mentioned that I resonate with much of what is known about influence from research and then from practice.  This included Cialdini’s six principles of influence where I mentioned that leaders are often likable, have proven experience and authority, provide consistency, and gather groups of followers who not only follow the leader but who can also learn from fellow followers.

The discussion then moved to examples from each of us.  I used the example of a longtime client.  What makes him a leader is his uncanny ability to gather people around him.  While he has had enormous success in business, he often cites his success in making the world a better place and especially in inspiring others to do so.

He has learned how to challenge people while also serving as a role model.  Low-key and likable, he stands firm in his beliefs and convictions.  He wields influence not from his wealth but from his abundance of experience demonstrated in a steady, calm, and respectful manner.

During a discussion several years ago he taught me something about leading by giving-back.  He simply said “If you’re going to take being a leader seriously, you have to give back to the community.”  I mentioned that I had made an anonymous donation. He furrowed his brow a bit and said “Don’t do that.  People who respect you, won’t know how to follow your lead.”  He went on to say that giving provided direction and that a true leader was public about their convictions and gave more than money–gave their time, attention, and support to the community.

Many of the other examples at the table were strikingly similar.  They all centered around being a visible example so others can choose to follow.

We then turned our attention to the “how” or the “best methods”.  We quickly decided we had answered this and that we were done.

And then it happened.  A guy spoke up and said “horse-hockey” (well, he used a different word that I won’t repeat here but will rely instead on this placeholder from MASH’s Col. Potter).

Ok, he had our attention.

He began by saying that we were focusing on the wrong part of the question.  Instead of what leadership meant, we should focus on the best methods to get attention.  We had, in his opinion, wasted our time on stories and folklore.  Rather, he espoused, a leader must focus more on the method to get noticed.

He then asked for show-of-hands on who was on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn.  Most of us said we were on at least 2 of these (I’m on all except Instagram).  He then said that a leader must get their word out.  They must tweet several times a day.  They must post on the other media at least every week, if not every few days.  You have to include hashtags and at-signs in all messages.  It’s the only way to get noticed and to advertise.  He was adamant and passionate that leaders must focus on using media.

To his amazement, none of us fully disagreed with him.  Except on one major, crucial point.  That is, a leader who focuses time and effort on publicizing their message at the expense of living it through actions and relationships runs the risk of having fake-followers.  We harkened back to the earlier discussion regarding the leader-follower dynamic and the power of influence.

To that point, he shouted “aha”.  Yes, leaders are influential. He pointed to the number of followers of famous leaders–Ellen, Kim K, Taylor Swift, Pope Francis, and the president–and the ways they influence others.  (I think at this point most of us were just stunned at the lumping of these 5 people.)

I warned not to confuse followers on Twitter with followership.  In social media, some follow out of curiosity.  Some follow because of likability.  Some follow, and this somehow surprised him, to “know the enemy”–in other words, to keep tabs on what the opposition or competition says and does.

Yet, he did have a point to make, which is what I took away from the discussion.  That is,

  • Leaders influence through actions.  They must also find a way to get attention.
  • The challenge, though, is not to focus solely on one part of this equation.
  • Yes, you have to get attention but once you have it, you better have something people can use and which inspires.

 

© Copyright 2015, Dynamic Growth Strategies.  All rights reserved.

Social Media and Leadership (or Lack Thereof)

Posted on by
Reply

I love a spirited debate!  Last week was one of those times I had the unexpected opportunity.  While attending a local entrepreneur’s breakfast, a debate started at my table on how social media can make someone a leader.  I started as a passive participant but soon found myself embroiled in a fascinating and spirited exchange on leadership and social media.

It started rather simply.  We were introducing ourselves around the table with our usual elevator pitches when one person said that he was a leader (in the field of marketing) because he had 3500 LinkedIn connections, 1600 Twitter followers, 1850 Instagram followers, and 1000 Facebook friends.

A few of us took the bait…we asked about his experience and, in particular, why so many people were interested in him.

Let me summarize both sides of the debate.

Pro–social media is built on the premise that people “follow” and “like” you

Con–it’s true that people like and follow leaders but social media is about connections; sometimes people “follow” and “like” you in order to learn what not to do, sort of a voyeuristic learn-not-what-to-do-or-say

Pro–social media leaders can incite people to do good things–like the ALS Ice Bucket challenge

Con–social media leaders can incite people to do bad things–there are numerous examples of cyber-bullying leading to unfortunate outcomes

Pro–it’s much easier and clearly more efficient to communicate via social media

Con–it’s easier and probably more efficient but you also lose control of your message, can’t gauge understanding of followers, and can send quick messages that you later regret (and rarely are messages gone completely even if you take them down)

Pro–people follow me because they have a relationship with me

Con–relationships, particularly those between a leader/follower, are built on mutual knowledge, deep understanding of each other, and ongoing two-way communication and not all social media are designed to foster all of this (often they are one-way vehicles)

Pro–I have a message to get out

Con–So what is your message?  What experience do you have that can help a follower?  Why do people follow you?

This last question sort of stumped him.  It was at this moment that I think everyone realized that the debate wasn’t just about social media.  It was really about why people follow, not necessarily how they follow.

It reminded me that people follow leaders because of their knowledge, proven abilities, outlook, and charisma.

Upon reflection, it seems to me there are a few things to keep in mind:

  1. As a leader, use media appropriately and integrate it into your leadership yet don’t rely on only one way to lead.  No one method works (and for many, it is multiple methods).  Some will follow simply because they are in awe.  Others may want a dialogue.  Some learn from observing.
  2. Be clear on why someone follows you, is connected with you, likes you, friends you, etc.  Upfront make it clear what is your expertise and outlook.  Tell your story succinctly.
  3. Have something meaningful to say.  Share your experience.  Tell stories, give examples, and refer to other sources.
  4. Find a way to foster a mutual relationship–make it a two-way communication.  Engage with others–keep the “social” in social media.

To finish the story, our debate went on for another 10 minutes with no real resolution.  But I’m not sure there was a need for one.  What started as a debate became a discussion.  Both sides made cases for appropriate social media usage.

And it ended on a profound notion that we all agreed to:  that this debate helped us to bond, to learn, and to respect each other deeper.  The respectful exchange of opinions deepened our knowledge and understanding.

Yep, leadership is about the character within and not just about the characters in a message.

 

© Copyright 2014, Dynamic Growth Strategies.  All rights reserved.