I was talking with a manager this week who was dreading doing his required annual reviews.

After describing his relationship with each of his people, he went on to tell me what he needed to say and how each would respond.

I asked why he was so sure and he said “because they always respond that way.”

Remind you of your own situations?

How many times have you had a conversation with a manager, peer or subordinate and walked away shaking your head thinking, “I knew I’d get that response.”

I know I have.

But did they respond to the content or the presentation?

I call it AMS syndrome and it infects all of us at various times.

AMS stands for assumption, manipulation, self-fulfilling prophesy and I first wrote about it shortly after starting this blog five years ago.

I wrote about AMS and its effect on managing a diverse workforce a few months later.

A couple of years later I again focused on how assumptions can actually undermine an entire company’s product direction without every being recognized.

No one indulges in AMS intentionally; it’s purely subconscious. It’s driven by experience, not just our own, but friends, stuff we’ve read, movies, TV, etc.

Anything that seeds our thinking with expectations, whether specific or vague; those expectations convert into active assumptions, which causes us to present out content in ways that elicit the exact result we thought we would get, i.e., self-fulfilling prophesy.

This is the conversation I had with my client as well as emailing him the links I’ve included above.

I got this email from him today, “I’ll be damned, you were right. Reviews went great. Thanks!”

Image credit: Warning Sign Generator

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Think about all the information that comes your way, especially if you are an executive.

It’s usually shared at peer level and (maybe) one or two levels down.

But full sharing of that information should be embedded deeply in your company’s culture.

In fact, when information, particularly competitive and market intelligence, is widely disseminated throughout the organization it juices innovation and boosts productivity.

Why?

Because increasing the number of people with access to the information increases the odds for breakthrough thinking and reduces the risk of wheel-spinning.

• An article on a competitor’s product can spark an engineer’s original design idea;
• gossip about changing industry dynamics can prevent a stumble in marketing;
• an investment report on a new service offering can suggest an innovative sales approach to a desirable customer.

Highly visible industry developments circulate swiftly and prompt immediate strategy meetings and fast responses, but the rest of the information often languishes; instead, it needs to be easily accessible by everyone.

Think about it, everybody in your company picks up valuable industry intelligence along with potentially valuable gossip.

• CEOs receive strategy reports by investment firms, management consulting companies, along with high level information and gossip from the Board.
• Managers receive reports from hired industry experts and publications.
• Marcom and others interact with the media.
• Salespeople gain information from customers.
• Engineers and others observe competitive equipment at trade shows.
• Admin and other support people hear and overhear stuff, often because they are ignored by those at higher levels.

People talk—at tradeshows, networking events, industry conferences and seminars, as well as at social events, bars, restaurants, etc. Most people spend at least part of that time talking about business-related topics.

Unfortunately, some managers derive their power through information control.

Smart managers make sure that the information is shared, up, down, and horizontally, by using internal blogs, intranets, wikis, etc. Further, they actively work to encourage everybody to read and discuss it.

Since the goal is to encourage everybody to share everything, no matter the source, all posts should include attribution; a public thank you to the person who took the time to share it.

Whether formal (reports, white papers, news) or informal (conversations, hearsay, gossip) the content needs to be accurately assessed and valued.

There is no way to predict what bit of knowledge will spark the creative process, so be sure that your people have full access everything available in an easily searchable format.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedbee/103147140/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

I’ve written several times referencing Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers and it’s come up in numerous conversations I’ve had.

Each time I hear that Gladwell’s premise is flawed and that if a person is determined enough they will succeed blah, blah, blah.

They claim this holds true whatever the location, including gang-ridden inner cities or third world countries; work hard enough and you will overcome.

My typical response to their rhetoric is “bullshit.”

A few days ago TechCrunch published The Chilling Story of Genius in a Land of Chronic Unemployment; a comparison between Ibrahim Boakye and Max Levchin.

It is elegant proof of what Gladwell says, as well as a warning call to the stupidity of wasting our world’s human resources.

On a much smaller scale managers waste their human resources every day through “positional deafness,” i.e., only soliciting and/or hearing thoughts, ideas and suggestions from those at X level or higher.

I’ve never understood why managers expect workers who were consistently ignored and shut down to suddenly start contributing because they receive a promotion.

• Nobody suddenly develops a brain as a result of being promoted.

• If they were good enough to promote then they should have been good enough to listen to in their previous positions.

• If they can’t contribute in the position for which they were hired, why hire them at all?

• Even new grads hired for their potential need to be heard; they are like eggs and like eggs they must be cared for if they are to hatch.

Managers afflicted by positional deafness often experience high turnover and lament the lack of loyalty, especially in “more junior workers.”

But the term ‘junior’ is very subjective; for some managers it refers to those with just a couple of years of experience, for others it’s a level within the company and for still others it’s relative, with the baseline how long it took them to finally be heard.

It’s easy to know if you suffer from positional deafness, just consider the sources of your input over the last quarter and what you did with it.

Better yet, ask the people you trust to tell you the truth, not just what you want to hear.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/waiferx/3740791077/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

I have to laugh every time I see a reference to Management-By-Walking-Around (MBWA) that creates the impression that it’s a hot new management tool.

Hot, yes; new, no.

MBWA dates to 1940 and is a management technique instituted by Dave Packard at the founding of HP; it’s “marked by personal involvement, good listening skills and the recognition that “everyone in an organization wants to do a good job.”"

I’ve written about it before and when I looked at that post I found little that needed changing, go here it is again.

Remember Management-By-Walking-Around? It’s an oldie, but a goodie.

Great managers work to spend at least 25% of their time wandering around chatting and building trust with their people.

Don’t have time? Maybe that’s because you never really thought abut the benefits. Getting to know your people this way helps you to

• spot high-potential workers;
• raise your trust quotient with employees;
• improve retention;
• attract talent;
• discover molehills before they’re mountains, and, most importantly, it’s the best, if not only, way to
• know what’s really going on.

But to work it must be the norm—that means it needs to be done constantly, not just when there’s a problem.

Consistent, casual visits make people feel comfortable and encourages them to chat—saying what they are thinking without editing it. To pass on information, rumors, and the like without wondering or worrying that it will boomerang and hurt them.

While wandering, you’ll hear enough to validate or repudiate what you heard from somewhere else. It lets you protect your sources—which means they’ll continue to pass on information—and it helps you avoid acting on erroneous information.

The higher you rise in the organization the more important this intelligence becomes.

One of the greatest dangers for any manager is getting isolated and hearing only a sanitized or slanted version of what’s going on within the group, department or company. This is especially true for the CEO and senior staff.

Bottom-line—get off your duff, out of your office, wander around, say hi, listen, be a sponge and soak it all up.

Invest the time—that’s what managers do—and it will pay off handsomely!

MBWA works best when it is embedded in your MAP, as well as part of your organization’s cultural DNA.

Flickr image credit: HikingArtist.com

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

There’s a bad habit I see sweeping through companies. It’s not really new, but it has gotten much worse in recent years.

This particular habit used to be more the province of arguing couples, relationship counselors and divorce courts.

Always more of a guy thing, I now find it on the rise among women.

I call it “verbal avoidance” and it is irritating to say the least.

It occurs when something happens, or is supposed to happen, and person A needs to communicate that to person B.

And doesn’t.

A doesn’t because

• what happened is going to upset B and A either doesn’t want to be the messenger, since messengers are sometimes killed or deal with the fallout if/when B gets upset.
• B is waiting for A to notify him of good news, but B doesn’t have the information yet, so rather than saying that, he doesn’t call.

Of course there are dozens of variations, but they all boil down to the same thing—A does not communicate with B as expected.

When B does reach A, A offers a variety of reasons why the contact didn’t happen, but reasons don’t excuse anything.

B feels frustrated/disappointed/disgusted/angry/betrayed.

Verbal avoidance for any reason breaks trust.

And trust is the basis for any kind of relationship, whether at work, at home or in the world at large.

Silence isn’t always golden.

Stock.xchng image credit: Sigurd Decroos

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

John Warrillow, at BNET, writes that the best question for weeding out victim mentality is “Tell me about the last time you made a mistake.”

He says that if the person accepts full accountability and doesn’t try to excuse or blame anyone else he almost always hires them.

While I agree it’s a great question and that the response tells you a lot about the candidate, I disagree that taking full responsibility necessarily makes a good hire.

There is a substantial difference between making excuses and a situation that leaves the person with no choice but to make the mistake.

There are too many managers who set their people up to fail, whether unintentionally or not. (Yes, there are mangers who do it intentionally.)
There is a difference between stating why the mistake was made and describing what could/should have been done differently and playing victim.

I advise creating a different dialog.

Manager: Tell me how [whatever].

Candidate responds.

Manager: Is that how you would have done it if you were in charge?

Candidate responds yes or no.

Manager: Why?

Asking why gets you to what you really want to know, which is how the candidate thinks.

How the person thinks is the crux, whether the candidate is a senior exec, admin or somewhere in-between.

And while it’s a good question to add to your interview repertoire I don’t think it’s strong enough to stand on it’s own as a ‘make or break’.

While discovering if the person has a victim mentality is useful, what is the advantage of hiring someone willing to take responsibility for a mistake that really isn’t theirs?

You need to know more; extenuating circumstances that at first may sound like an excuse can turn out to be plain facts.

Explore why the mistake happened, if and how it was rectified and what could have been done to prevent it.

In short, take time to dig deeper into any response that brings up a red flag, but do it with an open mind.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wadem/2808468566/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Every conversation about leadership talks about ‘influence’ and how to increase yours.

In a post at Forbes, Howard Scharlatt defines influence this way,

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 that they use their influence in a positive way, but when you persuade people to do whatever who are you to say that the 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.

Image credit: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/363547

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

What are your goals in 2011? Hike productivity? Juice creativity? Motivate your people? Strengthen retention?

Whatever they are, the best way to accomplish them is to engage your people.

Uninspired advice, since you hear it all the time, but this is a great time to actually start the wheels of engagement turning.

And you do it through conversation—face-to-face, verbal conversations with your team—whether it’s composed of the company VPs or a small group of staffers.

Notice the emphasis on ‘conversation’ which, in this case, means everyone talks.

First you describe the goals, not a laundry list of everything that needs to be done, but specific goals that you honestly believe can be accomplished in 2011, with a subset for Q1.

Then you shut up and listen to your people.

Not just let them talk, but really listen and hear what they are saying, even when what’s said doesn’t agree with your ideas.

But if you shut up and hear nothing then recognize that for what it is: a great insight into the culture you created, not to mention the fear and distrust in which you are held.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedbee/103147140/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Carol Bartz was hailed as a savior both inside and out when she took the reins as CEO at Yahoo.

But that was then and this is now.

Martin Berko, who writes a pithy syndicated financial advice column, describes her this way,

Big Mamma is a brutish CEO who is not liked by Wall Street. She has no experience in running an Internet information provider or generating advertising revenues and is about as subtle as a train wreck. She’s confrontational with analysts, the media and key employees.

Make that most (all?) employees.

December 14 Yahoo announced a 4% layoff and started sending pink slips to 600 people.

Yahoo management chose to do this the week before Christmas.

I say ‘chose’ because when I called the half dozen Yahoo managers I know and asked when the layoff was decided they all said they had known in October.

The folks I talked with aren’t executives, but mid-level line managers.

Granted, there is no good time or easy way to lay people off, but there are better and worse ways to handle it if one becomes necessary and ten days before Christmas doesn’t qualify.

Layoffs, like deaths, are a shock even if you know it’s coming, not to mention the intrinsic “but me” factor.

If the layoffs had been done in October people would have had some time to get over the shock, prepare and batten down the spending hatches before the holiday season started.

Then there is the long-term damage to Yahoo.

Yahoo says it is still hiring in other areas, but it’s desirability as a place to work just sank even lower.

Even if Berko is correct and Yahoo is acquired and/or Bartz is replaced the memory of “the week before Christmas layoff” will remain.

Sure, people will accept offers because of the economy, but they are unlikely so see the company as a long-term career path.

The term “taxi job” refers to stopgap employment while looking for a permanent opportunity.

The timing of this layoff will certainly raise Yahoo’s positioning in the taxi lineup.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yodelanecdotal/497378654/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Bosses, business coaches, academics, bloggers and many others bemoan the lack of communications skills in Gen Y, especially written communications, but they have plenty of company in preceding generations.

Not just bad writing, but opaque writing, the kind that leaves readers scratching their heads wondering what they are missing.

Of course, I shouldn’t complain, since on of my company’s most popular products is Clarity RE-writing, which involves using the fewest possible words to present even the most complex information in the most understandable way.

Who are the worst writers?

Granting that many of Gen Y don’t understand the difference between writing and texting, I find lousy writing much more offensive when it comes from those who (should) know better.

And while the more lofty their position the more offended I am, I save my greatest reaction for those old enough and senior enough to know better who work in the field—in other words, they are, or should be, professional communicators.

Charles H. Townsend, the chief executive of Condé Nast Publications, which includes Vogue, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair, is such a one. He recently sent a 500 word memo to his staff, here is a sample from it.

“…a consumer-centric business model, a holistic brand management approach and the establishment of a multi-platform, integrated sales and marketing organization.”… “To optimize brand revenue growth, we will shift responsibility for single-site, digital sales and marketing to the brand level. Publishers can now fully leverage their offerings across all platforms.”

Don’t feel badly if you aren’t sure what he is trying to say, his staff wasn’t sure, either.

If you want to write clearly here is some quick and basic guidance.

• Avoid jargon;
• shun multi-syllabic words;
• use short, simple sentences;
• pass on large blocks of text, especially on the Net;
• spell check everything; and, most importantly,
• remember that most people scan and don’t actually read.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nirak/2854421030/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL