09 Jan 10 The Glamour of Live TV

Being interviewed on live TV is fun. It truly is. The lights and set-up are cool, the fact that you are in front of a million people is neat and all-in-all I would recommend it to anybody who feels they have a message they want to bring and who has some sort of expertise that the media seeks or that you can make them agree that they need to seek.

Having said that, I just had an experience with Fox Business News that also serves as a reminder that live TV is, well, live. If you are going to do this you have to be comfortable with the fact that things will happen that are beyond your control and will either push you over the edge or turn into one of those funny stories that you can keep forever.

I recently did a Special Report on CEO New Year’s Resolutions. My findings…most CEOs are conservatively optimistic about 2010. Seventy-five chief executives responded to my question and I put all of this together into a multi-page report sharing the overall themes of the findings. Not the most earth-shattering news, but news that interested Fox Business.

Now, I have a love-hate relationship with Fox as they do with me I think. On the one hand, while fairly conservative, I am not nearly as anti-government as the “fair and balanced” station is. On the other hand, because I am also not a screaming, yelling liberal, I serve a purpose for them as a counter-opinion on some topics that they can use to balance their coverage to some degree. In other words, I’m not tremendously threatening but at the same time, they can engage in a bit of a debate with me.

I say all this to say that when I am on Fox I am always on my toes because they have a tendency to try to bait their interviewees into their particular point of view. They also do their remote tapings from some difficult settings. In this case I was at the Fox 2 station in Detroit but set up on a chair with a table and a camera. Period. No monitor or anything to see who I was speaking with…just a set up so I could be filmed. In those cases the only connection you have with the actual interviewer is a small earpiece that allows you to hear what is on the air. (This takes some getting used to as well because you are then essentially talking to yourself.)

So, on December 31st I knew that Fox would be focusing on the miserable 2009 and trying their darndest to make it all about the evil Democrats. My argument was that, once you get below the dozen or so leaders that we focus on in the media, most executives were ready to get on with it in 2010. I’m sitting on my stool, earpiece firmly in place and am given the 10 second warning that we are almost live.

Then the platform my chair was sitting on broke.

Then the earpiece popped out.

Then the reporter was on the other side and we were live. I knew this was the case because somewhere in the distance I could hear my name as Dagen McDowell began the piece. Additionally, I was holding onto the bottom of the table for dear life to keep from tipping over. That “fun” moment had become horrific because I could just imagine either not answering a question she asked because I couldn’t hear her and/or disappearing from the camera frame because my chair broke entirely.

You really need to watch the video if you haven’t seen it already. I look like Quasimodo all hunched over and at one point it looks like I’m going to get up and walk away. I didn’t answer the first question at all, got close with the second, and then…when the baiting question at the end came up…I disappointed Dagen with the fact that I didn’t bite. You really should see this…she actually points her finger at me as she says, “I beg to differ but that’s an argument for another day.”

By the way, that is a perfect ending to a media appearance like that. Her comment at the end will serve as an invitation in the future to be back on Fox News with a story about the difference between the average concerns of a CEO and the ones that are most often in the news. In other words, if the purpose of publicity is in some way to get more publicity, this has the potential of being highly successful.

Of course, if I had let go of that table and disappeared from the screen as my chair collapsed, I suspect that would have gotten as much publicity in the end. At least I would have appeared on the blooper reels for who knows how long!

Tags: accountability, CEO New Year's Resolutions, Global Leadership, leadership integrity, motivation, trust

03 Jan 10 It’s a New Year

So, 2010 is upon us and we’re making some changes here at the ole IMPACT headquarters. 2009 was a year of learning and one of the things we learned was that social media, and communication in general, is a lot more difficult to keep up with than we first surmised.

Actually, the problem I have always had is to figure out the difference between what I post on the blog versus what I write in the newsletter. In 2009 I tried to keep up with two blog entries per week and one newsletter per week. Nuts! So at the end of the year I took a break from both in order to rethink the purpose behind the different channels and how best to approach them for the next year.

I just finished re-reading Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.)“> (If you haven’t read it, you should) and noticed something in the added material at the back of the book. Levitt and Dubner approached this issue in a way that makes sense to me. First, there is the book from which most of the discussion comes. Second, they have a website and newsletter that provides more or less updates to the book (they have a new one now called Superfreakonomics which I’m listening too on my various commutes…fascinating!). Third, they have their blog. The blog is a much more casual device for them with various observations, rantings and ravings but overall a better look into their own thinking just through the fact that it is so conversational.

There’s the model I want to use. I have tried in the past to create a blog that is educational and addresses substantive issues with leadership tips, etc. But that’s also what I’m doing with the newsletter. So I have decided that this year the blog will be much less scientific and a lot more…well, fun. It will be OPINION and hopefully in so doing will be not only an added thought value for you, but also more entertaining and engaging than the mini-lectures that have occurred here in the past. Also in a fit of independence and spontaneity, I will commit to at least a weekly blog entry but there might be some weeks where there are several. Who knows? Why not?

The newsletter on the other hand will become more substantive and provide more information and ideas than it has in the past. I am going to publish it in pdf format for those who like to print things or want to read them on their Kindle or Sony Reader (or iPhone or whatever). The objective of the newsletter is to create something that you will want to keep and to which you may want to refer. This allows me to have guest columns as well as much more useful content in one place on a monthly basis.

More than anything, as we move along on this quest to get it right, I invite you to give me feedback and input on what you think would be most useful. In the meantime, we’ll keep messing with the formula until we get something that works. For example, right now I have two websites: www.ImpactSuccess.com and www.GlobalLeadershipDialogue.com. I’m not sure this makes sense any longer and perhaps there should just be one. I think I have two partially valuable sites right now and not one that is a powerhouse. Maybe there’s a way to address that. Anyway, you get the picture. (If you have an opinion on this, I would love to hear it).

Off we go now into the new decade. We will keep learning and evolving and we invite you to do so with us. I suspect this is another case where there is no right or wrong answer, at least not one that is readily apparent. In the meantime, we’ll keep trying and see what we learn this time. Happy New Year!

Tags: engagement, Global Leadership, great leadership, trust, vision

19 Dec 09 Leaders and Productive Conflict

I know most of you regularly read the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health so forgive me if I repeat something you already know here. (Actually, I don’t read it either…it was a citation in a Bloomberg News story). Anyway, a group of researchers from Sweden found that those who suppress their anger in the workplace are more likely to suffer from heart attack or die from heart disease. Especially among men, the act of simply walking away or trying to ignore an anger-inducing event can be detrimental to long-term heart health it seems. So, of course, those who have reported on this story suggest that rather than walking away, the cause of the anger should be confronted fairly quickly and directly.
This is not the first study that has made this kind of link between concealed strong emotions and stress-related illness. It makes sense. If I am frustrated at work and nothing happens to relieve this frustration, then all of the physiological (and psychological) symptoms of stress will eventually have their toll. However, the point is not to share the fact that you are angry. The point is to deal with, and remove or offset, the stressor.

There is an entire generation or so that believes that health comes from the free expression of emotions. It is almost an entitlement belief—I have this emotion, I have a right to this emotion, and I have the right to share this emotion with you. The problem is that this is a very limited solution and one that has great potential to backfire. Express a negative emotion, whether it is frustration, annoyance, disbelief and the like, is almost guaranteed to provoke a negative response in the receiver. Focusing on your emotion alone creates an environment of blame and, while you may think you feel better in the end, it is rarely productive.
An alternative is to “own” your emotion but express your concern and issue. By owning how I feel about something I am recognizing that it is not YOU who made me feel this way. Your behavior has prompted something in ME that makes me feel this way, but you aren’t the holder of my emotions. You may, however, be the source—or part of the source—of the problem. With productive conflict and respectful confrontation, you can relate to your boss, peers or employees that you are angry or unhappy or upset. But more importantly, you need to address the activities, behaviors or outcomes that are prompting stress for you.

It is easier to describe productive conflict than it is to actually do it, but here is what it looks like:
1. Dialogue rather than debate. The purpose of the conversation is not to win the conversation but to come to a mutual understanding about the issues and the consequences of those issues (for example…your anger, disappointment, whatever).
2. Describing rather than dramatizing. Unleashing emotions is often an attack mode that provokes a defense and personal response. Describing your stressor in terms of what it is or what they do makes it possible sometimes to defuse the highly charged energy around a topic long enough to make headway on getting it solved.
3. Collaboration versus competition. The way we chose to express our concerns sometimes is as if we need to “win” the conversation. Winning usually means the other person has seen the “truth” and admitted that they are wrong. This approach does nothing for changing the culture to one of greater engagement in general. Collaboration, on the other hand, assumes that we are both interested in solving the issue without humiliating each other.
While these ideas are easy to read, they are difficult to put into place if they are not habitual already. The way to start is to decide one thing…for example, collaboration versus competition. Check yourself when you find that you are making a simple matter a competition. Take a minute just to reflect on whether or not this is how it should be. Small changes can make big differences.

07 Dec 09 Too many or too few?

In a recent issue of Business Week, author Claudio Fernández-Aráoz (Great People Decisions: Why They Matter So Much, Why They are So Hard, and How You Can Master Them
) writes that the number of managers who will be in the appropriate age range for leadership roles will drop 30% in just six years. His conclusion: The average corporation will be left with half the executive talent it needs by 2015.

As a senior advisor for global search firm Egon Zehnder International, Mr. Fernández-Aráoz should have some notion of what he’s talking about. The interesting point of the rest of his article is that Asian nations are taking the lead in developing managers, etc. But in the process of making his argument, he makes the following passing statement. “Companies will have little choice but to identify internal talent at an earlier stage and develop prospects at a faster pace.”

We’ll talk about the concern over Asian talent development in a later post. Right now I’m mulling over this issue of companies having little choice but to identify talent earlier and develop prospects faster. As much as I like to hear that (I AM in the leadership development business remember), I’m not entirely sure it is true. It sounds a lot to me like the McKinsey-based “Winning the War for Talent” approach which primarily made a case for using McKinsey, but not much else of value came out of it.

Assuming that the numbers are sound, it would seem to me that a drop in the talent pool of 30% might mirror the drop in available corporate leadership positions as well. Fernández-Aráoz suggests that there will only be half the needed talent by 2015. But this assumes the same level of “needed talent” as today. One of the positive consequence of all of the restructuring and integration activities within organizations today is that there are fewer management positions available. And I think this is a good thing.

By removing layers of traditional management or slimming the number of people in management roles, corporations are creating an environment where leaders must delegate and depend on their people. Command-and-control calls for strong management but in today’s flexible and chaotic world, companies need versatility more than they need control. I’m not suggesting anarchy. I’m simply saying that using fewer leaders to run bigger companies will create systems that provide more responsibility and accountability at the team level.
It is not an easy model to image because, as much as we don’t want to repeat the last decade of overall leadership in corporate America, we also don’t want to have to change. Any change that is out of our control (such as the demographic shift) is seen immediately as either a threat or a non-event. Perhaps it is somewhere in-between…a real opportunity to do things differently. If you need to develop leaders relatively quickly, make sure you aren’t creating clones of the past…that won’t work. Developing the foresight to see current and future challenges, and having the skill to lead in this new environment, you might need fewer managers to begin with.

13 Nov 09 Make your Goals STRONG instead of SMART

In the last post I talked about the difference between assessment and evaluation and how both are needed in order to provide strong performance management feedback to employees. In this post I would like to finally offer an alternative to the well-used (and perhaps outdated) SMART acronym of goal-setting. In the standard approach, goals are defined as good if they are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-Bound. These are o.k. characteristics and they have worked for decades. However, I am not sure they cover all of the elements necessary for successful goal-setting in times of great challenge. Today we need more than smart goals…we need STRONG ones.

Simple. For a goal to be useful, it has to be understandable. By “simple” I don’t mean it has to be elementary, but it needs to be focused on a single activity and outcome. Goals that have multiple parts are hard to understand and are difficult to deliver since the employee is unsure of what part of the goal is most important. A simple goal for one person may be an overly complicated goal for another person so this is a relative term based on the individual and the task at hand.

Timely. For a goal to be useful it also has to be relevant to the situation at the moment. Each goal should have an importance that is immediate. If you truly want me to make this goal a priority, I have to see how it plays a role in our success right now.

Realistic. For a goal to have its desired effect on performance, it has to be seen by the recipient of the goal as somehow possible to achieve. Unrealistic goals create demoralized troops. This is a point of negotiation. If you see the goal as realistic and your follower does not, you need to take the time to explain your thinking in a way that they can see the same reality you do. This does not mean the goal has to be easy..just possible.

Objective. For goals to be strong, they must be viewed as unbiased and real. One of the definitions of “objective” is “having a real existence.” If you want me to attempt to achieve a goal, it has to be termed in a way that it is real. “Making people happy” is not an objective goal. “Improving customer satisfaction” is.

Necessary. Useless goals are the bane of high-performance. For a follower to be motivated to achieve a goal he or she has to see the value of the goal they are pursuing. Goals need to be provided in a context of understanding so that employees understand not only the specifics of the goal, but also the goal’s importance in the bigger picture. The necessity of the goal can be a strong performance driver, especially for employees who are personally committed to the overall success of the department or organization.

Grand. Goals need to be aspirational. They need to represent performance that requires ingenuity and persistence. They need to be challenging. Remember that I suggested they are realistic, which means they are not SO grand that they are unattainable. But realistic does not mean that it’s a piece-of-cake…it just means that it is doable. Grand goals are goals that stretch us to grow in ways that mediocre goals do not. Grand goals can be exciting, if they are agreed upon by both the leader and the follower.

Ultimately, this last statement is the key to successful goal-setting. Whether SMART or STRONG or some combination of the two, goals that are imposed on people tend to be less successful than those that are established with people. A goal-setting session should be a dialogue…the actual establishment of the goal should be the outcome of the dialogue. “Gifting” your employees with their goals creates confusion about what you mean and what the priorities are. But a goal-setting session where each individual has the opportunity to share in the crafting of the objective can be inspirational in itself.

Tags: communication, expectations, goal-setting, motivation, strong goals, trust, vision

10 Nov 09 Assessment versus Evaluation

There are many things coming down the pike at this time of year for leaders in organizations. Very soon most will be doing the end-of-year performance reviews as well as goal-setting, budgeting and finalization of strategy for the next 12 months to 5 years. Each company or organization is difference so I would never be able to cover all the possible topics and not all of them would be relevant to you anyway. What I would like to do instead is use both postings this week to address two areas of end-of-year activity that apply to just about everybody. The first of these is assessment and evaluation.

The important thing about assessment and evaluation is that you need to do both. Yes, they are different, and they are different in substantial ways and they serve different purposes. This is not just hair-splitting when it comes to terminology. If you only focus on one or the other you miss an opportunity to develop your people and give them the feedback that they need to be successful.

Evaluation

This is what most leaders and managers are doing at the end of the year in terms of performance management. Evaluation is summative. By that I mean it is the result of activities that have gone on during some defined period in the past. For most organizations, this is a one-year period although some forward thinking groups make the evaluation more frequent and covering a lesser stretch of time. Evaluations are also results-oriented. They focus on what has been produced during a period of time. The findings of evaluations are judgmental. I don’t mean to say that in a negative way, just that evaluations are for the purpose of judging performance and usually determining a score or rating. From a timing standpoint, evaluations are designed as a quality-gate. In other words, they are for the purpose of giving feedback on performance in a segmented manner. For too many, this is once a year. In fact, mid-year evaluations used by many are not as much evaluations as they are corrections. If compensation and other important decisions are made based on the once-per-year function of performance evaluation, then your evaluation cycle is yearly.

Assessment

Actually, mid-year evaluations often fall into the category of assessment rather than evaluation. Assessments are ongoing and process-oriented. They check the status of progress and provide direction or correction. By process-oriented, I mean the question for an assessment discussion is “How is it going?” whereas the question for an evaluation is “How has it gone?” So assessments are formative rather than summative. They happen as performance is being conducted, not after the fact. Assessments also tend to be more flexible than evaluations. With an assessment, modifications can be made either to the development and performance of the individual, or to the desired outcomes. With evaluations, that horse has already left the barn.

The point of calling out the difference between assessment and evaluation is to realize that both are different but important. Employees and followers need feedback in both areas. From an assessment standpoint, reflection on how things are going and adjustments to the tools available or expectations are important on an ongoing basis. Assessment in this sense is not about grading…it’s about providing an honest and helpful viewpoint on the process being used by the leader or the follower in achieving objectives. Every performance management process should include ongoing assessment, but without defined evaluation periods, followers will have a “sense” of how they are doing, but will have nothing to measure their performance against.

From an evaluation standpoint, it is also important to give honest and real feedback about how effective performance has been to a certain point. For most people, this “score” is an important indication of how well they are meeting expectations. Evaluation is not coaching…it’s judging. One of the benefits of evaluation is that it marks a close to the end of a performance period. If I have been doing great, it acknowledges my performance in a positive way and gives an opportunity for us to refocus on the next evaluation period. If my performance has been poor it provides an opportunity for some pre-defined consequence and then a clean slate for the next evaluation period.

The point to take away from this. Provide both! Evaluation without assessment is just a random score that surprises our followers and provides no real direction for improvement. Assessment without evaluation is an ongoing discussion that has no end. There are no points for either rewarding or correcting poor behavior and performance. The leader who wants to give the most powerful feedback defines the opportunities and the value of both for all followers.

Tags: accountability, consistency, evaluation, expectations, feedback, performance, performance review

06 Nov 09 Chickens, Eggs and Change

There is an interesting debate going on amongst those who have little else to debate these days. The question is this. For effective change to take place, does one first change the organizational structure and systems and then adapt a strategy (and human strategy as well) to fit the new structure and system, or does one start with the strategy and mindset changes and then adapt the systems and structure to fit it?

This is one of those interesting leadership questions because, if you have an answer, you probably believe it is the only logical answer to have. Of course my answer is one of those amazingly frustrating answers for many people. I believe it depends on the change being instituted and the context of the specific leadership and organizational challenge.

In my opinion, it is possible for a full scale and successful change initiative to be instigated by the recognition that current systems, hierarchies and processes are either producing less than desirable results or, more likely, are not creating results quickly enough. This is a carry over from the industrial age that we haven’t quite settled yet. Systems that create efficiency and run at the lowest cost are not necessarily the same systems that create the greatest speed or quality. As I’ve written here before, the obsession with cost reduction has created many organizations that now find themselves able to do things inexpensively, but without innovation or speed to market.

On the other hand, organizations that have flat structures, few complex processes and an innovative mindset are not immune to dealing with change. The current economy for example has hit everybody. Many of these innovative companies (Google, 3M, Apple) have come to recognize that their cowboy mindset worked well in good times, but did not prepare them for the more team-oriented approach that may be necessary today. Yes, these companies have had teams forever, but the kind of collaboration that is necessary now is so entirely cross functional and focused that few organizations are accustomed to it. These aren’t organizational design issues…these are internal issues. In these cases, the mindset has to change first, and the design will follow.

I believe what is most important is the manner in which the change process is approached. First of all, we should quit acting as if the “change process” is a unique and perhaps frequent stand alone event. In the current environment, change is not separate from leadership…it IS leadership. Second, for either design driven or internal driven change to work, stakeholders have to be enlisted early in the game. We have become a complex environment and diverse perspectives will provide the framework for understanding what and how change will enable the new corporate.

Finally, we have to get away from believing that there is one way to either make change happen or even to describe the phenomenon that occurs during change within an organization. We have become comfortable with approaches and theories that date back to a much more stable and industrial age. For change to work, leaders have to have open minds and hearts and be willing to understand that they don’t understand.

“>

Tags: accountability, change, communication, culture, Global Leadership, innovation, Leadership characteristics, trust, vision

03 Nov 09 Communicating Survival

As I continue to work on a special report regarding managing workplace layoff survivors, I’m finding that there are some very consistent communication methods that effective leaders are using. I’d like your thoughts on this:

1. Have as serious a communication strategy with those that are still part of the organization as you did when layoffs were looming. Even if the message is that there are no changes, a lack of communication promotes suspicion and lack of trust.

2. Sincere appreciation from top management to all employees, recognizing the challenges of the current situation and without reference to the “dire” needs of the company. A note saying that management understands the emotional challenge of losing good co-workers can go a long way to communicating empathy.

3.No BS about future changes. If there is a possibility of future layoffs it is not necessary to trumpet that there will be more people losing their jobs, but it is important to let people know that there may be additional organizational challenges and that they will be kept abreast of these changes as they come into play.

4.Schedule get togethers both formal and informal between leadership and staff to discuss upcoming decision schedules and to get input from employees, not about what the decisions should be, but about how they should be handled.

5.Senior management should take responsibility for much of this communication and not depend on front line supervisors to trickle down the information. They are as disturbed by the changes as anybody and it is a senior leadership responsibility to be accountable for organization-wide changes. That means it is a senior leadership responsibility to communicate to employees.

6.At the same time, senior leadership should take the opportunity as a coaching moment with their management and supervisors. Let the middle and lower level managers know the thought process and let them in on the communication plan. Let them feel like leaders, even if they are not the ones doing the communicating. Ensure that employees and supervisors alike understand that senior leaders are doing the talking, not because they don’t trust line management, but because they may have more answers and a bigger picture.

Managing organizations that have had major personnel challenges can be a challenge because, regardless of what you tell your folks, they will be suspicious and they will be hurt. They have already suffered from losing long-term relationships and assuming that they can just “let it go” and “get back to work” is short sighted and reflects a lack of understanding as to what motivates people. Even with ridiculously busy schedules, senior leadership has to take the time to reach out to employees. It is not just a nice thing to do, it is a way to get the organization back on track as quickly and effectively as possible.

Tags: accountability, change, courage, fear, trust

30 Oct 09 Effective Leadership Presentations

There has been a lot of study and writing on the act of oral presentation so it would seem that there’s probably not much more we need to learn, eh? As leaders we know we need to “Tell em what we’re going to tell em, tell em and then tell em what we told em.” At least that’s the conventional wisdom. The problem of course is that being redundant is not only sometimes very boring it is also not a guarantee that our message will have any impact at all.

I generally have an immediate suspicion of conventional wisdom anyway. Typically it became conventional wisdom over a long period of time and is so general as to be not of much use. At the very least, conventional wisdom tends to be…well…conventional. In other words, average is not what we’re after here so perhaps we need to try a little harder. Recent evidence in brain research of participants listening to speakers gives us some ideas as to how we might make presentations to our followers more powerful. Here are three ideas for example that are not likely to be intuitive or in your basic speech workshop:

1. Focus on multiple processing: Very often leaders approach communication to groups of people as information dumps. A few charts, a bunch of numbers, and that’s about it. Then they wonder why nobody seems to remember what they said. Research however indicates that the more diversity in the presentation, not just with information but with our senses, the more likely we are to retain the information. Most speakers stick to audio and visual, but are there some ways you can bring your message alive by activity within the group. Can you pass out an object or have them engage in an activity to illustrate your point. The more ways they have to experience the information the more likely they are to retain it.

2. Be “level” with the audience: Of course we have been trained to do this through a story or joke or whatever else we throw into the introduction of the speech, but connecting with the audience is really about being a credible and trustworthy source. Be real and authentic. Avoid acting out the power position. For example, if these are employees within your company or department do you really need a formal introduction? Do your assistants really need to be visible to everybody all of the time? Come down the hierarchy for awhile and really speak with your folks.

3. Tie into existing knowledge: While every presentation should have a unique component (otherwise, why are you doing it?) participants can make meaning of your discussion more easily if it is related to stuff they already know. Whether it is a continuation of an earlier presentation, connected to current events, or even product related, it is helpful to overtly tie your new information to previously understood content. The more you can help the audience make the connection, the less cognitive effort it takes for them to figure it out on their own.

One thing stands out above all others when it comes to making presentations with impact. If you are not considering your audience in the process of creating your speech, you will not be as effective as you could be. Speaking is all about the audience. If you have others who are creating your speech, make sure that they are doing it from the perspective of the receiver. No matter how powerful a leader you are, if you stand there and tell us what you think is important, without considering what is important to us and how we can best understand the information, your presentations will fall short every time.
“>

Tags: change, commitment, communication, leadership, performance

23 Oct 09 Building a Performance Based Culture

The problem with bonus and compensation driven performance is two-fold. First, from a public relations standpoint, bonuses tick people off right now. Rightfully or wrongfully, the impression of entitlement rubs folks the wrong way as many are being laid off or having their salaries cut. To be honest, there are clearly cases where bonuses make no sense…for example in government bailed out companies where performance is not the issue, employment contracts are. Second, and more important for most leaders, monetary incentives are short-term activators. Whether you believe money motivates people or not, it does so only for a brief period. As soon as you feed the beast, it is hungry again.

The good news is that an organization based on performance does not have to be an expensive proposition. Pride is a much greater motivator than money any day. Unfortunately, because you have pride in your organization doesn’t automatically mean your employees see it the same way. Leaders tend to be leaders because they already have a drive for performance and success. Instilling this element in the culture of the organization takes an intentional effort.

For people to be committed to performance in their work, there are a few necessary elements that need to be in place:

1. A clear vision of what is to be achieved. Beyond just a laminated statement of some sort, this vision has to be of a future state with a road map and some direction for achieving the vision. If people know where they are going, and can track their progress toward those objectives, they can take ownership in the vision themselves. If the objective is not clear, or there is no way to monitor progress, followers will focus on the immediate tasks at hand only.

2. Autonomy in their work. This doesn’t mean that each employee should simply chose what they do and when they do it. Autonomy can take many forms. Depending on the nature of the job, the degree to which employees are able to make their own decisions and participate in creating their own work-world will determine how committed to this world they actually are. Lack of autonomy always means lack of accountability. If you make all the decisions about every detail, what do I have left to own.

3. Meaningful and engaging work. If the only way you can imagine the organization of your followers work is in a menial and mundane fashion, you can’t expect that your employees will be focused on performance. They might be focused on achieving a specific milestone or measure but you will have to continually reinforce the measure to get the performance. Humans are amazing creatures when it comes to adding significance to their work. If there is no significance, there is no reason to be engaged and perform.

4. A sense of community. This aspect is overlooked by many leaders trying to provide a motivational work environment, but your followers are social people. Feeling that we are all part of the same team, or that my co-workers and I share a set of values or interests, goes a long way in retention and motivation. A Performance-Based Culture is not one of individual success. It is one where our efforts to be successful are combined with those of a like mind.

Of course there is no silver bullet in establishing this mindset of performance. Leaders can’t dictate an atmosphere of camaraderie or a culture of achievement. Leaders can, however, create the circumstances that promote these elements. Focus on compensation to the point that it is fair and competitive but treat it only as one element of the workplace. Successful leaders engage their followers through interaction and relationship.

Tags: engagement, leadership integrity, performance