TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST

In honor of Halloween, here are some scary numbers from Leadership IQ, a Washington DC based training company who surveyed 3611 employees in the US and Canada:

• 70%  of American employees say a good, trusting relationship with their boss is the foundation of job satisfaction


• 53% of American employees are suspicious that their boss is dishonest

A Globe and Mail article, “Why bosses aren’t trusted,” quoted Mark Murphy, chairman of Leadership IQ, saying, “When times get tough … focusing on spreadsheets seems a lot easier than talking to employees. Not only might they get hit with questions they can’t answer, when their own stress levels are through the roof, the last thing many managers want is to meet the emotional needs of their employees. But this precisely the time that employees really need lots of feedback, and they need it to be very high quality.”
 

The article also quotes Bernadette Kenny, Chief Career Officer for Adecco, saying, “Brutal honesty is the best way to get the message out about bad business conditions, and many managers don’t want to be the bearers of bad news.”

Honesty really is the best policy and even better, we advise leaders to strive for transparency. However, telling the truth does not have to be “brutal,” and delivering news shouldn’t be seen in terms of “good” and “bad.” Authentic conversations can be stripped of the sugarcoating, and still be had with goodwill and compassion.  Employees are adults who understand that things don’t always go well in business or in life, and what we make of what happens in the world is a choice each of us makes.

The article mentions companies such as HP and General Electric where employees were told the truth about the state of the businesses and were engaged in facing the future collectively. This was ascribed to good leadership and we agree — but it was also due to good followership by adult employees who understand the circumstances and act responsibly. They usually do, when given the chance.

It won't serve anyone to continue seeing leadership as a set of techniques used to influence others. Leadership should be an act of engaging others in determining a collective future. True leadership starts from an authentic view that ‘we are all in this together.’ Consciously and mindfully living this out makes telling the truth easier. And telling the truth leads to trust and authentic relationships — and better business results.

Authentic conversations about the business are essential for continuous improvement, and even more necessary when times are tough. Think about it: Would you rather have anxious employees armed with accurate information contributing to the future of the company? Or fearful employees who are stumbling in the dark and filling in the blanks with wild guesses and rumors?

Leaders who are dishonest or leave their employees in the dark? Now that’s scary.

JAMIE

STOPPING THE PRESSES

The New York Times made an announcement this week that another 100 jobs will be going away and the conversations about the future of newspapers are roiling once again.

As a 25-year veteran of newspaper journalism who left the business a few years ago, it’s been like being witness to a slow train wreck as hundreds of my friends and former colleagues get laid off.  A few survive, many don't make it.

Every time another announcement is made, the forums and the conversations in the blogosphere heat up again.  Not long ago, I was reading the comments on a blog after a third round of lay-offs at a paper where I worked for several years. Comments generally had an angry drumbeat, fueled by feelings of fear, betrayal and outrage. Why didn’t industry leaders see this coming and stave off disaster, people wrote. What went wrong? How could corporate leaders have failed them so miserably?

One post took a different perspective, and was both a splash of cold water and fuel for the fire: Journalists themselves should have seen it coming, the writer contended. The signs were all there. The Internet had been chipping away at newspapers’ subscribers and advertising base for years. The newspapers’ old economic model had been at risk for at least a decade, and was clearly unsustainable now. In an industry dependent on advertising and subscribers to generate revenue, reinvention should have begun years ago. Leaders weren’t the only ones who should have seen it coming — so should have the people in the trenches.

The unspoken question was: What was YOUR contribution to this situation?

The post provoked a slew of mostly hostile responses from people in pain. Perhaps the timing of the comment wasn’t politic, but the point was valid.

It reminded me of a time in the late 80s when many large retailers were merging. Even paper was covering stories, on the front pages and in the business sections, about supermarkets, auto dealerships and department stores merging. Suddenly, where several companies had once purchased full-page ads, suddenly there were only one or two. Yet many journalists (including me were shocked when the sudden drop in advertising revenue precipitated cost-cutting and lay-offs. We hadn’t been connecting the dots that were there for us to see.

It’s another example of the importance of making everyone in an organization as literate about the business they can be. People throughout an organization need to understand the business of the business, what is at stake in the marketplace, and how success gets measured. Leaders need to make interdependencies visible and help people understand how what they do contributes to success and workers, those closes to the marketplace, need to make sure their leaders understand how work gets done.

By tapping into the collective wisdom in the organization, tricky business problems can be resolved more effectively and efficiently and it allows people to help create their own future and provides a sense of meaning at work. That is far more productive than false reassurances that “we have things under control,” or “things are out of our control” or “it’s your fault this is happening.”

Workers can stop colluding by naively believing that everything will be OK if they just focus on doing good work. They can choose to be accountable by paying attention, asking questions, getting educated about the marketplace and their business, economic conditions and how these things affect the enterprise. Everyone in the organization has a hand in creating what exists, and everyone has a responsibility for helping to create a sustainable future.

MAREN

PEOPLE: Putting the 'I' in organization

It may be less than humble to say “great minds think alike” when one of the bloggers we admire most posts on a similar theme — on the same day no less — as we did.

CV Harquail, whose blog Authentic Organizations we recommend highly, yesterday wrote this:

When managers and leaders are considering their organization’s strategy, its core competencies, and even its identity, they often forget that organizations are composed of people.

The people who compose this organizational entity are individuals. Each individual is unique, each individual is meaningful, each individual is capable of being authentic, each individual is capable of being thwarted in her efforts to make a difference by being part of the organization.

As she eloquently points out, all the hiring practices, roles, rules, responsibilities, and policies won’t turn people into automated mannequins. They still bring their unique capabilities and perspectives into work every day. They still decide on their own what to make of what is proposed to them. They choose how they will react to whatever circumstances present themselves at work.  (And that will be true even if the U.S. Supreme court decides to bestow the rights of “personhood” on corporations.)

If the flesh-and-blood people leading organizations are smart, they will open themselves to all the possibilities, wisdom and creativity that reside in the people who make up “the organization” and maximize the contributions from their hands, minds and hearts to create a better enterprise.

NAMING AND THE POWER OF LABELS

By naming things, we create a reality. People and things become what we name them.

The very moment that we assign names and labels to people and things, we breathe independent life into them, quickly forgetting that we created them in the first place. We project power on our creations and allow ourselves to be defined and ruled by them. We become convinced we are what we are named. We become convinced that others are what we have labeled them, oblivious to the danger that comes with exercising our genius for using words to create truth. 

Because the truth is that when we label, we distort reality and deceive ourselves. We no longer see the world and the person as they existed before we named them.

Often we are clearer and more knowledgeable about the abstractions we have invented than we are about ourselves. When this happens, we believe the names we give to people, events and activities are reality. For example, we believe that a corporation or organization has a heart, a soul, flesh and blood, that it possesses its own will and purpose. We are convinced that visions, programs and strategies, all invented by our words, have the inherent power to transform people and institutions.

By seeing people as “the organization,” they lose their histories, dreams and choices. By seeing people as targets of change waiting to be transformed by our leadership or new programs, we seriously delude ourselves. Absorbed in our manipulation, we focus attention where it will be futile.

 We enter the Land of Oz – a land of imagined omniscience or omnipotence. In this land, everything changes simply by calling it what we choose: a watch becomes a heart, a diploma becomes intellect and a medal becomes courage.

What is real is the flesh and blood of a person. We find them standing before us with their history, dreams and possibilities. If we want change, we must engage this person, not some abstraction we have created.

DON'T ASK FOR PERMISSION, ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION!

Have you ever thought of a better way of doing things at work but hesitated to act because it wasn't standard practice? Or perhaps you have concocted a "work-around" for efficiency and ease but kept it under the radar to avoid getting into trouble?

Have you allowed people, policies or other prohibitions to stop you from doing something you thought could improve a work process or enhance personal effectiveness?

Following the rules and adhering to policy has its place, but sometimes there are good business reasons to apply personal creativity or take a unique approach. How you talk to people at work about doing something out of the ordinary makes a difference. Employees who want to try something new or different often look for a powerful ally at work and ask permission to try it out. That conversation creates a parent-child dynamic that can impede creativity and progress. Seeking permission can also put your boss or another ally on the spot you want to deviate from procedure, but he or she will be on the hook if things don't work out.

A better alternative is to seek an exception by making a promise for business results and delineating consequences if your idea doesn't work out. Such conversations show a willingness to put yourself on the hook and make visible and concrete the ways you will hold yourself accountable for results.

Here are five steps to help you construct a conversation around seeking an exception at work:

1. Ask to meet with your supervisor and identify the exception you are seeking: "Thanks for taking the time to meet with me. I would like to work at home a few days a week because I think it will enhance my efficiency and save the company money."


2. State the business reasons for doing so: "Many of my sales calls are closer to my home than the office, and I could use time more efficiently if I didn't have to work at the office. I have a phone and computer at home, and it's often easier to focus without all the distractions at the office. It would also save the company money on mileage expenses when I make sales calls."


3. Ask for reservations and validate them: "I know the company has not historically let people work at home, and it sounds like you have reservations about making a special exception. You're also worried I might miss important meetings or be tempted to neglect my work if I am at home instead of the office."


4. Offer a promise for results (and guarantee consequences) in exchange for the exception: "How about we try it for three months? If my sales don't increase by at least 10 percent, or if the situation creates communication problems with you and my coworkers, I'll go back to working at the office every day."


5. Seek agreement: "What other suggestions do you have?" or "Are you willing to give this a try?"

If you get agreement, be sure to close with a summary of the conversation — even better, follow up with an email so everyone is clear on what is agreed to.  If your supervisor continues to have reservations or wants to check in with his/her boss, ask about an opportunity for future discussion. "Are you willing to consider this further? I will get back to you in a couple days."

Whether the answer is yes or no, you will have chosen to have an adult conversation that highlights personal accountability and an awareness of the need for business results.