Leaders Listen: A Process to Assist

Recently several clients have ask for a better way to assist their senior leaders gain a deeper understanding of the ideas, issues, and input from throughout all levels in their organizations. The conversations with them have centered on the need to help them with a process to involve others. Seemingly, there is an understanding that the need exists–so it has been more of a “how to” need.

In working with them, I’ve shared a process I used many times as a manager, mentor, and even now as a coach and advisor to leaders. At its core, it is a structured process to gather input. Yet, it’s more than that. It is a mindset in the leader that there is both a need and structured way to gather input.

In working with them, I have shared the process commonly referred to as “skip level meetings”.

An Overview of Managerial Skip Level Meetings

What is it?

Basically, it is when a higher-level manager meets with employees in-person to discuss organizational issues without the presence of their direct manager.

The purposes include:

  • gain information, perceptions, and ideas on the organization’s effectiveness through honest and unfiltered assessment from front-line employees
  • understand impressions and feelings about the organization, operations, and processes
  • allows employees to speak freely and confidentially

What are the pros and cons?

As with any managerial opportunity, there are potential gains as well as possible pitfalls.  These include:

Gains

  • creates stronger bond among employees and managers
  • opens communication channels
  • discover information of future value to the organization
  • gather insight into management operations and behaviors which can be areas for development

Pitfalls

  • be aware of hidden agendas, historical information, and previous ‘wounds’
  • caution not to give orders, even inadvertently
  • over-reaction to management feedback and the person delivering the message
  • managers do not understand the purpose and process

How do I do this?

Start off with a plan.  Think about when, how often, and why you will implement skip-level meetings.  Once ready, communicate it first to your managers.  Do so with clarity as to why and how–and listen to their input and concerns. 

Keep in mind the following tips for success:

Consider timing–when during the month, year, quarter will you receive feedback you can use?  This may mean avoiding times that are busier or where emotions are higher.  You want to strive for a ‘regular’ or ‘normal’ time.

Frequency–at a minimum, quarterly is often the optimal schedule.  However, if you are new or the organization is undergoing change you may want to do them monthly. 

Format–consider if you will do it as a group or with each individually.  Besides the obvious timing issues, consider confidentiality and participation.  While there is no correct or best format, you should think about implications.  Should you choose to do it as a group, ensure confidentiality.  When doing it individually, understand not all will be as forthcoming. You may even want to do a hybrid approach such as a group meeting following by individual meetings.  This can be especially helpful during times of change or as a new manager.   And these are always in-person.

Equitable treatment–simply put, include everyone.  Do it with everyone.  For a group setting, include the full team.  If doing individual sessions, be sure not to pick just a few since doing so will have people perceive you are biased.

As to process, consider a typical series of events:

  1. Decide on why, how and when you will implement skip-level meetings
  2. Communicate with your managers and gain their input and ideas
  3. Communicate the plan (why, how, when) to all employees directly from you
  4. Send along any questions or items for them to think about ahead of time, if needed
  5. Conduct the meeting(s)
  6. Communicate with full team (managers and employees) most common themes and any changes

And regardless of format–as a group or individually–build rapport as you begin.  Start with a simple question or even chat about something you have in common.

What could I ask?

Keep in mind the purpose is to solicit honest feedback, gain insight, and gather ideas.  Equally, keep in mind that you should organize the session so they talk more and you listen.  The following are suggested questions:

  • What do you like most about working here? 
  • What’s one thing that is working well for our organization? 
  • How do you hear about if you have done something well?   And from whom?
  • What do you like most about your job? 
  • What things would you change or improve about your job, department or at the organization? 
  • How does your manager recognize you for good performance or a job well done? 
  • What resources, information and support do you need to be more successful in your job? 
  • If you experience a problem or roadblock, where do you go for support and solutions? 
  • If you could change or implement 1 new idea, what would it be?
  • What is something you would like for your manager to know about you yet haven’t told them?
  • What would you like to know about me, our department, our strategy, etc?

In preparing questions and format, ensure the following:

  • Keep questions open–this encourages people to talk
  • Allow for 10 minutes for each question.  This guideline allows for not only time for them to think and respond initially to the question but for you to follow-up with clarification as needed.
  • Prioritize questions.  You’ll likely run out of time so want to ensure most important questions are first.
  • Vary questions as needed to timing of year.  If you’re entering the planning time of the year you may want more questions about new ideas and changes.
  • If you are doing the meeting with the team, consider ways for them to confidentially respond.  This could be using Post-it notes or perhaps having them submit them ahead of time (not via email but through another mechanism). 
  • Always conduct skip-level meetings in a closed, confidential space.  Use a conference room or office.
  • You should take notes.  And in follow-up, include general and common themes.  It’s important to follow-up and follow-through!

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

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

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)

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.