POSITIVELY HiGH-PERFORMING

We have learned that if you can personally commit to:

• Seeing others as free to choose and accountable for outcomes


• Using language for disclosure and engagement


• Choosing accountability for the success of the whole


• Forgoing compliance for consent and commitment


• Grieving and letting go when necessary

And you conduct yourself by:

• Sharing your point of view truthfully and with goodwill


• Taking the other’s person side


• Owning your contribution to a difficult situation


• Framing choices for yourself and others


• Acknowledging doubt, concern and failure

Then you will be having authentic conversations that build highly effective teams, organizations and communities in which we can believe. We believe and teach this,  and our experience has proven the effectiveness of this strategy. Recently discovered a 1999 study by Marcial Losada, cited in the Nov. 20, 2009 Ottawa Business Journal by Craig Dowden, that supports our experience. Team performance was assessed on three metrics: profitability, client satisfaction and 360-feedback scores. Dr. Losada examined the “interpersonal dynamics” (conversations) and coded statements by the meeting participants as positive (content of the message was supportive, encouraging or appreciative) or negative (content of the message conveyed disapproval, sarcasm or cynicism). For the highest performing teams the ratio of positive to negative statements was 5.6:1 and for the lowest the ratio was 0.36:1 (3 negatives for each positive).

Dr. Losada found  “ . . . the single most important factor in predicting strong team performance was the ratio of positive to negative statements,” says Dr. Dowden. By using advanced analysis techniques, he also was able to show that positive communication (conversation) patterns caused the high performance – not the other way around.

Positive statements are not code for insincere platitudes, nor does it mean that it’s unacceptable to raise difficult issues. You can be positive by focusing on the content of the conversations, managing yourself using the commitments and conversational skills listed above, and choosing for goodwill — even when things get tense. The commitments and skills of authentic conversations allow any of us to engage issues directly while being respectful and empathetic to each other. And that is the foundational step for building high-performing teams.

A CONVERSATION THAT IS ALL WRITE

As I contemplated a career change a few years ago, I figured the writing and editing  I had done as a newspaper journalist would be valued transferable skills no matter where I landed. As a consultant, teacher, author and blogger, they have come in handy almost every day. But I had an insight about these skills while working with clients last week — the rules of good writing can apply to managing authentic conversations as well.
 
Writers are often advised to consider their stories through these three lenses:

• Who cares?


• Show me, don’t tell me


• Less is more

Who cares?
In conversations about how people will work together, it’s important to let them know why they should care about what you have to offer. How does what you offer connect to the results they care about and those needed by the enterprise? It’s not enough to talk about what you bring to the table unless it’s something that will fulfill the others’ needs and wants. How will what you offer help someone improve their results?
 
Show me, don’t tell me.
Being specific about what you want from a coworker or client is essential to good consulting and building effective working relationships. When you say you want to develop a strong partnership, how will you both “see it” when the partnership is working well? If it’s important to  “keep the lines of communication open” does that mean a weekly face-to-face meeting or daily briefings via email? When you say you will be “responsive,” does that mean returning emails and phone calls within the working day or within 24 hours? Use your words to paint a detailed picture of the ideal scenario.
 
Less is more.
Talking more than is necessary can be a distracting and time-wasting trap. Preparing for conversations will help, especially in a high-stress, high-stakes circumstance. Before you talk, get clear about a few essential points to be made, and practice stating them succinctly. Remember that silence can be your friend — don’t be in a rush to fill it.

IF YOU LEAD, WILL I FOLLOW?

Do you have conversations at work about being a good “follower”? And if you do, what does being a good follower mean? That you take orders well? That you do what you’re told, even if it doesn’t make sense to you? Or is good “followership” seen as part of everyone's general responsibility for building a successful business?

The question has been on my mind as a result of a class I am taking as part of my graduate studies. We read an HBR article by Robert E. Kelley that began with an anecdote about a department head in a large bank undergoing a reorganization. He was slammed with tan unwieldy workload, so he delegated the responsibility for his own department’s reorganization to the workers. He gave them parameters, but made it clear that they would be responsible to each other for outcomes such as job descriptions, criteria for acceptable performance, planning for operations etc.

The employees did a bang up job in record time with almost no supervision from senior leaders, and bank officials were “amazed.” In the article, Kelley asserted that this group of employees “went where most departments could only have gone under the hands-on guidance of an effective leader.” I felt a little sad when I read that, because I’m not at all amazed that the employees came through. And I found it disheartening that Kelley would see that as exceptional when it could — and should — be the rule.

In my experience, the assumption that workers would be hopeless lost without constant "hands-on guidance" is common, and it’s a problem. Even the subtitle of Kelley's article  "Not all corporate success is due to leadership" damns the workers with faint praise. It speaks to the low expectations many leaders have of the capable, accountable people they have hired. What is the cost of that view to the organization?

What if we began seeing followership as a way to take accountability for the good of the whole? What if the true value of "followership" came from employees who understand the vision of the enterprise, have clarity around what is expected, have the skills they need to manage interdependencies and serve customers, and a willingness to be accountable for the whole? What if they were encouraged to continuously challenge the common wisdom and practices?

A book by our friend Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower (Berrett-Koehler), asserts “it is not realistic to erase all distinctions between leaders and followers.”  Chaleff alleges that "powerful socialization” continues to serve bureaucracies by teaching and reinforcing obedience rather than critical thinking and thoughtful action. He contends that both leaders and followers must center their actions on purpose and shared values. He outlines five dimensions of courageous followership:

• Assume responsibility


• Serve


• Challenge


• Participate in transformation


• Take moral action

"Courageous followers remain fully accountable for their actions while relinquishing some autonomy and conceding certain authority to a leader," Chaleff writes. "A central dichotomy of courageous followership is the need to energetically perform two opposite roles: implementer and challenger of the leader’s ideas."

Developing "good followers" wouldn’t negate the need for leaders, but it would surely lessen their burdens.

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