How do effective leaders do goal setting and execution? - part #4

When executing a goal, I love Marcus Aurelius’s mindset as described in Ryan Holiday’s book, The Obstacle Is The Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph, Penguin, 2014. “Our actions may be impeded . . . but there can be no impeding our intentions or dispositions. Because we can accommodate and adapt. The mind adapts and converts to its own purposes the obstacle to our acting. The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” 

As we move from goal setting to the execution stage, we need to discuss two items with all involved. First, we need to define what is the difference between a goal and a priority. As we all know, priorities will surface. We also know that most people don’t know how to determine if something should be more important than executing their goals.

Second, we need to discuss how to prioritize all of one’s different goals. With three to five goals as the norm for peak performance, which one should I focus on first? Remember people will always prioritize day to day work over a goal.

Furthermore, every one needs time to work on their goals. As Greg McKeown, in his excellent book called Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less, Crown Business, 2014, writes: “What we can’t do is concentrate on two things at the same time…. Multitasking itself is not the enemy of Essentialism; pretending we can “multifocus” is.” In short, the execution of goals comes down to time and attention

Next, we as leaders need to understand that effective execution involves an accountability system. As Ken Blanchard in his book,  Leading At a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations, Prentice Hall, 2006, wrote: “To obtain desired performance from its people, an organization must first have a well-defined accountability system.” He also pointed out that “People must also know what a good performance looks like.”

When we keep the above in mind, we recognize that people need regular feedback about their work. And supervisors need people who are working on goals to send progress reports about how they are doing on their goals. As Gary  Keller with Jay Papasan in his book, The One Thing: The Surprisingly Simple Truth Behind Extraordinary Results, Bard Press, 2012, notes, “Individuals who wrote their goals and send progress reports to friends were 76.7 percent more likely to achieve them.”

This week, remember to help people make meaningful progress on their goals. The outcomes will be spectacular.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do leaders successfully deal with accelerated change, chronic uncertainty and rampant complexity? - part #3

This morning I have been thinking about an interaction I had at the Spring 2019 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable. Myself and another person were walking down the hall toward the conference room where the Roundtable was to take place. I turned to the other person and asked “How long have we been working together?”

He replied, “Since November 1999. Do you remember when we first met?”

I thought for a moment and said, “I am sorry to say I don’t.”

He continued, “It was November 1999. You keynoted a conference that I attended. I was a first time CEO and I asked you after your presentation what I needed to know and do as a new leader. You told me to read the book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead  by Belasco and Stayer, and then to call you to discuss it.”

I smiled.

He continued the story by saying, “I did read the book and then I called you.” And with that, he quoted two of the most powerful lines from this book:

“Transfer ownership for work to those who execute the work.”

“Create the environment for ownership where each person wants to be responsible for his/her own performance.”

In times of accelerated change, chronic uncertainty and rampant complexity, we want people to own the work they are doing. We also want these same people to have a clear picture inside of them about what is a “great performance”. And finally, we want all the systems and structures to align and support that “great performance” at the individual, team and organizational levels.

As I wrote last week, I believe the foundation upon which ownership, clarity and alignment is built starts with the senior leadership team. The challenge for us at this time is to realize that within complex change the leader’s job with their team and the organization as a whole is to engage in active inquiry. 

Many years ago Stephen Covey explained it this way: “seek first to understand; second to be understood.” Active inquiry is based upon persistent and thoughtful inquiry through questions.

This past summer I worked with many different leadership teams as they began planning for the future. In particular, I was working with a senior leadership team where I asked three foundational questions:

- What is going right?

- What shouldn’t change as you execute a new strategic plan?

- What does growth mean to all of you?

In one particular circumstance, every single senior leader at the table would make a statement. No one asked questions. The CEO was stunned. There was no thoughtful inquiry.

At the end of the day, the CEO asked me for my analysis of the day’s meeting and I respond with “I don’t know if you can get there from here with this group of people. The day was all posture and no dialogue. They are senior managers but there was little senior leadership behaviors displayed at the individual or group level.”

Upon considerable reflection, I have figured out that complex times and changes require more interactive communication at multiple levels within the organization. The goal of which is to create understanding, trust and a level of dialogue where by we may discover “positive deviance”, i.e. a solution or set of solutions that may already working within the organization itself, rather than looking to outside people and companies for best practices or clues about how to proceed. Furthermore, interactive communication can redirect our attention from “what’s wrong” to “what’s right” 

 

This week, sit down and do your own reflecting. Ask yourself the following two questions: 

- Where are we building safe, respectful, and trusting work environments so all involved will commit to decisions and plans of action? 

- Where are we building time and space into our daily lives so we have the courage to hold one another accountable to delivering those plans?

Now is the time to work for a better future.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do leaders improve team performance? - part #2

There is an interesting thing about the best teams, they just keep getting better. When I am with them, I am constantly trying to figure what it is that makes the difference. For awhile I thought it was something to do with who was in the leadership positions. While I think this clearly does make a difference, I have also noticed something else, namely the whole team holds people accountable, not just the person in the leadership position.

The subject of accountability continues to be a popular topic. Everyone is talking about it and few are clear about what it means and how to do it. Most people focus this subject on the supervisor and direct report relationship, as in holding a person accountable for getting something done. However, few recognize that holding people accountable is supervisor to direct report, but even more so on successful teams it happens at the peer to peer level. It is interesting to note we often do the former and skip the later.

When it comes to accountability, we also don’t differentiate between results based accountability and behavioral based accountability. As Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012), wrote: “Even well-intentioned members of a team need to be held accountable if a team is going to stick to its decisions and accomplish its goals…. The reason that behavioral accountability is more important than the quantitative, results-related kind has nothing to do with the fact that it is harder. It is due to the fact that behavioral problems almost always precede - and cause - a downturn in performance and results.” As he continues, “The ultimate point of building greater trust, conflict, commitment, and accountability is one thing: the achievement of results.”

In order to successfully hold people accountable, and to get them to hold each other accountable, i.e. peer-to-peer, all involved have to know their personal SMART goals, and their team’s SMART goals. You would be surprised with how many do not know the later and only focus on the former. Furthermore, people have to know what is expected of them at the individual level and at the team level. Finally, leaders need to create an environment where people feel safe enough to be coached, to receive feedback and to give it.

When it comes to continual improvement and effective accountability on all levels, I believe the leaders and the teams need to understand the individual and group “why”. As Simon Sinek writes, “What I’m interested in is what gets people up every single day to do something, maybe pay a premium, maybe suffer inconvenience, maybe sacrifice because they’re driven by something else. What is that thing? What I’ve learned is it’s that question, why. It has a biological imperative, it drives us, it inspires us.”

This week, think about and discuss with others the difference between results based accountability and behavioral based accountability. Then check to make sure you know the team’s why and the individuals on the team’s why. This will make a difference in how you move forward and prepare for the new year.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Leaders and Performance Improvement - part #2

In a world where everything is moving at warp speed and feeling like nothing is ever going to slow down enough for us to catch our breath, we, as leaders, are suppose to make continual performance improvements. Some days we can barely keep up with what is happening today, let alone have time to improve what will be happening in the future. Other days, going to the next level seems like a pipe dream. Still, it is possible to achieve performance improvements but one needs to do two things to make this happen.

First, we need to plan for more short term wins. As John Kotter, noted in his book, Leading Change: “A good short-term win has at least three characteristics:

1. It’s visible; large numbers of people can see for themselves whether the result is real or just hype.

2. It’s unambiguous; there can be little argument over the call.

3. It’s clearly related to the change effort.”

Our challenge as leaders is to produce a series of short term wins in order to energize the change helpers, enlighten the pessimists, defuse the cynics, and build momentum for the effort. As Kotter reminds us, this can not happen if we launch too many projects at once and provide the first win too slowly.

Second, we need to balance the planning around these short term wins with routine weekly check-ins with the people who are doing the actual work. The key is to realize that these check-ins are not an interruption to the work of the leader as much as foundational to the work of the leader. They tear down silos and give us as leaders an opportunity to address the contextual issues at the heart of departmental, team or individual challenges.

This week, sit down with your team and check on whether or not people have planned for a series of short term wins. Then, hold them accountable for these wins during your weekly check-ins.  We can improve performance if we choose to thoughtfully plan our work and then work our plans.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Holding People Accountable - part #2

In order to hold people accountable in an effective manner, leaders need to create an environment where people feel safe to be coached, to receive feedback, and to give it. This is a huge step in the process and will take some heavy-lifting by all involved, because it will first and foremost require us as leaders to proactively ask for feedback and to be willing to receive it. We need to be the change we wish to see.

Second, we need to role model the importance of receiving regular coaching ourselves. We need to be coached as well as to coach. If we are strong enough to receive feedback and be held accountable through coaching and supervision, then we can start to build a safe environment for accountability.

However, the subject of holding people accountable in a successful manner begins long before the actual accountability moment takes place. As leadership happens between the words, it is the same with accountability. Accountability starts before the moment of accountability takes place.

In short, I agree with Roger Wagner and James K. Harter,  PhD in their book, 12: The Elements of Great Managing, Gallup Press, 2006, when they wrote, “Before a person can deliver what he should as a manager, he must first receive what he needs as an employee.... One of the most fundamental needs of a great manager is . . . a great manager.”

This week, be a great manager!

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Holding People Accountable - part #1

Accountability is the new buzz word. Just like excellence in the late 80’s and empowerment in the 90’s, everyone is talking about it and few comprehend how to actually do it.

First, we need to recognize that most people’s definition of accountability is typically a reaction to something happening or not happening rather than a proactive choice. The former happens when something or someone upsets status quo. The later happens when we as leaders are willing to take responsibility for our actions, to do what we said we were going to do, and to ask for support before we need it. In short, accountability from a leadership perspective is the willingness of a person to call their peers or direct reports on performance or behaviors that might hurt the team or the company. 

Even though it is a buzz word, accountability is still important. Without it, we can not achieve our strategic goals. Our change process will break down without it. Accountability plays a role in building ownership and it creates enhanced teamwork and trust 

After listening to many leaders talk about accountability this year, and discussing it with them, it has come clear to me that accountability in the realm of leadership is all about results. In particular, it is about driving for results through others. It starts with setting clear expectations, having well defined goals and giving feedback routinely.

Proactive accountability helps the organization reach it’s collective goals. The success of accountability reflects the depth of ownership and understanding about what are our individual and collective results. Thus, line of sight and ownership are connected. In short, the purpose of holding someone accountable is to improve their performance, to help them become a better employee, and to achieve our collective results.

The main problem with accountability right now is ambiguity. Poorly defined goals, low or unclear expectations, and irregular progress reviews or coaching sessions cause many problems. Most people being held accountable end up feeling defensive, loose their self-confidence, become more confused than clear and feel wounded rather than competent.

To successfully be held accountable and to accept it in a positive manner, people have to know their SMART goals before accountability works. But more important, they need to be clear about the results or desired outcomes we are seeking. In short, they have to know what is expected of them.

This week, gather your team together and discuss what is the difference between reactive vs. proactive accountability. It will make a world of difference.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Wanted: Goals and Execution

Listen to front line supervisors these days and most will tell you that they are barely keeping up with their work. They have no time for strategic goals. It’s all operational goals and it never ends.

Listen to middle managers these days and most will tell you that they are aware of the strategic goals but because they are so poorly or broadly written, they barely pay attention to them. They are nice but unrealistic,

Listen to senior managers these days and most will tell you that all goals, strategic or operational, need to be SMART goals, namely specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound.  For them, this is the magic formula for success.

Listen to CEO’s, Presidents and Executive Directors, and most will tell you that even with SMART Goals the organization is struggling to make things happen in a timely manner. They are frustrated by the pace of change and the lack of results.

And when I listen to all of these voices, I smile and point out that SMART Goals need to translate into SMART Execution. First, many leaders, managers and supervisors fail to execute, because they assume that all SMART Goals are owned and understood by those who are going to do the work. The truth of the matter is that many goals are imposed by those who manage the work.

Second, for SMART Goals to become SMART Execution, some one needs to be actively involved in monitoring and coaching the progress on the SMART Goals. Most SMART Goals are written and shelved. They are not monitored on a regular basis and people are rarely held accountable for them.

Third, as SMART Execution takes place, we need to realize that other people’s perceptions may take time to change. We all carry preconceived notions of other people and other departments. We are prejudiced by experience and information, i.e. we carry a preconceived opinion or perspective without just grounds of sufficient knowledge. While SMART Execution may be taking place, we need to understand that changing perceptions takes time and awareness. We forget that most people during constant change are not very aware of what is happening inside or outside the organization as much as just coping.

This week, help people to write better SMART Goals but also help them to translate them into SMART Execution. They key to success is for you to become a better leader rather than for them to become a better worker. It all starts with regular coaching, supervision, and monitoring of their progress on these goals. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Alignment Is Everything

After many years of being an executive coach to top leaders and managers around the country, I always stress to people who are new to middle management two key concepts, namely role modeling and collaboration. Both of these elements will impact the future of their entire career. Done well and they will succeed beyond their dreams. Done poorly and they will feel trapped in a position headed to no where but a downward spiral.

When assisting an individual to become a great manager, I always start out with the following quote by Kevin Cashman: “Leaders get what they exhibit and tolerate.” Too many times, I witness leaders who are not aware of how they are role modeling before a group. The mixed signals they send, particularly in what they say and what they actually do, cause significant problems through out the entire organization.  

Furthermore, too many poor managers also tolerate completely in appropriate behaviors and then wonder why their performance as an organization is not improving. As an employee in Missouri once shared with me, “fish stink from the head on down.” If we are clear at the head of an organization about role modeling, then many other problems go by the way side.

However, role modeling is not easy because we have to interact with others to get things done successfully. Here is where collaboration enters into the picture. If we as leaders and managers personally role model and collaborate well, we also have to make sure that others in our organization role model and collaborate well. The first step in this process is to make sure that everyone is clear about the strategic direction of the company and the operational expectations to make us all successful. This will involve helping people understand the priorities and goals of the company.  

At the same time, we need to practice holding people accountable to these priorities and goals. The difficulty for many managers and leaders is that they would rather be popular as a leader than to hold people accountable.  I like how Patrick Lencioni explained this in his delightful book called  The Five Temptations of a CEO: A Leadership Fable, Jossey-Bass, 1998. As he writes, “work for the long term respect of your direct reports, not their affection. Don't view them as a support group, but as key employees who must deliver on their commitments if the company is to produce predictable results. And remember, your people aren't going to like you anyway if they ultimately fail.” While this may not be easy, it is clearly very important.

Finally, we must understand that in order to improve as a leader and as a manager, we need to create highly functional teams. The depth of collaboration that can take place within a highly functioning team is remarkable. Again, referencing the work of Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Jossey-Bass, 2002, he writes: “If you could get all the people in an organization rowing in the same direction, you could dominate any industry, in any market, against any competition, at any time.” The key is to build a foundation of trust amongst all members of the team in order that they are will to take the risks to improve performance.

Our challenge this winter is to personally role model strategic and operational clarity, to practice collaboration in all we do, and to continually seek to build highly successful teams. When we do this, we will not only dominate the industry but transform it too.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

One Bad Apple

Routinely each week, someone in a leadership position when talking about a difficult employee will say to me, “Remember: one bad apple spoils the entire barrel.” Having picked apples and stored them in large baskets during my younger years, I have seen this take place. It occurs because a rotting apple gives off ethylene, which speeds up the ripening of the other apples. It is a mess once it takes place.

The implication for the world of business is the belief that one toxic employee can cause other employees to become toxic, therefore creating a downward spiral of productivity and effectiveness. Many who follow this line of thinking often share the now classic quote from Jim Collins’ book, Good to Great, namely “First who... then what.” 

As an executive coach and consultant, I often respond to these comments with a quote by Kevin Cashman: “Leaders get what they exhibit and what they tolerate.” While this may not endear me to some, it is an important point in the discussion of dealing with difficult employees. While the actions of a troubling employee must not be condoned, those in leadership positions can not be excused from their role in what is taking place either. Each party, the leader and the employee, have a responsibility to make change take place.

When reflecting on this subject, I thoroughly enjoyed reading a recent article by Thomas E. Ricks called “What Ever Happened to Accountability?” in the October 2012 issue of the Harvard Business Review. Author of five books on the American military, Ricks writes about what happens when leaders do not fire underperforming executives. Using the U.S. Army as a case in point, Rick examines the changes in the army during the decades between World War II and Vietnam. Based on his new book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, Ricks explores in this article how a culture of high standards and accountability can deteriorate. He illuminates the contrast between General George C. Marshall, an unlikely figure of quiet resolve who became a classic transformational leader, and the disastrous generals of the Vietnam era.  As he writes, “the honesty and accountability of Marshall’s system were replaced by deceit and command indiscipline.” Citing the personnel equivalent of Gresham’s Law, Ricks notes “that bad leaders drive out good ones, and mediocrity can quickly become institutionalized.” 

This is a wonderful article which gives a brief but powerful history of the army since World War II. It also holds many important lessons for business leaders about the dangers of micromanagement and the importance of turning short term victories into strategic progress. For those of you who want to read the full article, here is a link: http://hbr.org/2012/10/what-ever-happened-to-accountability/ar/1

Having the right people in the right jobs makes a tremendous difference in performance and profitability. This in combination with excellent leadership and accountability will make a profound difference.  

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Building an Adaptive Organization - part #3

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Building an Adaptive Organization - part #3

Monday morning: April 26, 2010

Dear friends,

Building an adaptive organization takes time and attention. It also requires senior leaders to differentiate between urgency, complacency, and false urgency.

As John Kotter wrote in his marvelous book, A Sense of Urgency, Harvard Press, 2008, complacency is a “feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger or trouble.” It is the product of success or perceived success. Those who are complacent virtually never think they are complacent; they are just content with the status quo. The best way to identify the complacent is by what they do instead of what they say. Kotter also notes that false urgency is almost always the product of failures. It is built on a platform of anxiety and anger.

On the other hand, he explains that a true sense of urgency comes with a “pressing importance.” Those with it want to make real progress every single day. Underlying a true sense of urgency is a set of feelings: a compulsive determination to move, and win, now. Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't. HarperBusiness, 200, notes that part of building a sense of urgency comes when we “confront the brutal facts” and yet “remain optimistic.”

However, my recent experiences have shown me one simple fact, namely we don’t know what we do not know. This has particularly clear to me because once we have a clear sense of urgency, we must also have a clearly defined mission. Since the Fall 2009 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable, I have been asking many people what is the mission of their organization. The answers have ranged from “I haven’t a clue” to something that resembles gibberish, i.e. words that have no meaning but are strung together in an unintelligible sequence. Upon reflection, I have found one source of this confusion.

Most current organizational mission statements can trace their roots back to the writings of Tom Peter’s book, In Search of Excellence, or Stephen Covey’s book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Based on the material presented, many people began writing mission statements in the early 90’s. A second wave of mission and core value statements were written in the late 90’s and early part of the turn of the century.

Here is where the current problem gets interesting. When these first mission statements were written, there was a high degree of personal interest, urgency and commitment to what was generated. Those involved were passionate about the result. Now, nearly twenty years later, these mission, vision and core value statements have little passion and/or utilization in the organization because the original people involved are no longer employed, moved on, or retired. In short, the original commitment, passion and urgency has been watered down to such a degree that these core documents are, in many organizations, symbolic but not integrated message.

Still, in the midst of this situation, there are very interesting developments. For example, when working with Systems Unlimited on strategic planning, a non-profit in Iowa City, Iowa that offers personalized services to persons with disabilities within their local communities that help people improve and maintain the quality of their life, we discovered that a dialogue about mission and core values amongst key leaders has not only generated a new draft of a mission statement, but also resulted in all key divisions and departments writing their own mission statements. While at first, this may appear to be nothing more than a time consuming activity, the resulting clarity and focus has increased the level of urgency and yielded tremendous new levels of understanding and focus. As one who has been involved in processes like this for quite some time, it was delightfully refreshing to witness people become energized and engaged like those who created the first drafts back in the early 90’s. It is now something that I have recommended to other clients. Those who have done this report to me that this process is generating similar results.

The other thing I have observed about adaptive organizations recently is that they have the ability to understand how decisions are made. Many years ago, I remember sitting with Chris Ahoy, Associate Vice President for Facilities at Iowa State University, and discussing this very subject. We generated a chart that recognized the importance of integrating a trends analysis, capacity analysis and a strategic nexus review before making a strategic decision. He has further refined this chart in his book, Customer-Driven Operations Management: Aligning Business Processes and Quality Tools to Create Operational Effectiveness In Your Company , McGraw-Hill, 2009. As leaders, we have to recognize that we may personally discount certain factors in the rush to make a fast decision. However, if we are to be effective as a senior executive, then this is not an option.

Finally, adaptive organizations understand and define accountability; they know how it is done. There are days when senior executive forget that accountability is a learned behavior. Recognizing that accountability means having a willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions, we need to remember that accountability in adaptive organizations requires us to balance the desire for “perfect” action with the need for experimentation that results in improved performance.

This week, recognize true urgency, understand mission better, and help more people learn what is accountability.

Have a tremendously successful week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer inLeadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational ChangeMorning Star Associates319 - 643 - 2257