Bill Treasurer of Giant Leap Consulting provided 5 Strategies to Address Conflict as a Manager. Bill recaps, “Conflict is inevitable, and part of being a leader is dealing with this conflict. If dealt with correctly, conflict can be an impetus for change. Here are five techniques to effectively deal with conflict.” Find Bill on Twitter at @btreasurer.
Christopher Avery of Christopher Avery and the Leadership Gift provided Relearning How to Want. Christopher summarizes, ” Freedom, power, and choice come to us when we pursue what we truly want. Unfortunately, most of us don’t know what we truly want. This post reveals how relearning how to want drives self-leadership, and how you can achieve it.” Find Christopher on Twitter at @christopheraver.
Dana Theus of InPower Coaching contributed 3 Things My Dog Reminded Me About Employee Performance and Employee Engagement. Dana writes, “Just like I had slipped into complacency with Mike and his last minute deadlines, and with Loki’s squirrel chasing, most of us slip into accepting low performance from employees until it’s too late. We write people off as “untrainable and uncoachable” when it’s really we who need to learn how to train and coach.” Find Dana on Twitter at @DanaTheus.
David Grossman of The Grossman Group shared Kick Email to the Curb Over Spring Break. David writes, “Why don’t we not leave email at the office when we’re on vacation? Because it’s hard. But the more we set up our teams and colleagues to be successful without us, the better we become, our colleagues become empowered, and we’re able to get some necessary R&R. Get tips and strategies today to help your next vacation be email free.” Discover David on Twitter at @thoughtpartner
Eileen McDargh of The Resiliency Group provided Three-Letter Leaders Create Clarity. Eileen recaps, ” In the age of 140 character tweets and 12-minute Ted talks, much can be gained by considering what three-letter titles can do to clarify roles and responsibilities. Everyone knows the roles and responsibilities for a CEO, CFO and CTO but change the wording and a different picture emerges. Imagine, for example, a CEO tasked as the Chief Engagement Officer.” Find Eileen on Twitter at @macdarling.
Jim Taggart of Changing Winds provided “Call Me Nick!” Leadership in Running Shoes. Jim shares, “Top leaders need to connect regularly with the people who get the work done in their organizations. Putting on a pair of running shoes will keep you more nimble. Don’t believe it? Read about ‘Call me Nick’!” Find Jim on Twitter at @72keys.
Jon VerBeck of JonVerbeck.com submitted What’s the Score? . In his post, Jon takes the opportunity of spring (and the completion of March Madness) to suggest how you can know the score in your business. Discover Jon on Twitter at @jonverbeck1.
Julie Winkle-Giulioni of Julie Winkle-Giulioni provided 4 Raises That Fit Any Budget. Julie recaps, “Effective leaders understand that limits on external motivators don’t have to limit their ability to tap internal sources of employee motivation. This brief post and animated video demonstrate that while pay raises might be in short supply, there are always four ‘raises’ available to leaders… and they cost literally nothing.” Find Julie on Twitter at @julie_wg.
Linda Fisher Thornton ofLeading in Context shared “Great Leaders” Find Gold Within. Linda recaps: “Great leadership is often defined based on efficiency, effectiveness or profitability, but that’s no way to define a journey of character building and authenticity. There’s much more to the story that needs to be told.” Find Linda on Twitter at @leadingincontxt.
Marcella Bremer of Leadership and Change Magazine provided The Positive Mindset – to broaden your view. Marcella recaps, “In this blog post, I compare the conventional mental map and the positive mindset of possibilities. When you add the positive mindset you broaden your view and your repertory of responses. It is both/and rather than either/or. Highly recommended for all leaders: positive thinking and learning to see the positive potential of situations and people!” Find Marcella on Twitter at @marcellabremer.
Mary Ila Ward of Horizon Point Consulting provided 3 Tips for Successfully Onboarding New Hires. Mary recaps, “Whether you are a company of three or a company of 30,000, onboarding can make or break employee engagement and retention even before day one. Having an onboarding strategy that is executed well starts with a plan. In this post, Mary Ila shares 3 tips for leaders to successfully onboard new hires.” Find Mary on Twitter at @maryilaward.
Mike Hoban of Development Dimensions International (DDI) provided Could Siri Become Your Leadership Coach?. Mike recaps, “What if you had a personal advisor that could help you be a better leader? An advisor with great listening skills, who knows you extremely well and is available 24/7? But here’s the catch: that resource would be a machine.” Find Mike on Twitter at @ddiworld.
Miki Saxon of MAPping Company Success contributed Psychological Manipulation: The Popular New Management Tool. Miki writes, “60 years ago companies were condemned for using psychological manipulation on their customers via ads.These days it’s an accepted practice to design your products and ads to be as addictive as possible. Now psychological manipulation has moved on to the management arena, with Uber leading the rush.” Discover Miki on Twitter at @optionsanity.
Molly Page of Thin Difference contributed The Power of 3 Simple Words. Molly summarizes, “It’s been said that we don’t only learn from good examples. Recently we’ve seen several public relation debacles play out in the news, these can serve as lessons for all of us about the power of 3 simple words..” Follow Thin Difference on Twitter at @thindifference and Molly at @mollypg.
Neal Burgis of Burgis Successful Solutions submitted Connecting Your Leadership with Your Employees. Neal recaps, “The connection leaders have with their employees has been found to increase productivity and performance. If you don’t have a connection with employees they won’t feel they own the work they produce. Therefore, they won’t put a lot of effort into doing work for you.” Find Neal on Twitter at @exec_solutions.
Randy Conley of Leading With Trust shared 4 Ways to Get Your Followers to Know You as a REAL Person. Randy writes, “Research shows that many employees don’t see their leaders as real people; they form mental images of the leader based on limited interactions and random pieces of information. Using the acronym REAL, Randy Conley provides four ways leaders can develop authentic relationships with their employees that foster trust, loyalty, and engagement.” Find Randy on Twitter at @randyconley.
Susan Mazza of Random Acts of Leadership provided 9 Ways a Leader Can Earn Trust. Susan explains, “When it comes to earning trust as a leader, your actions speak far more loudly than your words. Here are 9 actions you can take on a daily basis to actively earn the trust of those you lead and greatly increase your chances of being trusted with the things that really matter.” Follow Susan on Twitter at @susanmazza.
Through time, all generations were self-absorbed, but due to sheer size, the Boomers are the original me generation.
Gen X wasn’t much better and in 1982 Steve Wozniak financed The US Festival. According to Glenn Aveni, director of a recently released documentary about the festival,
“Woz felt the 1970’s were The ‘Me’ Generation and that it was time for the world to embrace a less selfish credo, one of unity and togetherness.”
Great music, but little effect.
Millennials come next, slightly more of them (75.4 M to 74.9) and most happily carry on the focus on me.
Tech has driven that focus across all generations via selfies and social media to the point that for millions their experiences, meals and even their lives exist only if they constantly post them online and they are liked, shared, and retweeted.
There was a time when I allowed myself to be more than what could fit onto a 2-by-4-inch screen. When I wasn’t so self-conscious about how I was seen. When I embraced my contradictions and desires with less fear of embarrassment or rejection.
The focus on me has led to a focus on being happy — polls and articles measuring happiness, and comparing happiness.
Back in the day, the Boomers considered everything a challenge that must be overcome. Fast forward to now and Millennials, especially those in Silicon Valley, see the world as a series of problems to be “hacked” (modern times call for modern words).
Which, to put it politely, is a crock.
Andrew Taggart thinks most of this is nonsense. A PhD in philosophy, Taggart practices the art of gadfly-for-hire. He disabuses founders, executives, and others in Silicon Valley of the notion that life is a problem to be solved, and happiness awaits those who do it. Indeed, Taggart argues that optimizing one’s life and business is actually a formula for misery.
This is important, because, in many ways, it’s Silicon Valley that is shaping much of our world — even for those of us who choose not to actively participate.
But I doubt Taggart and his ilk will change that attitude or the obsessive focus on “my world.”
Scott Berkun, a former Microsoft manager and philosophy major who has written multiple business books on the subject, says philosophy’s lessons are lost on most in Silicon Valley. Many focus on aggrandizing the self, rather than pursuing a well-examined purpose. “If you put Socrates in a room during a pitch session, I think he’d be dismayed at so many young people investing their time in ways that do not make the world or themselves any better,” he said.
I never saw life as a challenge or a problem. I prefer a different mantra.
Life is a mystery to be lived — not a challenge/problem to be overcome.
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of some of the best posts during that time.
I wrote this in 2012 with high hopes that more bosses would move in Chris’ direction, with an eye to making their workplaces more socially responsible and individuals more aware of the world outside their little corner of it. Sadly, the importance of ‘me’ has grown considerably, dwarfing, at least in the media, those who strive to move beyond that narrow focus.
A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read allIf the Shoe Fits posts here
I met an interesting guy over the holiday.
“Chris” has a small startup in the financial services sector and is starting to gain traction.
He said it’s been an uphill battle and that he wishes he had spent the same energy doing something “socially responsible,” because it would be a lot more satisfying.
I’ve heard similar comments from other entrepreneurs and small biz owners.
Happily, this is one of those times it is possible to “have it all,” because all it takes is changing the way you look at the world.
Having a socially responsible business doesn’t require a focus on solving social ills and it certainly doesn’t mean forgoing profit—without profit your business won’t be around.
It does mean running your business in a responsible manner
pricing fairly, passing on savings whenever possible and never gouging
fair wages and other compensation
fair employee treatment (not playing favorites, etc.)
reducing your carbon footprint
community involvement and contributing whenever possible; and
None of this is rocket science and all of it makes good, profitable, business sense.
In fact, Chris and others who feel the pull to help fix the world would do well to read Richard Branson’s Screw Business As Usual to see how others are ‘doing well by doing good’.
Note: the unseen pause is between ‘screw’ and ‘business’, not between ‘business’ and ‘as’,
A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read allIf the Shoe Fits posts here.
Although I rarely get comments, I would really appreciate any insights you can offer on this subject.
KG sent a press release he thought would interest me; it should interest you, too.
The Montreal-based artificial intelligence startup Lyrebird today unveils its voice imitation algorithm.
With this innovation, Lyrebird is going a step further in the development of AI applications by offering to companies and developers new speech synthesis solutions. Users will be able to generate entire dialogs with the voice of their choice or design from scratch completely new and unique voices tailored for their needs.
First, a quick story.
Years ago a friend got in trouble when someone spoofed his email, catfished him and made a bomb threat to a local school. Fortunately, he was able to prove it wasn’t him.
It turned out that it was a kid who was mad at his teacher.
People are catfished all the time. Usually it’s not a big deal, but sometimes, as with my friend, potential repercussions can be very serious.
Nobody likes being catfished, but think of the damage that could be done using Lyrebird’s algorithm.
How could you explain a threatening or obscene phone call in your voice?
Lyrebird talks about benign uses, such as “personal assistants, for reading of audio books with famous voices, for connected devices of any kind, for speech synthesis for people with disabilities, for animation movies or for video game studios“ and shows off audio examples, including Donald Trump.
Now think what the outcome could be from a highly inflammatory call to Kim Jong-un mimicking Trump’s voice.
Tech people talk all the time about how they are “changing the world” and making it better, but they seem far more focused on enhancing their personal brand and making money, while turning a blind eye to any potential negative effects.
Are they truly amoral?
Or do they even owe humanity at least some consideration of the possible negatives?
Public image for both companies and people has always been important and even more so with the availability of information at our disposal. But even with these tools we are still dealing with asymmetrical information when making decisions and establishing culture.
I spoke to a friend over dinner the other night who travels overseas for work quite a bit. As a result he is not up to speed on current US events and was unaware of the string of crisis that have impacted Uber.
He was shocked to learn that they were involved in lawsuits, scandals and more. It was actually a bit like hearing it for the first time myself as I had a chance to see his emotions as he learned the news.
His opinion of Uber was shaped on asymmetrical information.
I had mentioned in a previous post that some local companies that tout their high employee reviews are not as shiny from the inside. Again, asymmetrical information.
The director of the FBI has been fired, we as the public are dealing with asymmetrical information for the reasons behind it.
I state all of this to say that we must constantly strive to learn, ingest and understand as much as we can when making decisions about the companies we deal with and people we hire.
I recently took part in a process where a new employee was terminated. It was unfortunate but they were not a good fit for the role, exaggerated a bit during the interview process and then didn’t make up for it after being hired.
This person is someone that I wouldn’t mind being friends with, but they were not suited for the role they were in. The hire was a result of asymmetrical information.
I have looked back on my own life at times when I made foolish mistakes due to my lack of information. Rash decisions that cost me time and money. How do we learn from them?
Here are a few ways I have dealt with this moving forward.
Have trusted friends or mentors to bounce ideas off of.
Take a day or two when making big decisions.
Try to remove emotion from the decisions to ensure you’re not swayed.
These all may be basic (I am not as lofty as I would like), but they can make an impact for the positive.
Many of the actions of people such as Travis Kalanick, Donald Trump, Parker Conrad, etc., are deplored, yet they seem to have no effect on people’s opinions.
They go their merry way while thousands of far superior leaders are ignored.
When the subject does come up the usual response involves the infamous “yes, but…”
Why is that?
I finally found an answer that makes sense from Margarita Mayo, a Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at IE Business School in Madrid.
Mayo terms the first type of leader ‘humble’ and the second ‘charismatic’.
Humble leaders improve the performance of a company in the long run because they create more collaborative environments. They have a balanced view of themselves – both their virtues and shortcomings – and a strong appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, while being open to new ideas and feedback. (…)
[Charismatic leaders], despite their grandiose view of themselves, low empathy, dominant orientation toward others, and strong sense of entitlement, their charisma proves irresistible. Followers of superheroes are enthralled by their showmanship: through their sheer magnetism, narcissistic leaders transform their environments into a competitive game in which their followers also become more self-centered, giving rise to organizational narcissism, as one study shows.
Mayo’s research and the other’s she cites (with links) provide proof of the value produced by the humble leader vs. their charismatic counterpart.
However, I think there is another problem happening in the background that is word-related.
Ask most people if they want to be remembered as ‘humble’ or ‘charismatic’ and most will choose charismatic.
Warren Buffet aside, ‘humble’ is more often associated with dorky, weak, shy, and unassuming.
Not adjectives most people would choose to describe themselves.
Thanks to Wally Bock for leading me to this article.
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of some of the best posts during that time.
This week is a two-fer, the first post was written in 2009, while the second is from 2015. Both contain links to other relevant posts. And both address a pet peeve of mine involving words — what else — their use, misuse and baggage.
The ability to influence is not the sign of a leader; nor are visions, forceful opinions, board seats, titles or popularity. After all, if a high media profile was a sign of leadership then Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are leaders.
Millions of people are influenced and even inspired by writers and actors, but does that make them leaders? Angelina Jolie is considered a leader for her tireless charitable efforts as opposed to her screen credits; Rush Limbaugh may influence thousands, but I’ve never heard him called a leader.
It is the singular accomplishments; the unique actions that deserve the term, not the position you hold or just doing your job.
I knew a manager who thought his major accomplishment was managing his 100 person organization, but that wasn’t an accomplishment—that was his job. The accomplishment, and what qualified him as a leader, was doing it for four years with 3% turnover and every project finished on time and in budget.
Jim Stroup over at Managing Leadership (no longer available) wrote, “There is a strong and general instinct to ascribe positive values to what we have determined to be examples of leadership. In a world that so often confuses forcefulness with leadership, this can be – and frequently is, in fact, revealed to be – an exceedingly dangerous habit… There is a particularly frustrating – and increasing – tendency to characterize any practice or trait deemed “good” as “leadership.” When an executive exhibits behavior that is highly valued – or even expresses a perfectly ordinary one especially well – he or she is declared to be a “leader,” or to have demonstrated “leadership.”
Dozens of corporate chieftains who were held up for years as exemplifying visionary leadership now stand in line for bailout money—or dinner in jail.
There is no way to stop the word being used and abused, but you have the option to hear it for what it really is—a word with no baggage, no assumed meaning.
A word on which you focus your critical thinking instead of accepting it blindly, assuming that all its traits are positive or rejecting it based on nothing more than ideology.
Influence, Persuasion and Manipulation
Last week I had lunch with four managers, “Larry,” “Mandy,” “Paul” and “Ashish.” At one point the conversation turned to how the ability to influence people affected the ability to lead.
It was a lively conversation, but I stayed on the sidelines; noticing my silence, Ashish asked me what I thought.
Instead of responding I asked all of them what the difference was between influence, persuasion and manipulation.
This provoked another active discussion, with the upshot that while it was acceptable to influence people it was wrong to manipulate them. This time it was Mandy who asked what I thought.
I responded that I didn’t see a lot of difference between the three.
That shocked them all, but really upset Larry.
So I explained my thinking, which formed the basis of this post in 2011.
Influence = Manipulation
Every conversation about leadership talks about ‘influence’ and how to increase yours.
Influence is, simply put, the power and ability to personally affect others’ actions, decisions, opinions or thinking. At one level, it is about compliance, about getting someone to go along with what you want them to do.
He goes on to describe three kinds of influencing tactics: logical, emotional and cooperative, or influencing with head, heart and hands and talks about ‘personal influence’ and its importance in persuading people when authority is lacking.
A couple of years ago I wrote The Power of Words and said, “Personally, other than socially acceptable definitions, I don’t see a lot of difference between influence and manipulation,” and I still don’t.
I realize most people consider manipulation negative and influence positive, but they are just words.
I often hear that leaders are good people, while manipulators are bad people. But as I pointed out in another post,
leaders are not by definition “good;”
they aren’t always positive role models; and
one person’s “good” leader is another person’s demon.
Everyone believes they use their influence in a positive way, but when you persuade people to do [whatever] who are you to say that both the short and long-term outcome is positive for them?
Influence, persuasion, manipulation; call it what you will, just remember that it is power and be cautious when you wield it.
In spite of the heated disagreement I saw no reason to change my thinking.
I was surprised at the end of the discussion when even Larry commented that while it made sense that the words didn’t actually signal intent he still didn’t like it and wasn’t about to use them interchangeably, which made sense to me, because language carries the meaning (and the baggage) of the time and place in which it’s used.
A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read allIf the Shoe Fits posts here.
There is much talk these days about ‘values’ and how companies need to base their cultures on them.
Many say that “cultural fit” is used to discriminate against older candidates, people of color, and women.
And that’s likely true if the company doesn’t included diversity and meritocracy as an integral part of their core values.
One recently added core value that isn’t talked about is expediency.
Here’s a great example from Facebook.
On May First, Facebook was accused of sharing information on how/when to reach “emotionally “insecure” and vulnerable teens on its network.” Naturally, the company denied doing it, but just the fact that they can should be very disturbing.
Even if Facebook hasn’t allowed advertisers to target young people based on their emotions, its sharing of related research highlights the kind of data the company collects about its nearly 2 billion users.
Also on May first Facebook announced a new effort to fight fake news — definitely expedient considering how angry people are — better late than never.
Facebook has appointed a veteran from The New York Times to lead its news products division, which is responsible for stopping the spread of fake news and helping publishers make money.
Making money is the number one priority — no matter how often a company says otherwise.
I recently switched jobs to a company that is smaller than my last but where I have the ability to truly achieve success or crash and burn. It’s slightly terrifying but I try to follow Richard Branson’s example of just saying yes to things first and then figuring it out as I go along.
One thing I realized after taking the role is I am the one that must set the cultural standard. It’s not that the company doesn’t have one, but most of the employees are remote and we rarely see each other.
As a result there is not really a zeitgeist in the office that tends to guide everyone’s actions. It took me a couple of weeks to reach this conclusion, but once I did I sought out some resources on how to set a standard.
I was not blessed with an iron will. For me I must work every day at maintaining discipline and work ethic. It’s not a battle, but it’s something I am very much aware of and I take steps to ensure I set myself up for success.
One way I do this is through emulation of others. I realize this may not be groundbreaking but I think it’s important to remember.
When I was growing up I would see people at the top of their game or profession and a lot of times not think about the work it took to get there. As I have matured I realize it takes great effort to achieve success and we must make it a priority. There are several people I follow on LinkedIn that hold influence. I try to emulate what they have done to form my own identity and culture.
I have also sought out mentors throughout my career. Some of these are formal, but some are not. I reach out to them for specific needs or learning opportunities.
What do you use for guidance when setting a culture? Is it a company, ideal or person?
I believe all can benefit when creating an identity, as long as we are choosing the right example to emulate.
The company provided what has come to be a boilerplate apology.
“We are deeply sorry to anyone who may take offense to this specific post,” the company said in a statement. “Diversity and equal opportunity are crucial values of Nivea.”
Within days it was Pepsi on the social media hot seat for an incredibly insensitive, incredibly white ad focusing on the Black Lives Matter protests.
The ad was pulled in hours, although, as you can see, nothing posted is ever truly deleted; here is Pepsi’s gussied up version of the boilerplate apology.
“Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday. “We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are pulling the content and halting any further rollout.”
Nivea’s story was from an agency, while Pepsi’s was developed in-house.
While I’m no fan of social media in general and its penchant for spreading fake news, in this case the lightening reactions actually did some good.
Heineken is another story (pun intended) entirely and has the awards to prove it, so it isn’t surprising that it was Heineken that successfully created the story the others screwed up so badly.
The take-away is that stories are a two-edged sword, so be sure to do them outside the echo chamber or don’t do them.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
I met an interesting guy over the holiday.
Discriminating Leadership
Influence, Persuasion and Manipulation
