The Hard Lines

My friend and colleague Dr. Anna Marie Valero has recently completed an important a new book which she has been working on for years. It focuses on developing women leaderships; it beautifully lays out the benefits of women leadership, the handicaps and prejudices they must address and what HR leaders and CEOs can do to support and challenge. In addition to the informative content which is drawn from a combination of research and dozens of interviews with male and females leaders, the book casts a very positive light on the future possibilities for more and more women to flourish in the ranks of management. Women are different than men and they bring different qualities to the workplace. The book is also filled with facts such as the return on investment is higher in firms where women are the leaders.

I recently asked Anna Marie what was the greatest surprise  she experienced while doing all the work for the book. She stated the enthusiasm, interest and encouragement that all her participants shared with her as she moved forward with her task. She mentioned that everyone she spoke with wanted her to complete the book and to get the message out that there were things that people can do to help women become more successful in the workplace. One of the major findings discussed in the book is the need to give women challenging assignments with the sufficient support in order to be successful.  She also noted that certain positions carry a great risk of failure – there are jobs that nobody wants that often fall to women and they should be alert to these assignments and not readily take them.  She also found that some leaders, both male and female, are reluctant to provide concrete objective feedback to women leaders.

This is a wonderful book and I will talk more about it in the future.

Will the gilmore girl will out? Well she did not and the show closed losing all of its investors’  money.  TV’s very attractive and charming lead in the hit series, The Gilmore Girls, Lauren Graham played the lamentable Adelaide in this now by gone production. I think that is unfortunate because the show had many wonderful things going for it, not to mention a dour interpretation of Nat Detroit by Oliver Platt.  Near the end of the show, when Platt exclaims, “I don’t know if I have a soul” I believed him as Nathan as I believed no interpretation before as funny and frantic as Nathan Lane and Douglas Hodge were in previous productions (New York and London). And the production was cinematic and rushed along like a speeding A train.

The main problem with this production was the vacuum left by the two leading ladies, Ms Graham and Kate Jennings Grant. Ms. Grant’s approached her role as Sarah Brown, straight laced Salvation Army crusader, as a caffeinated  cheerleader going into the playoff season.  More the pity because she is a striking beauty with a graceful presence and a lilting yet strong voice.  She just is not believable for a moment. Ms. Graham’s  Adelaide is sexy, vulnerable, confused and ultimately determined as all good Adelaide’s are, However her performance is so small and not focused moment to moment that she seems almost amateurish which she clearly is not. The problem is one cannot develop stage technique and a commanding presence literally in a few weeks or months.

As I walked out of the theatre, I thought of the famous story about the  pre Broadway run of MY FAIR LADY. Moss Hart closed down the rehearsals for all except Julie Andrew for a week. His only goal was to find the right temperament and tone for Andrew’s portrayal of Eliza Doolittle.  He knew he could get a gutsy, defiance and although resilient performance out of her although it had alluded her up until that point.  They both succeeded, and the rest is for the theatre record books.

Why did not Des Macduff or someone else – some of those many producers must have known or at least suspected that  more help needed to be done with these two ladies in particular?  Yet no one to my knowledge, stopped  the preview or rehearsal period and said, let’s see if we can rethink what is not working or strengthen what is barely there.

As I stated the show has since closed; what could have been was not. Was it the ego of the performers? The blind faith in the television viewing  public  who were going to flock to see the gilmore girl in person?  I do not know – however it seems that a hard choice was avoided – and the show barely went on.

Productive human relations, satisfying human interactions, managing expectations collaboratively. Important, yes?

But not all that much in MBA programs according to  Susan Lyne, who was interviewed in the New York Times yesterday in the business section  page 2, Openers. When asked specifically what would you like business schools to teach more or less of she responded,  ”There are a lot of great courses on managing or developing a strategic agenda, but there is very little about how to work with your peers where  you need to get X done and you need these other three departments to give you X amoint of time in order to succeed at that.” She goes on to say that the people who truly succeed in business are the ones who figure out how to mobilize people who are not their direct reports.  She concludes by saying that  getting people who do not have to give you their time to engage and to support you and to want you to succeed is something that is sorely missing in B school.

I concur. How many times do we have to hear this to look a little closer at what kind of people graduate business schools are producing?  I would say this applies to undergraduate education as well although one could argue that the brain of a twenty one year old is not yet fully developed.

Collaborative expectation setting is an art and a skill combined. Few leaders and managers I know have mastered this let alone do it well.

I am afraid the first thing one has to admit to is that they need help in this area. If they do, the technology is available to help anyone who is motivated to suceed in learning new skills and developing artful  people practices. I have an interactive seminar on this topic that can run from as little as half a day to a day and one half. Although I have presented it to many leaders in corporations, none have decided to work with me on it.

I certainly will keep trying however  it seems leaders still find it hard to admit that learning and growing in the service of their business is a good thing. Perhaps it will be a necessary thing before we know it.

The mutual learning model is a theory that when used enables one to act with increasing effectiveness as a coach or faciliator.

Please listen to the podcast http://www.themulvaneygroup.com/2009/09/mutual-learning.html  and i will be discussing how this approach to my work gets to the core of the issues presented in a productive and direct manner in the weeks to come.

Some final observations from Tom:

For C-level executives, having a coach is well on its way to becoming an accepted corporate practice. Since a certain level of credibility is automatically attached to an individual who has attained the position of CEO or COO, a coach is viewed as a valuable asset in propelling that successful executive to even higher levels of productivity.

Unfortunately, perceptions change when you progress down the corporate ladder. For vice presidents or managers, the suggestion to accept coaching may come with a certain stigma (or suspicion) attached:

“Is someone at the executive level trying to force me out, and using a coach as the vehicle?”

“Is my performance lagging behind?”

“Is my department’s output so dismal that outside reinforcement is necessary?”

For individuals who haven’t attained C-level status, an appointment with a coach can take on the ominous overtones of a summons to the principal’s office. It shouldn’t. A good coach is an invaluable asset. If you have the opportunity to work with one, you may find that activities as varied as strategic planning, on-boarding, and transitioning run a lot more smoothly.

If you’re sincerely seeking ways to improve your performance, on the job or off, don’t dismiss the benefits of engaging a professional, objective partner. Get yourself the best coach you can.

Last month, NewYork Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about rewarding Wall Street high fliers who not only contribute little social value, but who actually engage in activities which are harmful to the common good.

Two activities Krugman addressed were Goldman Sachs’ practice of high-speed trading (the use of superfast computers to buy or sell stocks a fraction of a second before anyone else can react), and oil and other commodity speculation by an arm of Citicorp. These two practices actually make everyone else poorer — poorer because the high-speed trading decreases profit possibilities for those who lack such technology, creating negative wealth for the majority, and the oil and commodities speculation has lead to soaring incomes in the financial industry, resulting in sharply rising income inequality.

Krugman argues for a broad range of financial practice regulations. He concludes his column with the statement, “Neither the administration, nor our political system in general, is ready to face up to the fact that we’ve become a society in which the big bucks go to bad actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us poorer.”

Reading Krugman’s piece, I began to ponder the definition of leadership. A great deal is written about leadership, yet much of it is vague, generalized, and based on opinion rather than on research. One of my favorite definitions is provided by the scholar, practitioner, and now academic administrator at Yale University, Robert Sternberg. Sternberg’s definition is concise, clear, and makes eminent sense for those who take the time to reflect on it.

This broad and encompassing definition? WICS. It’s an acronym for wisdom, intelligence and creativity, synthesized. I’ll get into a bit more detail about how Sternberg interprets the attributes of wisdom, intelligence, and creativity in future blogs.

Another aspect of “hardlines” hard choices and actions relates to what to do if you have a difficult manager. I have had my share of them and I wish I knew then what I know now. Although it is often best to leave such situations, many times it is not practical. Perhaps now so more than ever.

I helped my friend and colleague Gary Ranker with the information below in the interview below. I studied some many of these management types once I started doing psychological profiles and reviews for corporations and their potential new recruits.

I think you will find it of interest.

The Australian Financial Review

 Sydney,    www.afr.com

“Getting inside the mind of a manager”

Recognizing your manager’s style can help you in your workplace,

writes AFR Editor  Fiona Smith.

Do you hate coming into work in the morning?

It is probably not the work you mind so much, but rather your boss is making your life a nightmare. Once you might have quit but, since the recession, you are probably stuck and you have to find a way to deal with it.

Research shows that one of the main reasons people leave their jobs is because of poor relationships with their managers or inadequate leadership. So with a tough job market, there are many people gritting their teeth and biding their time until they can make an exit. One way of making life bearable in the meantime is to ‘‘manage up’’, says US-based ‘‘corporate politics coach’’ Gary Ranker, who was visiting Sydney last week.

Ranker is a former president of Hallmark Cards in Germany who specializes in helping negotiate the power plays and emotional minefields that are unavoidable in almost any workplace.  His clients include senior leaders at General Electric, Goldman Sachs and Sony. He says the most important element in managing your boss is to let go of your own ego.

‘‘Remember, it is not about you, it is about them,’’ Ranker says. This means allowing their bad behavior to wash over you while you watch them loose their heads.  Don’t take it personally; try not to show emotion and work out how to best manage them. ‘‘More than anything, when you deal with someone who is problematic, take it seriously and try to look through their eyes – even if their view is distorted,’’ he says. ‘‘Try to think about how that person views the world, and how they view you.  Begin to get inside them.’’  

Then try to forestall their next ‘‘episode’’ by giving them the type of response that keeps their insecurities or other ‘‘inner demons’’ in check.  Meanwhile, make sure you document every interaction in case you need to protect yourself in the future. This may mean sending them an email detailing your understanding of an instruction or proceedings during a meeting.

‘‘Maintain your sense of humour, it can help defuse a situation,’’Ranker says.  If you want to directly tackle their behavior, talk to them about a specific incident as if it was all your fault,  your inability to understand what was required by them. Tell them you are the type of person who needs more clarification from them, which means you are likely to avoid misunderstandings or being blindsided.  Ranker says most of the dysfunctional managers he sees don’t see themselves as bullies;  they describe themselves as ‘‘hard taskmasters’’ or ‘‘people who don’t suffer fools lightly’’. They sometimes tend to mean the same thing: bully.

Most are surprised when they learn what effect their behaviour has on the performance of their organization – and they are more likely to be concerned about that.

Ranker gathered some strategies on how to manage some typically difficult bosses, with the assistance of some of his PhD students in management and psychology from the Marshall Goldsmith School of Management at the Alliant International University of San Diego, California.

The bully

If they are giving you a dressing down in front of others, go quiet.  Don’t engage with them. Otherwise, avoid contact with them as much as possible and limit meeting times by scheduling them 15 minutes before they are expected elsewhere. Walk in with notes and take notes from your conversation so you don’t forget anything. Try not to talk to them when they are stressed. ‘‘What you don’t want to do is trigger any defences they already have,’’ says Ranker.

The micromanager

Give them more information than they ask for and unsolicited progress reports, which note the status or stage of completion on projects. This means they have less reason to peer over your shoulder.   Micromanagers are usually control freaks, so be proactive and keep them fully informed.

The indecisive boss

Make like a psychologist and keep asking clarifying questions to help them understand what it is they want you to do. Those questions will also help you find out whether they favour one action over another.  You can also tell them what the problem is and what you think the ideal solution is and they are likely to agree. Have a back-up solution in case they can’t agree to the first. There is a danger with this tactic, however, because if everything goes wrong with your idea, you make a handy scapegoat.

The paranoid person

Do not appear threatening in any way. Do not withdraw or attack, it will only make things worse. Don’t acquiesce to their attacks, or you will mark yourself as an easy target and, if it is possible, let them know that you are not a threat to them.  Avoid getting into arguments and don’t contradict yourself as it will only add to their paranoia.  ‘‘Over communicate wherever possible and never surprise the boss,’’ says Ranker.

The grandiose boss

Don’t try to make them change their show-off behaviour or tell them how it makes you feel as they can’t empathize with you. Don’t criticize them because they will get angry or defensive.  Don’t gossip about them, as they will have their spies. Exercise an unusual amount of tact to protect their fragile self image, esteem and worth and don’t try to correct them, unless it is literally a matter of great importance and urgency.  If things go wrong with a project, accept responsibility and say you will do it differently next time.

The dysfunctional manager

This type of manager is just plain unpleasant. Make sure you document everything, don’t play dirty and make sure you have witnesses when you ask for feedback. Keep as much of your communications as possible in electronic form. Take care making alliances with your manager’s boss or clients, because it could be viewed as disloyalty.

Here’s another installment from Tom about our coaching work.

I’m an avid golfer. Before the days of digital cameras and email, I had a friend who spent about ten years on and off the PGA tour. He was an excellent golfer, and was always in the top five in driving distance. And even though his knowledge and ability were similar to the winners’, he never quite made it. I asked him why.

He replied, “It’s about the coaching.”

Seeing my quizzical expression, he elaborated.

“Tiger Woods and I both know the same stuff. Tiger travels with his coaches, and most professionals travel with one or more. I don’t. I have to videotape my game and send the tape back to my coach. By the time he gets it, views it, and gives me feedback, I have not only reinforced whatever I was doing wrong at the time, I’ve picked up something new to compound the problem!

“At the end of a round, a pro who travels with his coach goes to the driving range. The coach gives immediate feedback, so any errors can be corrected on the spot. The pro doesn’t carry those errors into the next day’s round. I, on the other hand, am left to my own self-assessment. And you can see how effective that’s been!”

The same holds true in business. Without a third party to help you assess your knowledge and skill against your ability to execute, it’s very difficult to stay on target. Continual self-evaluation of your own effectiveness can be exhausting (and fruitless). Get a professional to help you!

On the op-ed page of last week’s New York Times, Deborah Warner talked about racial identity in America, and how that identity affects whom we are and what we do.

She made some interesting observations – our racial identity has impacted the recent arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at the hands of a white Cambridge police officer, and it has also driven some of the criticism of Sonia Sotomayor during her judicial confirmation hearings. Sotomayor’s critics refuse to concede that who we are, ethnically speaking, directly determines (at least in part) what we see, how we think, how we reason and how we react.

For now, many see and feel African Americans, Caucasians, Latinos, Asians and (any race not our own), as ’other.’

When I think of race, and how our feelings and attitudes about race are developed, two of those ethnically ‘other’ memories come into sharp focus. The first is that of myself as a young boy, visiting the South on our way to Florida, following the water cooler line for ’colored.’ The second is my long-ago visit to an integrated school in Evanston, Illinois. I was playing in the all city orchestra, and was struck by the sight of kids of all colors talking and playing together. I was drawn to the interplay among races, and was somewhat startled that they all interacted so well.

Since some part of who we are is conditioned by our race, couldn’t this conditioning have affected the Cambridge police officer as well? It seems that he assumed that the two ‘suspects’ at Gates’ home were African Americans. This, despite the fact that the woman who called 911 to report the incident described one of the men in question as ‘possibly Hispanic’ and was unable to see the other. The 911 recording backs up the caller’s statement — there was no mention of African Americans on the tape.

And perhaps our difficulty in dealing constructively and comfortingly with race issues was demonstrated on MSNBC yesterday. The network reported that during a weekend event in New England, Dr. Gates was able to poke fun at the interaction with the police officer who arrested him. The network broadcast a replay of Dr. Gates making jokes about helping the officer’s kids get into Harvard, “As long as he doesn’t arrest me again!”

Almost as an afterthought, the newscaster added that, following the incident in July, Dr. Gates has received death threats. The mainline network message here? “Let’s focus on the humor and downplay the discomfort of facing and discussing the violent responses that this incident has evoked.”

Hard lines, anyone?

Here’s a continuation of Tom’s comments from last week:

Time is a valuable commodity. Before I started coaching, my tendency was to think, “Is this going to give me a commensurate value for the hours I spend? I could be spending those hours working!”

What I learned is that it’s not just about the time I spend working, it’s about the effectiveness of that work. Failing to take the time to evaluate effectiveness is enormously costly in the long run. Coaching allows me to work on my productivity. It’s an investment any executive (or any other employee, for that matter) needs to make in him- or herself.

I honestly don’t understand why coaching isn’t more highly regarded as a profession. Athletes, actors, and entertainers all have an entourage of coaches. In the business world, however, there seems to be this sense that by the time you reach the executive level, you’re supposed to know everything. That’s ridiculous. And even if you know everything, you may not be the best at implementing it 100 percent of the time!

Several years ago, when I was on a business trip, I ran into Tiger Woods in the hotel gym. He wasn’t there by himself — he had a coach with him. The coach’s purpose was to observe how Tiger was executing, and provide immediate feedback. The same concept applies to the world of business. A coach helps you to observe how you’re executing. You can keep doing what works and correct what doesn’t. That way, you don’t end up with a lot of firmly entrenched, unconsciously created harmful ha