Building Commitment - part #2

Have An Adaptive Mindset

The second key factor related to building and maintaining cooperative relationships is to have an adaptive mindset. These leader understand the differences in the problems they confront every day. They recognize that there are technical problems and adaptive challenges. With the former, the problem is clearly defined and the solution falls within the range of current problem solving expertise. With the later, an adaptive challenge, the problem requires a new perspective, expertise, and/or solutions. Furthermore, an adaptive challenge calls into questions fundamental assumptions and beliefs.  Therefore, these leaders are open to reorganizing their thoughts and their actions, a critical element to having an adaptive mindset. 

They also understand that defining the problem may require learning and dialogue. They even understand that adaptive challenges require ownership of the solution, and the process of creating the actual solution. Thus, they seek alignment without control, and progress through perseverance rather than the use of positional authority and power. 

Furthermore, these same leaders grasp the depth and magnitude of this insight by  the late William Bridges, namely “The picture in people’s head is the reality they live in…”. Recognizing that the picture inside people’s head matters, these leaders are open to the picture inside their own heads being the problem. Therefore, they are willing to change themselves first before asking others to explore the picture inside their head. 

Still, the leaders who struggle with this insight often paint a picture for others of “here is you doing the work.” This choice does not generate commitment. On the other hand, the leaders with an adaptive mindset focus on painting a picture for others of “here are the outcomes of you doing the work.” They grasp that once the social relationship is healthy, i.e. the bond between leader and follower is built on respect, dignity and integrity, then all involved want to make progress on a daily basis. They also want to do something that makes a difference. Understanding that our work matters and that the outcomes from the work are making a difference is critical to creating commitment over time. 

With the Genius of the AND in mind, leaders who build commitment by building and maintaining cooperative relationships also do one other thing. They create and maintain a healthy work culture. One part of this is to provide structure related to goals, expectations, and accountability, which, over time, will result in focus, understanding, and ownership. This act alone generates confidence, because no one has to guess what is expected of them. When relationships are healthy and when tasks, functions, roles, and positions are clarified, we have a winning combination. 

People Commit To People Before The Plan 

The third key factor to building commitment and the capacity to adapt within the current work environment is to remember that people commit to people before a plan or, for that matter, a system. On the surface, this seems elementary and a “blinding flash of the obvious,” referencing an old Tom Peters’ statement. Still, when people commit to people, they are, in essence, committing to the “tribe,” referencing my earlier comments about tribal relationships and tribal knowledge. And once the tribal bond has been formed, most people support these tribal alliances for some very important reasons. 

Most leaders forget why people join teams. Diane Tracy in her book, The First Book of Common-Sense Management (William Morrow and Company, 1989) wrote that there are five reasons why people join teams. The first is security because “the team is a place where members feel safe, and cared for.” The second is belonging because “the team provides identification.” The third is individuality because “the team can recognize and support the valuable differences of its members.” The fourth is pride because “team members share in group achievements.” And finally, the fifth is recognition because “the outside world respects the group as a more powerful entity than it would an individual.”

During my decades of teaching about leadership and organizational change, I shared this information with many leaders, and they were stunned by these five reasons. First, they just didn’t know this information. Second, they could not believe the implications of these reasons. Third, they realized that most front line supervisors and their respective team leaders did not have a clue about why people joined teams. They just assumed that putting people in a room and calling them a “team” would generate team work. But if the goal is teamwork and healthy team relationships plus the resulting commitment to the team, then team leaders need to understand these five reasons and support these five elements within their team building and team maintenance efforts. 

As team leaders do that level of work, these same team leaders need to recognize that the foundation for successful execution at the team level has been well researched and documented. One of the best articles I have read on this subject was written by Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen called “The Secrets of Great Teamwork” in the June 2016 issue of the Harvard Business Review. As they note, there are four critical elements to success as a team. The first is to have a compelling direction, because “People have to care about achieving a goal.” The second is to have a strong structure, because “Every individual doesn’t have to possess superlative technical and social skills, but the team overall needs a healthy dose of both.” The third is to have a supportive context, namely the resources, information and training to do the job well. The fourth is to have a shared mindset. As Haas and Morten explain, “Distance and diversity, as well as digital communication and changing membership, make them [teams] especially prone to the problems of “us versus them” thinking and incomplete information…. The solution to both is developing a shared mindset among team members - something team leaders can do by fostering a common identity and common understanding.” And I would add to this list common language and shared experiences. For in the end, team members will commit to the tribe first before they will ever commit to a system or company. 

Furthermore, the best leaders, who embrace the Genius of the AND, recognize that they need to understand the history that created these tribes and tribal alliances. They also, at the exact same time, build systems that are owned and understood by those who will have to execute them over time. This dynamic set of actions is complex but manageable when leaders grasp that people need to participate in the creation of change, not just be told to change. This subtle but important shift starts the movement of all involved to feel like there is a we involved in the process rather than and us vs them feeling and/or mentality. And this will result with a deep level of commitment even in the midst of complexity and volatility. 

People And Commitments

In the convergence of leadership, teamwork and commitment, I think we need to remember the words of John Adams: “There are 2 kinds of people, those who make commitments and those who keep commitments.” It is the later group that is successful over time. As an old Quaker phase notes, “Their word is their bond.” And these kinds of people choose to live their commitments and keep their commitments. They are bonded to the people they work with and their commitment is a bond that people can count on over time. 

For if we seek to answer the following two questions, “How do we create a work environment where people want to join the company and stay with the company through the metaphorical ‘thick and thin’?”, and “How do we build commitment?”, then we need understand the foundations of commitment. This begins by examining the history of work and the way new employees gained clarity and commitment, namely though passing on of key information by older employees through an oral communication and role modeling rather than through systems and systems management. Next, new employees learned that maintaining tribal relationships was more important than maintaining a systems approach to operational success or any level of organizational change. From their perspective, alignment was with the team or tribe more than to a system or form of system management.  

Commitment was also built by leaders who embraced the Genius of the AND rather than the Tyranny of the OR. They translated this choice into building and maintaining cooperative relationships, and choosing to hold an adaptive mindset. This meant that they recognized that they could be the problem and the one who might need to change their mind first rather than to ask others to do it first. 

Finally, those leaders, who kept their commitments, respected the perspective that people commit to people before they commit to a plan or system. Therefore, leaders focused on the five reasons people joined teams and stayed with teams. They grasped that people need to participate in the creation of change, not just be told to change. This subtle but important shift built a we level of unity and resulted in a deeper and more holistic level of commitment. 

Many years ago, Robert Rosen in his book, Leading People (Viking Pengiun, 1997), wrote: "People want to be led. They don't want the old authoritarian leadership style.  Nor do they want some clever new management technique. Instead, they want leaders with deeply held human values who respect people's unique talents and contributions.  They want leaders who will create an environment that nurtures excellence, risk taking, and creativity. They reject intimidation or manipulation, but they positively yearn for inspiration. Similarly, in the misguided efforts of leaders is hidden another message: leaders need followers. Leaders don't want docile, do only-as-ordered employees.  Instead, they want responsible, mature, forward-looking associates. They want partners who are as committed as they are to the success of the enterprise.” 

In order to create “partners who are as committed as they are to the success of the enterprise,” leaders must build a shared commitment to each other, and a shared commitment to continual improvement. What follows is enterprise level success in the midst of volatility and complexity. It may not happen quickly or easily, but it is nevertheless important and worth our time and effort. And what separates the best from others are people who live their commitments and keep their commitments. For this is the pathway to creating a work environment where people want to join the company and stay with the company through the metaphorical “thick and thin. This is the pathway to building commitment over time.

© Geery Howe 2024

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Building Commitment - part #1

Introduction

Currently, it seems like many people have one foot on the metaphorical shore of their current job and the other in a boat, looking for the next employment opportunity. As a result, it feels like these individuals are not fully committed to the work that needs to get done. Often, they do the bare essentials of the job, but not much more. And for leaders, who are trying to implement a combination of strategic and operational changes, this makes things complicated and complex, all at the same time. 

So, how do we create a work environment where people want to join the company and stay with the company through the metaphorical “thick and thin”? In essence, how do we build commitment? The answers to these two questions are not quick or easy. Nevertheless, they are quite important. 

Knowledge And Relationships

First, we need to step back and look at the history of work and jobs. In the past, the majority of key information about a job was passed down from older employees to younger employees. It was done through a combination of an oral tradition and role modeling. Clarity was created based on learning from others over time. At a basic level, people learned how to do their job by being around other people who were doing their job.

Furthermore, in the past, there were no manuals that tried to explain everything in the world of work, and systems were loosely adhered to, or constantly being adapted by those who were doing the work on a day to day basis. Thus, the value of long term employees was considered mission critical to organizational success. They carried the knowledge and perspective to solve major and minor operational problems. These individuals also had built a network of relationships over time so that if they could not solve a problem, they would at least knew who to turn to in order to find a solution or an important piece of information.

Yet, starting in the 1990’s, a focus on systems and systems management started to take place. Defining a system and managing a system so it was more efficient and, to a degree, more effective, became more important than who was doing the job. Knowledge about how to do a job was defined in manuals and through charts and graphs. Metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) determined whether or not someone or a team was doing the job correctly. The oral tradition of building clarity and the importance of role modeling by fellow employees became secondary if not tertiary as the company sought to be successful. As a result, adherence to the system was more important than functioning well as a team. 

The Foundation Of Commitment 

Currently, we are now living and working in an age where long term employees are not the norm. Constant turnover is a perpetual problem. Therefore, the focus on systems and systems management has become a line of continuity through the world of strategic and operational change. Again, on one level, systems have become more important than people. 

Still, I am reminded of something Margaret Wheatley wrote many years, “People commit to people before they commit to a plan.” The primary bond at work, and the source plus foundation for an employees’ depth of commitment and level of engagement takes place at the relationship level more than at the systems level. In essence, people work for people and are committed to “their people,” more than they are committed to executing within a system or to system. 

From my perspective, the old world of work was not perfect. It came with many problems and difficulties, especially when it came to change at either the strategic or operational levels. However, employees were committed and as a result loyal, i.e. they were willing to follow the path to becoming a “long timer,” because they were committed to their team. Metaphorically speaking, their team was “their tribe.” And as a result, these tribal relationships were important and vital to individual and group success. They also helped to reduce certain levels of work related stress. From the experience of working alongside long term employees, new employees learned that maintaining tribal relationships was more important than maintaining a systems approach to operational success or any level of organizational change. From their perspective, alignment was with the team or tribe more than to a system or form of systems’ management.  

A Dynamic Interplay

So, with all of this in mind, we find ourselves as a leader in a liminal space, i.e. an uncertain transition between where we’ve been and where we need to go in order to be successful. At a fundamental level, we are caught between a world of long term employees passing on key information via an oral tradition and role modeling, i.e. tribal knowledge and tribal relationships, to a new world where systems and systems management are important due to the perpetual turnover of key people and the complexity of managing within a highly volatile market environment. So, what’s a leader to do if they want to build commitment and the capacity to adapt within the work environment? 

First, we need to embrace the “Genius of the AND” more than the “Tyranny of the OR.” As Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (HarperBusiness, 1994) wrote, “.. a key aspect of highly visionary companies: They do not oppress themselves with what we call the “Tyranny of the OR” - the rationale view that cannot easily accept paradox, that cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time. The “Tyranny of the OR” pushes people to believe that things must be either A OR B, but not both.” For example, many leaders think one can only do change or stability, be bold or conservative, or deliver high quality or low cost. 

As Collins and Porras continue, “Instead of being oppressed by the “Tyranny of the OR,” highly visionary companies liberate themselves with the “Genius of the AND” - the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Instead of choosing between A OR B, they figure out a way to have both A AND B.” With this perspective, leaders can focus on purpose and profit, maintaining a fixed core ideology and implementing vigorous change, or maintaining a conservative core and creating opportunistic experimentation. 

Finally, Collins and Porras note, “We’re not talking about mere balance here. ‘Balance’ implies going to the midpoint, fifty-fifty, half and half. It seeks to do very well in the short-term and very well in the long-term. A visionary company doesn’t simply balance between idealism and profitability; it seeks to be highly idealistic and highly profitable.”

Build And Maintain Cooperative Relationships 

To embrace the “Genius Of The AND,” leaders will first need to have an understanding about the importance of relationships and their impact on strategy and day to day operations. In particular, they must engage in a relationship building strategy in combination with building a common language about systems and systems management, particularly around the role of project management. With this perspective in mind, they can embrace complexity, which is inherent in the Genius of the AND.

However, the default choice of many leaders during complexity is to focus on task oriented behaviors rather than relationship building and maintaining behaviors. This choice of focusing on tasks translates into a focus on functional trust rather than emotional trust. And the outcome is task oriented conflicts, e.g. “I don’t agree on how this is being done,” which is then transformed into relationship conflicts, e.g. “You don’t like me.”

Nevertheless, there is a small group of leaders, who are successful in the midst of complexity. They have chosen to engage in building and maintaining cooperative relationships. Their success comes down to two key factors. The first and obvious one is the health of their social relationships. One element of this choice is that these leaders check in with others, not about getting something done as much as “how are you holding up with getting things done?”. And the outcome of this choice is that people do not feel abandoned in the work place. They also feel like someone is looking out for them or “has their back.” This choice to care about them as an individual rather than a position creates a bond that generates loyalty and commitment over time. 

To be continued On Tuesday. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Leading With A Good Heart

Parker Palmer in his book, A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey Toward an Undivided Life, reminds us that many years ago, at the first sign of a blizzard on the Great Plains, farmers would run a rope from the back door to the barn. They did this because they all knew stories of someone who had wandered off and been frozen to death, having lost sight of home in a whiteout while still in their own backyard.

Today, we live in a blizzard of another sort. The degree of anxiety and frustration within the home and the workplace is overwhelming. People are feeling lost and wondering what to do next given the current economy and the current state of world affairs. 

In 2010, Dave and Wendy Ulrich in their book, The Why of Work, wrote, “As the economic recovery slowly takes place, many employees are experiencing an emotional recession -- because they have not found sufficient meaning in their work lives, a condition that reduces productivity and commitment.” Reading these words 14 years later, their observation seems like it was written just yesterday. One could replace the words “emotional recession” with the words “emotional recovery from a global pandemic” and find the meaning is the same. 

From my current work with leaders, I see this blizzard and this emotional recession taking a huge toll. Over and over, I listen to good people, who are living a life which is compartmentalized and divided. They find little soul, spirit, and passion in their every day lives. Recently, I listened to an older executive complain about how his company was setting strategy without including the people who worked directly with the customer. In the midst of this absurdity, he yearned to return to a time period in his life where his work was meaningful and actually made a difference.

As leaders, we need to reclaim our work and our ability to lead with a good heart. We need to become leaders who are less fragmented and more whole. We also need to rediscover wholeness in the midst of these challenging times.

The first step in this journey back to wholeness begins when we reclaim being architects of meaning. We need to remind others that it is okay to love what you do, and it is okay to grieve through the difficulties of organizational change. Furthermore, it is okay to be passionate about projects or the mission of the organization. Finally, we need to tell people that it is okay to be tough, but loving.

Many years ago, I listened to a CEO tell his team that a leader needs to be both a builder and a destroyer. They need to support the people and build the infrastructure for the present and the future, as well as become a destroyer of the dysfunctional parts of the organization. He further noted that at the foundation of all this work is the need to have a healthy core, encompassing a sound mission, vision, and core values plus a well-written and adaptable strategic plan. With these tools in place and the right people on the team, an organization can move forward in the midst of its challenges.

We all know that the effectiveness of a leader is dependent on three things working together. First, we need the enthusiasm and dedication of our people. Second, we need good plans and intelligent strategy that are supported and acted on by all involved. Third, we need people who can work together as a team. 

Whenever we prepare for change, we must remember that there will be more blizzards and emotionally challenging times in the future. Therefore, we need to make sure there is a rope from the back door to the barn. Leading with a good heart and a sound plan is a powerful first step in the journey.  

© Geery Howe 2024

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Activate The Dream

“I haven’t shared this with anyone,” he commented after we were seated for our lunch meeting. “These thoughts could be classified as dangerous, and even more so if I say them out loud. The truth of the matter is that the entire way we do business isn’t going to work in the near future. Most people haven’t figured it out yet, but the context has shifted. New factors and new technology are in play. New players are surfacing which will make our business more complex and dynamic. And the upshot of this new environment is that we are not changing fast enough.

In the near future, we will have a choice. We are OK for now, but soon we will need to shift people, time, and resources to a new model of doing business. This is going to upset a lot of people, but it’s the right thing to do. We are not at the ‘change or die’ place yet, but within a couple of years we could be.

I don’t know what to do, Geery. I just don’t know how to get us from where we are now to where we need to be. I have an idea of the new end point, but when it comes to figuring it all out, I’m lost. That’s the hardest thing to admit to myself, but I’m just not sure how to make it all work. I think I have a new org chart figured out, and some of the new processes and systems we need to put in place, but I also know that just moving people around on an org chart and handing out new assignments isn’t going to make it work. My people won’t own it until they embrace it. I just know we need to make these changes, but I don’t know how to get there. I don’t know how to create a plan to implement this level of change.”

We talked all through lunch and then for an hour after the meal. He shared his frustrations, his challenges, and his vision. At times, it was a collection of just random ideas, but the more we talked, the more he figured out some of the first steps he needed to take. 

As we wrapped up our time together, he asked me an important question, “So, where do I go from here? What should I do next?”

“Get it out of your head and put it all down on paper,” I replied. “The act of writing it out will result in clearer thinking, and an outline for action that you can share with others. When dealing with change, be it complex and dynamic, personal or professional, the process of clarifying your thinking is the essential first step to working in a focused and centered manner. The hardest part is to write it out, and to recognize that writing is a valuable part of the process.”

As we stood up to leave the table, he smiled and said, “Thanks. I needed that time to share and think.”

“My pleasure,” I replied. “It’s why we visit.”

In the beginning, we must recognize that all of us have a dream, a vision, or a goal inside of us. And with this dream inside of us, we are constantly seeking ways to make it become our daily reality. The hard part is to clarify it and then activate it. Once we have done this in-depth work, we can then embrace the journey and move on through the world of change. But in the beginning, we need to active the dream before we embrace the journey.

© Geery Howe 2024

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Three Questions

Many years ago, James Champy, a leading authority on management and business reengineering wrote, “The results are in: Reengineering works -- up to a point. The obstacle is management. The only way we're going to deliver on the full promise of reengineering is to start reengineering management -- by reengineering ourselves.” This is a profound insight that many people have missed in their rush to get things done. To create an authentic change within an organizations, you must always begin with yourself. 

A long time ago, I learned this lesson during a morning retreat with a hospital, senior management group. We were one hour into a three-hour session when I finally admitted to myself that we weren't getting anywhere. I knew that my message was on target, but I was not making the connection with the group that I was seeking, so I suggested a break.

While walking outside, I shared my concern and thoughts for regrouping with the HR Director who responded by saying, “Okay, but whatever you do, don't upset the Director of Nursing.” I could see that she was quite serious. And, yet, I was stunned by this obvious lack of trust and regard for her colleague.

When we returned to the room, I proceeded to ask the group three questions:

- Why did you take these jobs?

- Why are you staying?

- What do you need from this group of people so you can cope with the chaos that accompanies change, and move forward into the next level of action that's needed? 

The room was quiet until the Director of Nursing spoke. “I know what you call me behind my back,” she said, “but you do not know why I took this job.”

“When I was a child, I had viral pneumonia. In the 40’s and 50’s, they didn't have all of the wonder drugs that we have now. I had a fever that spiked to 107, and my mother bathed me with alcohol for days around the clock trying to break my fever. Finally, she knew she had done all she could, and I was taken to the hospital. 

That night outside my room, I overheard the doctor tell my mom that there was no more that he could do for me. My mother was exhausted from being up with me all those nights, and went home to try to get some sleep. She had three other children and a husband to care for, too.

Shortly after she left, a young nurse walked into my room and stood next to the bed. She told me, ‘I heard what the doctor said and I don't believe it. If you and I work together tonight, we will break your fever by dawn.’ There was fire in her eyes; she believed she could do it. That night I slept in the bathtub covered in ice. When the sun broke the horizon, my fever was 99.2! I was saved.

Many people think that I am stubborn and difficult. The reality is that I do not give up. I do not compromise my principles. I do not give in to the status quo. I fight for what I believe is important, because somewhere in our hospital today there is a nurse working with a patient who needs that level of support. Somewhere there is a nurse who knows that her Director of Nursing will not succumb to mediocrity, or talk the talk without walking the walk. Somewhere there is a nurse in this hospital working with a sick little girl or boy who feels helpless and lost. And that nurse will make all the difference like that nurse did for me all those years ago. That nurse needs me to be committed and hard working. Our partnership will make the difference.”

There wasn't a dry eye in the room when we heard her story and learned the core reason for commitment and passion. This was a woman who was not afraid of those three questions. This was a woman who was clear about her vision and her mission in life, and who had answered the call to leadership. And, perhaps most importantly, this was a woman who, through risking this self-disclosure, could finally be understood by others.

So, when planning for change, I recommend leaders start the process by honestly answering these three questions. We must first understand what drives us, our passion and purpose. This then can become the line of continuity through the changes that need to take place in us and within the organization. 

We also need to have the courage to share our answers to these three questions with our team and listen carefully to their answers. When we choose to inner clarity, and come into full alignment with our principles and our actions, we create a ripple effect throughout our lives, our families, our work places, and our community. 

© Geery Howe 2024

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

A Leadership Choice

Many leaders deal with people from a reductionist, mechanistic, and strictly objective perspective. With this mindset, people are reduced to things, objects, or inputs. These leaders move people around like they are checkers on a board. The only goal is to win the game, and every piece is treated as being similar to every other piece. 

The outcome of this choice is that leadership becomes a language of distance. There is no us or we. Instead, there is only I and them. These leaders choose to separate themselves from others. They engage or connect with people only through the use of their positional power. They frame up others as just employees rather than people who work at the company and with the company. 

The result of this choice is that there is something missing in their relationship with others. There also is something missing in their relationship with themselves. The missing piece is that they are fragmented on the inside and fragmented on the outside. 

I know this from decades of coaching people. While I have done a great deal of public speaking, training, and consulting, I also have spent many hours listening to people as an executive coach. I have listened to complicated situations and complex issues. I have listened to technical problems and adaptive challenges. I have listened to operational concerns and strategic ambiguity. I have listened to professional and personal worries. And in the end, I have often asked this question, “What does your gut tell you to do about all of this?”. 

I ask this question, because I have learned that each of us is the sum of four different aspects, namely mind, body, social/emotional, and spirit. And each of these elements influences the choices we make and the way we think through the challenges before us. In particular, this unique question taps into more than just a mechanical model of leadership. It broadens our perspective. It creates a wholistic perspective that can generate inclusive understanding more than reductionist solutions. It recognizes that our inner relationship to self and our outer relationship with others is dynamic and interrelated. In essence, the more we are in touch with ourself, the better we are in touch with others. 

Understanding this truth requires us to discern the difference between what it feels like to be a leader rather to make things happen as a leader. At a basic level, the feeling of leadership is very different than the doing of leadership. I have learned this difference by being with leaders as they have faced challenges and opportunities, individually and collectively with their teams. The difference is subtle, but most evident in how they treat others. They understand that they work in a relationship economy more than in a world of things, objects or inputs. They understand that how people feel is just as important as what they do. They understand that commitment, not authority generates results. And finally, they understand that commitment comes from character level values like respect, dignity, and integrity. It is from this foundation that people rise to the level of being a great leader, more than just a shaker and mover who gets things done. 

This week, my challenge to you is make a choice that starts with inner discernment and clarity before you focus on outer execution. I also challenge you to build a foundation in all relationships based on integrity, dignity, and respect. The combination of these two actions will generate the capacity to be a leader more than just to make things happen as a leader. 

© Geery Howe 2024

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change