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

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

13 Oct 09 Build Esteem, Don’t Start There

As a speaker and sometimes “Motivational Speaker,” I was accosted this week by a student who made a passing comment regarding the purpose of motivational speaking. She said, “I’ve never bought into the self-esteem movement.” As we talked, she was referencing an experience she had at her workplace where a speaker was brought in for an annual meeting and, in an attempt to pump all of the managers up, focused on the leader’s role in building the self-esteem of their followers. I gather that the premise of the speech was, leaders who build self-esteem create workforces that are empowered to be successful.

This turned out to be one of those discussions that bounces around in your head for awhile. You know there is something important there but you’re not sure exactly what it is immediately. On my two-hour commute between where I live and Devos Graduate School of Management where I was teaching, it came to me that I was (a) a bit defensive about her perspective and (b) almost entirely in agreement with her concern. (I really hate it when that happens!). As I began to think about the subject matter of many of my speaker colleagues who are absolutely sincere about their desire to help make leaders more successful, I came to realize that we sometimes get the message backwards. Based on what we think we know about self-esteem, it’s important to separate the myth from the reality:

1. Self-esteem precedes success. This may be one of the most damaging myths and one of the most common. I say “damaging” in the sense that it is simply not effective. Our self-esteem is established as a result of our successes, not as an antecedent. Think about it. Nathaniel Brandon a well known psycotherapist, defined self-esteem as “the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness.” Where does this disposition come from in your followers? It comes from their ability to provide evidence for themselves that they are able and skilled enough to be successful. Success, by the way, is defined by the individual…not by you.

2. Self-esteem is about praise. In an effort to teach leaders how to motivate their employees, many lecturers and writers have focused on the idea that praising employees builds self-esteem which in turn creates satisfaction which in turn creates productivity. While this seems fairly straightforward, the problem is it doesn’t tell the whole story. Efforts to build self-esteem in others by heaping on praise usually fall short because the praise, if not seen as authentic, is not useful. When John gives a terrible executive briefing, using the conventional approach of telling him that his presentation was not clear but he spoke with authority is hollow. The key to praise is that is recognition of an action worthy of note. Think about it. You know when somebody is blowing smoke…your followers know as well.

3. Self-esteem can be built in others. This was at the core of my students complaint about the “self-esteem movement.” It is ludicrous to think that you, as a leader, have the ability to grant self-esteem to others. You don’t give me self-esteem…I give me self-esteem. To decide that one of your goals is to increase the self-esteem of your followers is to decide that you somehow hold the key to their self-worth.

If you want to help your followers create an atmosphere of success and self-worth, you should ensure that the expectations of success are realistic and challenging at the same time. Helping others be successful is a large part of the truly effective leader’s approach. This is done through goal-setting, providing the right tools for the job and coaching. It is not a function of a steady stream of “you can do it” messages. If you want me to believe I can “do it,” then you have to tell me why you believe so. You have to be specific about it. What is it about my strengths or abilities or determination that makes you believe that I can succeed. And what will you do to be a partner in that success. Leaders who focus on creating a success culture are focusing on things within their power. And they are creating an environment where others can use their strengths and establish their own image of what they can accomplish.

Tags: accountability, engagement, honesty, motivation

16 Sep 09 The Myth of Motivation

If you are a student of leadership, you really need to know the name Daniel H. Pink. He is a career analyst and author of a trifecta of best sellers including the latest The Adventures of Johnny Bunko: The Last Career Guide You’ll Ever Need
If you want to know how unconventional Pink is, you have to check out this career guide. It is written and illustrated in Manga style (Japanese comic) and is the only graphic novel ever to become a BusinessWeek bestseller.

While his writing is interesting, his latest video on motivation is the real topic of today’s post. In his video, Pink talks about an old study called “The Candle Problem” and it’s re-emergence in the work of Sam Glucksberg of Princeton University. In the new studies, Glucksberg provides various motivations for solving the puzzle of the candle. In some conditions he incentivizes participants with money, in other cases with nothing. What he finds is amazing.

While I don’t want to go into the detail of the problem in this entry (you can find it if you watch the video), the important finding is this. When participants are offered a monetary incentive for solving the problem, their response time is actually much SLOWER than those who are not offered money. That’s right. An incentive to solve the problem faster actually slows the process down.

This research was funded by the Federal Reserve Bank of all things, and they played with versions of the incentive and versions of the puzzle. They continued to find the same thing. Monetary reward slowed the process except in one condition. If the puzzle was presented in a way where the solution was obvious, participants actually completed the puzzle more quickly when offered money. If there was no thinking to be done, but only action, money served as a strong motivator.

Pink reveals some additional studies done at MIT and found that, in a series of games where participants are offered small, medium and large rewards for winning. The same thing happened. If the game requires only mechanical task work, the rewards influenced the completion times positively. But if there was any cognitive component of the game that required higher level thinking, rewards actually slowed the process down. By the way, this research was replicated across many cultures, ages and situations. It appears to be consistent no matter where you sit on the globe.

Here’s the point. Extrinsic rewards (bonuses, prizes, etc) are distractors when leaders are trying to achieve greater results. They simply don’t work. We have often said that money isn’t everything, but it might be that money is actually a negative thing. The intrinsic rewards of engagement, solving the problem, adding value and working together continue to show greater results than the standard “carrot and stick” approach.

So if, as Pink claims, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does, why do we keep doing it? It’s not because leaders are unaware of the mismatch…it has been studied for decades. It might be because we default to a logic that is comfortable and easy. Perhaps we offer incentives because we don’t have the creativity to create business situations that are engaging in other ways. If that’s the case, we are going to have to challenge ourselves in the current business environment to find new ways to engage and motivate since the problems we face are less tactical and more cognitive. Until then we may keep throwing money at internal issues that simply refuse to go away.

Tags: commitment, engagement, Executive Compensation, Global Leadership, motivation

11 Jun 09 Volunteer Commitment

Ok, I admit it. There are two posts on the same day. This is because I didn’t post on Monday as I was travelling and blah blah blah excuse excuse excuse. I promise to do better. At the same time, this is related to my commentary because, obviously, on Monday (and Tuesday and Wednesday) I was more committed to something else than I was in writing this missive. Whether it’s excusable or not is a matter of interpretation, but the issue generally comes down to commitment.

The commitment topic is a tough one for leaders and an especially tough one for leaders of volunteer teams and organizations. I spent two late hours last night with a team that had produced an event and was debriefing the experience (always a great idea).

In the debrief, the greatest frustration was the leadership quandry of working with volunteers. You know the thought process…since these people aren’t getting paid and this isn’t their “job,” then it is difficult to hold them accountable to whatever outcome has been decided.

Is that really true? As I was thinking about this it occurred to me that this is based on an interesting assumption: if a person has a job at stake, they will be more committed than if they are volunteering. Like most assumptions, this one is dangerous in the conventional wisdom that it supports. Of course, if this were true we wouldn’t have to deal with commitment issues at work because the consequence of “job” would translate into commitment by our employees…a situation that we know is not true.

That’s not to say that leading volunteers is without it’s unique challenges. Many times people will “commit” to a volunteer endeavor without understanding the commitment that is necessary to make it successful. This is partly their fault because they haven’t thought all the way through it, but it is often a problem created by the leader as well who, in recruiting the individual, focuses on the altruistic outcome as opposed to the work or commitment expected of the volunteer.

Nonetheless, leaders of volunteers can learn a lot about leadership from their non-volunteer counterparts. If you are challenged with this, either in your career or in your social activities, consider the following:

1. For followers, the objective has to be clear. Whether in volunteer or non-volunteer activities, it is important for the leader to be clear about not only the objectives, but the SPECIFIC objectives of the individual’s activities. For volunteer organizations, the mission is often quite broad…to provide affordable housing, or to bring food to the unfed. But for any individual volunteer, it is important that they have a clear picture of what THEIR objective is going to be. For a person to be committed, they have to understand what they are trying to accomplish in both a micro and macro way.

2. The ability to “walk away” should not be reason to be held hostage. This again is true both in the corporate and the non-profit sector, except in volunteer organizations there is generally a “thankfulness” issue from the part of the leader. We are so grateful that the volunteer is willing to help that we engage in a dysfunctional arrangement from the beginning. The follower may feel entitled to a degree of appreciation that they do not expect in their workplace (sad but true). So you already have a “one-up, one-down” relationship except in this case the organization is the “one-down.” If followers are not committed enough to fulfill their obligations, you should let them go wherever they want. The hostage situation never works long-term.

3. Once I’ve signed up, I AM accountable. Volunteer groups often avoid setting up guidelines or rules for their followers…starting on time, ending on time, being at every meeting or event, etc. Because it is so unbelievable that a volunteer organization would actually “fire” a volunteer, it also sometimes feels that rules and guidelines for participation can not be imposed because the resource will disappear. Unfortunately, this means the leader is focusing on keeping the ones who are not 100% committed as opposed to respecting the ones who are. If you have a volunteer who has agreed to fulfill a role, and if you have been clear and transparent on the expectations of that role, then there is no reason to avoid accountability once the process has started.

Non-profit organizations, churches and volunteer teams are all integral parts of our society. Without the willingness of people to give freely of their time to causes of significance, our advancement and success would be greatly impacted. That said, volunteers need leadership as much as non-volunteers. This means direction, encouragement, engagement and accountability to the cause of the organization. The leader has to take this responsibility seriously as well. This exchange of commitment between the leader and follower will produce greater satisfaction and results for all involved.

Tags: commitment, motivation, volunteer leadership