Threat power is a form of “if, then” equation. It is the direct or intimated threat that if a team member fails, something bad will happen to them. A little bit of threat power is needed in any leadership dynamic but if overused, can drain the spirit and desire to perform from any team.
The necessary application of threat power is usually reserved for formal disciplinary actions when coaching has not produced a successful turnaround in a team member’s performance. In formal disciplinary action, there is the “if, then” that relates to continued failure could result in more disciplinary action or termination. Beyond this application, threat power serves no good purpose in leadership.
Like threat power, reward power is an “if, then” type of proposition. The only difference is that reward power provides for a positive reward or carrot at the end of a stick upon achieving a desired result. Also like threat power, it is necessary but in small doses.
Two areas of concern for any leader is the ongoing availability of rewards. If rewards dry up, now what? The other area of concern is why people work for and perform for a leader. Is the leader really building loyalty and relationships or simply offering compensation and spiffs on a regular basis. Many times the leader that is over-reliant on reward power is compensating for a lack of true relationships with team members and trying to buy performance.
Organizational or legitimate power is the actual authority granted to a leader based on their position and title. It is where you live in the organizational chart. It is your authority to approve things, initiate action and operate independently. It can also be seen as “do it because I said so.” It is very common in military and paramilitary type organizations which rely on a rigid hierarchy.
Unfortunately, too much emphasis on organizational power will lead to bottlenecked decision making, lack of innovation and failure to take risks. It can also be a contributing factor in sheep breeding and the lack of success associated with that. The use of organizational power can also become territorial and hoarding with people waging turf wars to insure their areas of influence are protected and insulated.
The effective leader should never have to order anyone to do anything or beg anyone to do anything. The effective leader creates a climate and the relationships needed for team members to want to do the work prescribed and direction defined by the leader.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 34-Feedback from Others
The third and final source of information related to understanding yourself comes from the feedback of others. This can be in two subsets, formal and informal. Formal feedback from other people includes performance reviews and 360 degree evaluations. Performance reviews are usually not a very good source of self understanding and awareness because they are done infrequently and they are generally not done well.
The formal process of gathering leadership, performance and behavioral information from others is commonly referred to as a 360 degree assessment. It obtains feedback from those you lead, your boss and others, including vendors and customers, in which you exercise influence. The best versions of these instruments contain both quantified and numeric ratings about key leadership indicators but also include a section for anonymous comments. The most helpful information is often found in the comment section under headings that include behaviors to stop, behaviors to begin, things the person does well and things the person could do better.
The one intellectual honesty risk with 360 degree feedback comes from selecting the audience to comment and evaluate. Two errors occur frequently in choosing either people that you know will be very supportive and positive or choosing people that will be very critical. Both populations do not provide an accurate picture of you or your style. Evaluators and comment providers must be a cross section of those who love you and those who do not.
Informal methods of gaining feedback include the highly complex transaction of (gasp) asking people how you are doing. One of the best leadership sources of this information come from those being led. Simply asking how you are doing as a leader, what you could do better and what is working well is a great source of feedback to understand yourself and uncover some important blind spots.
Another great source of the same type of information comes from peers or near peers. Since they have no real vested interest in how you lead, their degree of honesty would be pretty high. This works especially well if you can create a peer mentoring type of relationship where the feedback is shared between both of you.
As with all types of self understanding feedback, this also contains a warning tale or two. The first time out of the gate, many people will not provide you with direct and fully honest information. In fact, your subordinates and peers may sugar coat things or deny that there is anything in you that needs to be changed. They may even openly think you are up to no good in this questioning. It is only through a consistent approach in which you have demonstrated no repercussions that team members will provide you with complete honesty and feedback that you need. You must ask several times across multiple months and show that no one is going to get hurt to get the self management information you want.
The final cautionary tale about direct feedback is the desire that many people have to dismiss the source. In informal feedback, if you hear something you don’t like from someone you don’t like, it is easy to discredit the information. You might say things like “you know Bob, nothing ever pleases him” or “Mary has not had a good thing to say about a boss in ten years.” Unfortunately, even when the source is not valued, some of the feedback is important. Even when wrapped in exaggeration or dislike, important information about you might lay below the surface and underneath some emotion. Focus on the message and not the messenger.
The three ingredients of understanding yourself are what you already know and believe, feedback from personality assessments and profiles and the feedback from others. Armed with this information you are now ready to begin the final step of self awareness and understanding.
The formal process of gathering leadership, performance and behavioral information from others is commonly referred to as a 360 degree assessment. It obtains feedback from those you lead, your boss and others, including vendors and customers, in which you exercise influence. The best versions of these instruments contain both quantified and numeric ratings about key leadership indicators but also include a section for anonymous comments. The most helpful information is often found in the comment section under headings that include behaviors to stop, behaviors to begin, things the person does well and things the person could do better.
The one intellectual honesty risk with 360 degree feedback comes from selecting the audience to comment and evaluate. Two errors occur frequently in choosing either people that you know will be very supportive and positive or choosing people that will be very critical. Both populations do not provide an accurate picture of you or your style. Evaluators and comment providers must be a cross section of those who love you and those who do not.
Informal methods of gaining feedback include the highly complex transaction of (gasp) asking people how you are doing. One of the best leadership sources of this information come from those being led. Simply asking how you are doing as a leader, what you could do better and what is working well is a great source of feedback to understand yourself and uncover some important blind spots.
Another great source of the same type of information comes from peers or near peers. Since they have no real vested interest in how you lead, their degree of honesty would be pretty high. This works especially well if you can create a peer mentoring type of relationship where the feedback is shared between both of you.
As with all types of self understanding feedback, this also contains a warning tale or two. The first time out of the gate, many people will not provide you with direct and fully honest information. In fact, your subordinates and peers may sugar coat things or deny that there is anything in you that needs to be changed. They may even openly think you are up to no good in this questioning. It is only through a consistent approach in which you have demonstrated no repercussions that team members will provide you with complete honesty and feedback that you need. You must ask several times across multiple months and show that no one is going to get hurt to get the self management information you want.
The final cautionary tale about direct feedback is the desire that many people have to dismiss the source. In informal feedback, if you hear something you don’t like from someone you don’t like, it is easy to discredit the information. You might say things like “you know Bob, nothing ever pleases him” or “Mary has not had a good thing to say about a boss in ten years.” Unfortunately, even when the source is not valued, some of the feedback is important. Even when wrapped in exaggeration or dislike, important information about you might lay below the surface and underneath some emotion. Focus on the message and not the messenger.
The three ingredients of understanding yourself are what you already know and believe, feedback from personality assessments and profiles and the feedback from others. Armed with this information you are now ready to begin the final step of self awareness and understanding.
Monday Mentor-Week 33-Collaborative Innovation
Brainstorming does not work.
That’s right. Brainstorming as most people think of it is highly ineffective and does not achieve the level of collaborative input desired. The brainstorming that incorporates twenty or so of your team members and peers with the obligatory facilitator, flip chart pad and colored markers does not work.
There is a pretty large population of people that will not share their ideas, suggestions and thoughts in this type of forum. Some people fear embarrassment, ridicule or even just speaking in front of a group. No matter how comfortable you make the environment, they are going to contribute very little or nothing at all. Worse yet, they may even openly mock the process because of their discomfort and pollute the participation of others. These people have great ideas, they just will not share them in a traditional brainstorming environment.
There is also a population of people that require time to process information and formulate ideas. They do not do well in an environment that rewards near auctioneer speed in conveying thoughts. They want to collect themselves, play around with various scenarios and have time to form something that meets their standards. Brainstorming sessions exclude the great ideas from this group.
Before we visit what processes work to achieve collaboration in innovation, we must examine why collaborative innovation is desirable. If you are an effective leader and have great ideas, why do you need the input from others?
The effective leader is looking for innovation partners and not just innovation participants. Ownership and buy-in are only achieved with participation. You cannot demand buy-in, sell buy-in or purchase buy-in. It is only achieved when others can willing participate in the process. As the leader, you get a team that believes they designed the innovation rather than was victimized by the innovation.
A collaborative approach to innovation also assists the leader in seeing potential unintended consequences of an new approach or change. The different views from your team and the perspectives they represent can be real eye-opening to the leader. They have operational level and daily knowledge that even the most in-tune leader will never know. Quite simply, they know what works and often, what is best for the customer or end user.
There is a short process to obtain collaborative input from your team or others in an innovation process. The first step is to announce the issue or process that you would like input about. As a general rule of thumb, give people a ten to twenty day window of time to think about what you want them to have ideas about.
The second step is to require, yes require, input. That is achieved by sending your team members a note or form with the identified issue or process and requesting that each team member produce three suggestions or ideas for how to perform it better. Establish a deadline and build a follow-up mechanism to insure you receive feedback from each team member or organizational participant. Upon receipt, be sure to thank each team member for the input, no matter the quality.
The next immediate interim step is to reconcile the written comments from your team. There are two areas of awe that occur here. First is the feedback that you will receive from the quietest members of your group. The ones that never speak in a staff meeting or traditional brainstorming session will come up with and articulate some great ideas. The second awe point relates to the degree of commonality. Commonality between your approach and theirs and commonality between their suggestions. Leaders who utilize this method report that out of hundreds of individual ideas, they can be edited down into a dozen or so common responses. Different words but same processes or suggestions.
The final step of this collaborative innovation model is the only public airing and it is a relatively brief one compared to traditional brainstorming. A group meeting is conducted and all the ideas are presented equally. The leader can include his or her suggestions and ideas on equal footing with other input and feedback at this time. With each idea out in the open, the leader or facilitator will begin reconciling ideas by pairing people, then in groups of four, groups of eight and finally the entire group to build ideas and suggestions that represent the entire group. Everyone participates and everyone is represented in this reconciliation. Ideas are formulated, documented and fully vetted. Each of the consolidation steps are time sensitive with short deadline periods to avoid over-pontification by any one group member. The team leader often excuses himself or herself from this process because of the influence they carry among team members.
Collaborative innovation takes a little more time and work but the results and the buy-in of affected stakeholders is dramatically better than dictated ideas and solutions.
That’s right. Brainstorming as most people think of it is highly ineffective and does not achieve the level of collaborative input desired. The brainstorming that incorporates twenty or so of your team members and peers with the obligatory facilitator, flip chart pad and colored markers does not work.
There is a pretty large population of people that will not share their ideas, suggestions and thoughts in this type of forum. Some people fear embarrassment, ridicule or even just speaking in front of a group. No matter how comfortable you make the environment, they are going to contribute very little or nothing at all. Worse yet, they may even openly mock the process because of their discomfort and pollute the participation of others. These people have great ideas, they just will not share them in a traditional brainstorming environment.
There is also a population of people that require time to process information and formulate ideas. They do not do well in an environment that rewards near auctioneer speed in conveying thoughts. They want to collect themselves, play around with various scenarios and have time to form something that meets their standards. Brainstorming sessions exclude the great ideas from this group.
Before we visit what processes work to achieve collaboration in innovation, we must examine why collaborative innovation is desirable. If you are an effective leader and have great ideas, why do you need the input from others?
The effective leader is looking for innovation partners and not just innovation participants. Ownership and buy-in are only achieved with participation. You cannot demand buy-in, sell buy-in or purchase buy-in. It is only achieved when others can willing participate in the process. As the leader, you get a team that believes they designed the innovation rather than was victimized by the innovation.
A collaborative approach to innovation also assists the leader in seeing potential unintended consequences of an new approach or change. The different views from your team and the perspectives they represent can be real eye-opening to the leader. They have operational level and daily knowledge that even the most in-tune leader will never know. Quite simply, they know what works and often, what is best for the customer or end user.
There is a short process to obtain collaborative input from your team or others in an innovation process. The first step is to announce the issue or process that you would like input about. As a general rule of thumb, give people a ten to twenty day window of time to think about what you want them to have ideas about.
The second step is to require, yes require, input. That is achieved by sending your team members a note or form with the identified issue or process and requesting that each team member produce three suggestions or ideas for how to perform it better. Establish a deadline and build a follow-up mechanism to insure you receive feedback from each team member or organizational participant. Upon receipt, be sure to thank each team member for the input, no matter the quality.
The next immediate interim step is to reconcile the written comments from your team. There are two areas of awe that occur here. First is the feedback that you will receive from the quietest members of your group. The ones that never speak in a staff meeting or traditional brainstorming session will come up with and articulate some great ideas. The second awe point relates to the degree of commonality. Commonality between your approach and theirs and commonality between their suggestions. Leaders who utilize this method report that out of hundreds of individual ideas, they can be edited down into a dozen or so common responses. Different words but same processes or suggestions.
The final step of this collaborative innovation model is the only public airing and it is a relatively brief one compared to traditional brainstorming. A group meeting is conducted and all the ideas are presented equally. The leader can include his or her suggestions and ideas on equal footing with other input and feedback at this time. With each idea out in the open, the leader or facilitator will begin reconciling ideas by pairing people, then in groups of four, groups of eight and finally the entire group to build ideas and suggestions that represent the entire group. Everyone participates and everyone is represented in this reconciliation. Ideas are formulated, documented and fully vetted. Each of the consolidation steps are time sensitive with short deadline periods to avoid over-pontification by any one group member. The team leader often excuses himself or herself from this process because of the influence they carry among team members.
Collaborative innovation takes a little more time and work but the results and the buy-in of affected stakeholders is dramatically better than dictated ideas and solutions.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 32-Overuse of Expert Power
The overuse of expert power is one of the most common challenges among new and emerging leaders and can lead to some serious disconnects with a work team.
Expert power is the technical skills, knowledge and expertise that you have amassed during your career. It is your experience and understanding of how things get done and how they should be done. It is you being an expert in your field. It is also the organizational savvy you have grown to understand during your tenure with your company. It is the who does what to whom and what can and cannot be done within the organizational culture.
As indicated previously, some expertise is needed to preserve credibility with your team and within the organization. You must know the basic functions of what goes on and how it is done but you do not have to know everything. That is why you have team members.
The challenge with new and emerging leaders comes from the fact that most of them are promoted from the ranks in which they will now supervise and manage. They were expert doers so now they will become the leader of doers. It is the promotion of people for technical abilities and success and not based on leadership skills and competencies that cause problems here.
It also is a challenge in smaller environments when the owner, founder or original entrepreneur begins to hire team members.
New and emerging leaders often struggle with the awkwardness of leadership. The communication, tone setting, coaching and decision making needed to be effective is difficult for them so they retreat back to where they were previously successful. Doing things. Things that should be done by team members. After all, they were promoted because they were the best doer. What occurs in this environment is a complete drain of leadership and results will suffer shortly.
The other phenomenon attached to the overuse of expert power is that team members have room to participate or contribute. This will lead directly and quickly to sheep breeding. Why should they make suggestions or innovate, when you have all the answers and expertise? The effective leader must be more concerned with sharing expertise and growing the knowledge base of team members rather than protecting and reinforcing their own expert power.
Expert power is the technical skills, knowledge and expertise that you have amassed during your career. It is your experience and understanding of how things get done and how they should be done. It is you being an expert in your field. It is also the organizational savvy you have grown to understand during your tenure with your company. It is the who does what to whom and what can and cannot be done within the organizational culture.
As indicated previously, some expertise is needed to preserve credibility with your team and within the organization. You must know the basic functions of what goes on and how it is done but you do not have to know everything. That is why you have team members.
The challenge with new and emerging leaders comes from the fact that most of them are promoted from the ranks in which they will now supervise and manage. They were expert doers so now they will become the leader of doers. It is the promotion of people for technical abilities and success and not based on leadership skills and competencies that cause problems here.
It also is a challenge in smaller environments when the owner, founder or original entrepreneur begins to hire team members.
New and emerging leaders often struggle with the awkwardness of leadership. The communication, tone setting, coaching and decision making needed to be effective is difficult for them so they retreat back to where they were previously successful. Doing things. Things that should be done by team members. After all, they were promoted because they were the best doer. What occurs in this environment is a complete drain of leadership and results will suffer shortly.
The other phenomenon attached to the overuse of expert power is that team members have room to participate or contribute. This will lead directly and quickly to sheep breeding. Why should they make suggestions or innovate, when you have all the answers and expertise? The effective leader must be more concerned with sharing expertise and growing the knowledge base of team members rather than protecting and reinforcing their own expert power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
