Teams - Avoid the Drama

Have you ever been in a situation that when you get together with your team (whatever team whether you are the leader or not) there is some sort of drama. And it seems there is always drama--someone changing something or upset about changes to something. It becomes an initiative killer after a while.

What do I mean by drama?

Drama is when there is always a crisis causing the team to change directions from what they were doing. Drama is caused by personnel turbulence or problems. Drama may be tied to secretiveness to allow the leadership can shoot for effect on new ideas. Drama is characterized by a continual state of upheaval where no one really knows what's going to happen next.

What else is drama? Constant changes to the direction of a project or task. Deciding that although one approach was planned, another approach is necessary. While this will happen at times through the natural course of events, once it becomes the norm, the drama factor is high.

Drama is a leadership issue. It is a control related issue and may also be related to bad planning or communication.

Weak leaders believe they can control the team better by ensuring that no one but them has a clue of what is happening. Constant changes allow only those in the know to be able to set policy and direction.

In some cases, drama may simply be the result of poor planning and inefficient communication. Better planning and more intra-team communication may reduce the apparent drama level.

Drama caused by non-leaders on a team is an attempt to control the activities of the team.

Stamp out drama. Drama causes team members to expend emotional energy and work time to adapt to the changes. There is a resultant loss in productivity due to the replanning necessary to adapt or to the changes. Recognize drama for what it is--negative energy seeking to disrupt the team.

How to reduce drama?

If it is a leadership style--change styles. Recognize that continual drama is sapping individual team member creativity and reducing productivity. While it may appear to the leader that creativity is being infused into the team, recognize that last minute changes or unprogrammed schedule changes causes team members to expend energy to adapt.

Leaders often do not notice the energy team members expend adapting to drama because they are looking at the problem from the top down rather than the bottom up. What is the job of a leader? To make sure the team has the personnel, resources, and guidance necessary to accomplish the task. Secondarily, the job of the leader is to provide an environment where the team can function to accomplish its mission. Drama disrupts the environment.

If drama is being caused by a team member--deal with it. Don't let it continue. Find out the root cause or the "WHY" and address it. Be careful and recognize it may be a challenge to your leadership style, so be prepared for a deep and potentially difficult discussion.

Drama is OK in the theater, but in a team setting over time it will drain the emotion and creativity out of a team. Team drama stems from a control problem--either weak leadership skills or a challenge to the team leadership. It must be addressed or the team will suffer.

Co-Leadership - A Failed Experiment

I recently have completed a failed experiment in co-leadership of a team. Yeah--sounds complex? It is.

Let me define for a minute what I mean by co-leadership. This is a leadership situation where multiple people (in my case it was three) attempt to lead a team. Multiple people are recognized as the empowered and official leaders. In the case of the team I was involved in, I was convinced that this situation could/would/should work. The leaders knew each other and we thought we actually liked each other and that we could work together. The co-leadership situation existed for more than three years before becoming apparent that it was not the optimal approach for the team or the three leaders.

Co-leadership is different than delegating tasks to individuals to accomplish, or empowering people to oversee specific areas. It is also different than having a leadership team with a leader, co-leader, and assistants. In this case, the three leaders were responsible for the total oversight of the team, in all areas to include setting strategic direction and policy, as coequals. A better situation would have one leader and a small (two person) set of advisers who met and worked behind the scenes.

Now understand--this co-leadership situation had some great moments. But, ultimately the experiment failed because of fundamental flaws in the concept that co-leadership could work in an extended situation for a long time.

What are the problem areas? Strategic vision, lines of authority, decision making, a sense among the leadership that the other leaders are constraining the success of the overall team, and accountability.

The problems or pitfalls of co-leadership:

Strategic Vision. This is an area where it is critical to have a clear vision for the end state or destination of the team. It needs to be a single, clear vision. In a co-leadership situation there can never be a single clear strategic vision. The leaders may believe they have the same vision, but each interprets the vision differently and the natural differences in style will cause problems in implementing the vision. This is an area where a single leader is best suited to work collaboratively with the team to formulate the strategic vision, but implementation is essentially as interpreted by THE leader.

Lines of Authority. Or: Who is in charge. Or who do the team members believe is in charge. This will cripple a team if it is not clear. While three people may believe they can function as one, they can't. While we should be able to work in a situation where team members can adjust to a co-leadership situation, from my recent experience this is very difficult for people to embrace. Co-leadership creates a sense of unsettledness and, if communication between the co-leaders is not instantaneous, it can create information voids. Information voids ultimately are responsible for reduced productiveness which contributes to team under performance.

Decision Making. This was an incredibly difficult area--especially when dealing with innovation and new ideas. Normal day-to-day decision making seemed to work well--but when confronted with opportunities or innovation, the co-leadership process almost ground to a halt because of the different levels of expertise and understanding. Whereas in a single leadership position the leader can evaluate the opportunity and make a reasoned decision about implementation fairly quickly, in the co-leadership situation even a simple decision about what to include in or on a website can become and intense negotiating opportunity. Co-leaders want to have it their way and when dealing with an equal it is hard within the bounds of civility it is hard to say--please, let's just try to do this my way, this time! It sounds weak.

The other guys are standing in the way of success. Sadly, every time a concession is made to the other co-leaders in an approach or decision, a nagging thought may come--if only it could have been done my way, we would be more successful. That, over time, can create a sense of disillusionment with the entire process which leads to disengagement which will lead to the crumbling of the structure of the co-leadership situation. Situations develop where one of the leaders always feels they have to defend their position and rarely see their ideas implemented. Or another of the leaders becomes passive-aggressive when discussions of mundane team management issues drag on for extensive periods of time. Things that with a single leader would disposed of quickly become topics for lengthy discussions resulting in intense negotiation. Leaders generally are strong character and believe in themselves and their abilities. Experienced leaders know success based upon their experience--a co-leadership situation rather than improving the chances for success ultimately grinds the creativity and enthusiasm out of the leadership.

For instance--one leader may have a radical new and potentially innovative idea only to discover that the other leaders don't want to do the work or take the risk. What happens in the ensuing negotiations spells either the success or failure of the co-leadership experiment. And it usually isn't good. It is a no win situation. Someone is going to be unhappy about the outcome.

Accountability. Team success is based upon accountability. So who is accountable? For success? For less than success? And this is what it really all comes down to. A group of people cannot be accountable. Someone is accountable. Authority and responsibility are delegated to persons. When co-leaders are so busy trying to accommodate each others disparate views--they cannot each be individually accountable for the performance of the team. Even down to the hiring and removing of team members and enforcing performance standards on the team. The finger of blame gets pointed as soon as there is a problem: Well, it was YOUR idea! or Why didn't YOU take care of that?

It has taken me a couple months to finally wrap my thoughts around the whole idea of co-leadership. I admit--there is a bit of emotion still in the writing because, well, I'm a passionate person and take leadership situations seriously. And when a vision becomes clear for direction, it is very hard for me as a leader to accept, in the absence of empirical data to the contrary, that the direction and the vision laid out are not the best ones.

Advice? When asked to be a co-leader or if you are considering a co-leader situation for a team with a lifespan of more than about three months--avoid it. Address the underlying reasons that a single leader situation is not being considered. Don't believe it's best not to hurt someone else's feelings and agree to the co-leader situation. If they don't want to lead--then you lead, but don't accommodate their insecurity and agree to a co-leadership situation. Their feelings are going to be hurt anyway--just later in the process.

I would hope that there are ways to implement a co-leader structure for an enduring team situation, but based upon my recent experience I cannot conceive that the team or the leadership will be well served.

What to do if you are in a dysfunctional co-leadership situation? Get out. Resign, walk away! Swallow your pride and your vision and your passion whatever is keeping you there.

Because of an inherently flawed design, a co-leadership arrangement is not "fixable." The only viable approach is to terminate co-leadership. Either the co-leaders must step down or you must be willing to resign your leadership. In my view, if I'm not willing to do something, then I probably shouldn't ask someone else to do it for me--so I must be willing and comfortable with leaving the flawed leadership situation before I ask others to do the same.

If you can leave--and are willing to accept that the team will be better off without your input complicating the leadership situation, then the best advise is to leave. Is it hard? You bet. Do people get hurt? Yeah--but look at yourself, you are probably carrying a lot of hurt about the situation anyway and you will show compassion on the other leaders by reducing their stress at the situation and allowing them the opportunity to lead and follow their vision.

Leadership--Getting to the Why

How many times have you been in a situation where it seems everyone is discussing the symptoms of a situation or problem but not getting to the root cause? In my business it seems to happen all the time. We can fairly easily characterize the "What is Happening" but have a much harder time trying to discover the "Why is it Happening."

In team situations, sometimes we face a situation where a question is asked and an answer provided--seemingly the action is completed. But in digging deeper, very often the question that was asked doesn't provide the real answer to the root question because the questioner does not have enough information to ask the right question. It is up to the leader to intervene and try to determine--what the real question is. Or, get to the why!

In group/team situations it is up to the leader to keep questioning until the collective of the team is finally able to move from identifying symptoms to understanding the root cause, or the why. This may require understanding a process or a function which normally just operates without much thought being given to it.

"Getting to the Why" is the finding root of understanding.

It is like trying to understand an accident. There may be a lot of symptoms to consider and a lot of actions to understand (for example: skid marks, late turning, broken brake lines), but it all comes back to a root cause of some type: improperly trained people, or inattention to the task at hand caused by staying up too late to watch a sporting event, or excessive speed caused by being late to an appointment (of course that too may be a symptom of a larger problem).

In the business world, symptoms may be lower sales, declining profits, or reduced action on the web site. The root cause may be global economic downturn or may be that a competitor has introduced a superior product and innovation is needed to recover lost market share.

In our personal lives--we see symptoms of larger problems: sleeplessness, sickness, stress, a sense of not having enough time, burn out. Sometimes we try to address the symptom--with medicines (and in the case of a disease or sickness--that may be the root cause) , or through strict exercise regimens, or vitamin supplements. But do we need to look deeper into our lives to discover the real "why?"
- Are we out of control by trying to be everything to everyone?
- Have we set unreal and unattainable expectations for ourselves and our relationships?
- Are we searching for happiness and the meaning of life in the collection of material goods and creature comforts?
- Do we need to learn to be where we are and not always looking for where we want to be?

There are no easy answers--but the leader needs to keep asking --why? Like what my children used to do--ask a continual series of why questions only to see how far I could go in providing reasons for why things were connected. And amazingly enough--we could go pretty deep.

The leader needs to take their team deep into the "why?" Do not be content with simple solutions to shallow symptoms. Solving symptoms may make you feel good, for a while, but the underlying issue may never be resolved.

Managing a Leader's Time

Time. It seems that leaders never have enough time to get everything done that needs to get done. There is always something more to do, something new to check, some outstanding item to correct. It's kind of like the mule in the picture--a bit too much in the cart to handle. We wind up in a situation wondering who is in control--the leader or the tasks? As in the picture, if we allow ourselves to become saturated and over tasked--no one is going anywhere and that especially includes our team.

What to do?

Recognize that many our nature says we want to do it all. We want to have our hands in every aspect of what's happening and be fully engaged. Then, once we recognize that our tendency is to do it all, begin to develop an action plan to back it down a bit. Remove some of the bundles from the cart and put them in someone else's cart.

In church this past Sunday, we read a story about a famous leader, Moses, who had a similar problem. He wanted to do it all. And he was trying to do it all. He actually thought he was supposed to do it all and he was becoming ineffective at leading because he had not learned the magic of delegating.

You should read the story in Exodus 18, but I'll provide some of the important aspects. Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, came for a visit after Moses had led the people out of Egypt. In Exodus 18:13-16, Jethro observes what Moses is doing--judging the people and solving disputes. People are standing around and there is a lot of nothing getting done while Moses is diluting his ability to lead the people and be their representative before God. I love what Jethro says in verse 17: "What you are doing is not good!" Basically, Jethro pointed out that Moses was killing himself being involved in the small stuff. Sometimes it takes an outsider to slap us with the obvious.

Jethro reminds Moses what his role is to be--that of representative of the people before God, not solver of petty disputes. Moses has himself tied into a role that he need not do. Jethro advises Moses to appoint others to solve the disputes to free him up to have the relationship with God for the good of the people. And a funny thing happened, Moses listened to Jethro (even though he was his father-in-law!).

Leaders--listen to Jethro. What is the most important thing that you do and that only you can do? What are you doing that someone else is capable of doing or even more capable than you of doing? Give it to them. Use your team. Don't kill yourself by being so involved in minutiae. Focus on the big stuff and off load what you can onto others. They will appreciate being involved and if you match individual capabilities with tasks, the job will likely be done better than you were doing it.

Effectively using your team members is a ciritcal aspect of team success. Effectively using your personal resources is critical to your survival and happiness. You can't do it all and more importantly, you shouldn't do it all--so why try. Use your team. That's why leading is a team sport!

Fear--No Way to Live or Lead

Have you ever run into someone who is afraid they are going to lose their job? Or who is afraid of failure? Or who is just plain risk averse (which in my mind is another way to describe fear)? Are they usually successful? In my experience they are generally not successful or at least not as successful as they could be.

Leaders must understand risk and be able to accept risk. There are courses in risk management--but the important thing is that there is always risk. Everything we do comes with inherent risks. Driving to work in the morning has risk. If leaders are unwilling to accept risk, then they will be ineffective. Someone who is so afraid of losing their job that they refuse to take risks--will lose their job because they are ineffective. Think about it.

I have heard it said that caution and careful planning are essential. But I recently became aware of a bit of historical information that indicated that the Commanding General of the Army of the Potomac during the Civil War Battle of Antietam in September of 1862, General George B. McClellan, was so cautious and methodical that he missed the opportunity to soundly defeat General Robert E. Lee's outnumbered Army of Northern Virginia and end the war in 1862. As we know, the war continued for three more bloody years.

Leaders must be able to adapt to the situation and be willing to accept the risk of failure in order to be successful. I have a phrase I use to describe this approach:

High risk equals high reward!

Leaders who are unwilling to accept risk must be satisfied with mediocre performance from their teams, their organizations, and themselves.

One of the worst leadership practices I have observed related to risk is what I call: "Evaluating the Pain Factor." For each idea, the merit of the idea is determined by deciding how much pain will be caused by implementing the idea. A survey (usually informal) is accomplished of those affected by the concept and if the pain factor is too high, the idea is not be adopted regardless of the inherent merit of the idea. Why? Fear, plain and simple fear of upsetting the "apple cart" too much. How do you assess the pain factor anyway? Leaders who employ the "Pain Factor" as to assess ideas let the status quo determine their future because of fear of failure or upsetting too many people.

Living in fear of failure is not healthy. Organizations need to reward risk takers and realize that it is the risk takers who propel organizations and teams forward. As leaders, we need to ensure that we do not stifle creativity by becoming risk averse. Reward the risk takers--even when they fail because that is where the ability of the team or organization to adapt to the changing environment is going to come from.

Leader must set the vision for the team or the organization. Realize there will be risks to fully achieving the objective and either accept the risks or manage them by minimizing their effect. Evaluate ideas on their merit towards achieving the ultimate organizational goal and not through the pain factor. Reward the risk takers and encourage the risk averse to accept risk as a means success.

Living or leading out of fear is paralyzing and will only result in failure. Live free from the fear of failure and embrace failures as learning tools and as stepping stones to success.

Teams: Setting Expectations

I probably got the proverbial "cart ahead of the horse" yesterday when I wrote about people problems and referenced expectations without actually having written something about expectations.

Leaders set the expectations. What are expectations? The behaviors, the values, and the ethics of the team. Teams need these to foster morale and smooth functioning. They are a reflection of the leader and the operating environment of the team.

Two important things to consider. Expectations should be clear and everyone needs to know them. Do they need to be written? Not necessarily as long as they are understood by everyone.

The second thing is--the leader needs to live the expectations and expect the team to also live the expectations. It is not a matter of enforcement when someone does something outside the expectation, it is encouraging those who work and live within the expectations.

So, if the expectation is that meetings will start on time--the leader needs to be on time.

If a value is for a safe environment--ensure the value is not violated through witting or unwitting personal attacks on team members.

I've worked places where the values and expectations are posted, but after a while they become just another decoration on the wall. It is more important to live the expectations and that is how everyone will come to understand what they are. The team will key off the leader's behavior.

Expectations should be lived. They should not be "shelf-ware" for reference only when there are problems.

Teams: Dealing with People Problems

You ever hear the phrase, "20 percent of the people take up 80 percent of your time?" It is what I call the 20-80 rule. Personnel problems are inevitable on teams. I mean, people are people and we are at all different stages of maturity and have life experiences which sometimes mean we see, think, and/or act differently from the normally established standards.

It is critical that leaders be adept at dealing with people one-on-one, especially in potential conflict or uncomfortable situations. One person, consistently acting inappropriately can destroy the fabric of a team. They can reduce productivity, destroy morale, and sabotage the working relationship between the leader and the team.

What is a leader to do when confronted with a troubling personnel situation?

First, don't get so wrapped up in the personnel problem that your relationship with the other members of the team suffers. Continue to nurture, support, and relate to everyone else. They need to continue to see the leader and to have the open communication that hopefully have been established. They also need confidence that the leader is actively working to enforce the team standards in the renegade.

Second, work one-on-one directly with the problem and the person with it. Nothing in the world is more demoralizing for a team than to have a leader send a blanket email out stating some policy intended to solve a problem that only one person has. Usually the person with the problem doesn't know it's meant for them (so they ignore it) and everyone else is insulted that the leader isn't dealing directly and personally with the issue.

This is a time for the leader to be hands-on. Sit together with the person involved and get to the bottom of the issue. There are established standards being violated--they can be written or understood. But there are standards. Leaders also need compassion. I believe it is important to assume "noble intent" on the first or second meeting. Some people just don't see how what they are doing is divisive or contrary to the team standards.

Dealing directly with people is important for leaders. It shows the team that you are engaged and willing to take care of the tough stuff personally. It demonstrates that you have a good knowledge of the team dynamics and reinforces to the team that you care about each one of them and know what their contributions are.

Hiding behind blanket emails sent to everyone about every transgression is a sign of weakness and insecurity. It sends a message to the team that you are unwilling to engage and you don't understand the dynamics on the team.

Leaders do not need to talk about the problems they are working with the team members. If leaders are in touch with the informal communications system,. they will know that the team is aware of the problems and how the leader is working them. People appreciate modesty and humility. The scary part is that everyone sees the problem. Everyone expects the leader to act. That is the best place to be in because as the leader acts, it reinforces the team standards and assures the team members that the leader cares about the team as a whole.

Leaders must act when confronted with people problems. And they must act personally and directly with the problem. That is the key to success is restoring team morale and harmony.

Team Projects: So What Happens When It's Over?

Ever wonder why we think we are too busy to sit together after a project is done and review how it went?

I know I too often am already overwhelmed by the next project on my plate to give much thought to what has been completed. I'm starting to gather what is needed to notch the next success for my team. What's done is done, why waste time thinking about it?

STOP! Think about that for a minute. There are a lot of valuable lessons hidden back there now that the completed project is behind us. There are teaching points and training opportunities. There are successes and there are areas where we need to fess up about not doing what we said we'd do when we said we'd do it.

I spent 21 years in the Air Force--after each flying mission aircrews do what is called a debriefing. Teams need to do the same thing. Together, with the sense of position removed and only with those who participated in the task. There is a lot to learn and go over.

It is not as easy as sitting together and saying: "OK so how'd it go?" But that is a good start. Before the session, every member of the team needs to review the project from their point of view and have a good understanding of their contribution and their tasks.

Team members need to be self critical. But definitely not suicidal. It all has to do with the outcome--if the team outcome was overall successful, then remember that. If the overall outcome was less than successful, then there will be a lot of items to discuss.

Team members need to be honest. They know where the fell short of the mark.

Limit the time. Don't let this drag on into a "pity party" session. The leader should go first and definitely start with self-criticism. "I should have been clearer in specifying the format for the deliverable up front rather than saying, 'I'll know it when I see it,'" for example.

Why do this? Well it will help the junior members of the team learn that everyone makes mistakes as well as being successful. It is a training ground for the future leaders of the team.

As failures are noted, if they are major shortcomings, do an exploration for the root cause. Why did the team come up short. We may know why we failed--we made a bad decision, but what caused the bad decision or failure to consider some external factor. That is the teaching point.

The only way this works is if everyone checks their emotional baggage at the door. And, what is said in the room, stays in the room. It should not show up on performance appraisals or in water cooler discussions. The review of the activity needs to be a safe zone—or nothing will be gained. Everyone needs to come clean.

The leader needs to maintain order--one person at a time talking. And--it is OK to write down the larger items for the future such as best practices that worked and processes which need improving corporately.

This type of process is really applicable to every team endeavor including sports, musical bands, and organizational process teams. Groups with a performance activity involved, like a band, actually can have some very concrete data to review on the character of their performance. Recordings from the activity. Organizational teams can review process charts and the products as the basis for their review.

I do personal debriefings in my life--for successes and failures. It drives my wife crazy because I go over what happened (sometimes multiple times which is too many), what was the situation, what were the external influences, how did I react, how should I have reacted, what did I do and what should I have done. I do this after I play racquetball, after I do a project like working on my Jaguar, or a home improvement--good or bad, or serve as a leader for a conference or a performance oriented group. I do it after a poor interaction with someone. My personal debriefing gives me a basis for modifying my behavior. I also look for outside information (like form my wife) as to how my perceptions were askew from reality. I will even do a debrief if, for instance, I leave home without locking the door. I try to recreate the situation and my actions to determine where I should have acted and what external influence distracted me so that I did not act.

Leaders, take time. Schedule time. Make your teams go over the task just completed so they can learn from it and apply those teaching points to future projects. The apparent resource investment will more than pay for itself in future productivity and team morale.

Team Competition: Playing in the Sandbox

Leaders! Come on now. Remember kindergarten. What good comes from throwing sand into other's eyes? Yeah, I know--we feel good for a couple of seconds, but then we usually get called upon to clean up the mess. So why make the mess in the first place?

In the world of team dynamics there is always going to come a time when teams or organizations come into conflict or competition. Competition can be a good thing for the larger organization. Conflict is probably not a good thing. It all comes down to how the leaders handle the situation.

There is of course good competition between teams. But, where it gets bad is when the competition becomes destructive--either in the relationships between the teams or in the overall outcome. Competition on teams can also be a good thing and help people strive for excellence--but again, leaders must be careful to encourage healthy competition.

So as a leader--how do we play together nicely in the sand box while encouraging competition?

Most important, ensure that the nothing gets personal. No personal attacks on people. Everything must be held to the inanimate object, impersonal level. Once things get personal, that is when the sand is beginning to leave the sandbox.

Keep the competition focused on the objective. It is easy to devolve into scrapping for smaller goals and nonsense items, but if the competition remains focused on the organizational goal--then everyone on the team should feel empowered to contribute. If, for instance, the competition on the team becomes focused on the presentation--then other members of the team will become disenfranchised and potentially reduce the significant contributions in their areas of expertise.

Insulate the team, as much as possible, from outside influences which will seek to distract them. Sometimes, bringing in outside influences only increases stress while not serving to improve performance. Leaders must know their team well enough to encourage them and not demotivate or unnecessarily stress them--which usually results in sub-par performance.

Leaders should also identify the external factors and people/teams which are potential trouble spots and attempt to keep them from throwing sand into the eyes of their team.

The sandbox of organization in which teams play can be very small. Leaders should protect their teams and not throw sand at other teams which will engender retribution. The ability to meet organizational goals should be the standard of success, not the broken bodies and sand-filled eyes of the competitors.

Communication Part 2 - It Makes the Team a Team!

Communication happens on many levels. Formal and informal. Verbal and non-verbal. Successful leaders recognize the many forms of communication and the various channels. They are adept at using them to benefit the entire team.

Communication is what makes organizations work. The effectiveness of communication (or the lack of it) can be found everywhere in an organization and within a team. It ultimately is the leaders responsibility to ensure communication happens. The leader must be adept at using both formal and informal means to ensure the message is getting out and must also ensure that what is being communication in both types of systems is similar.

I've written before about secrets and how they can destroy an organization.The corollary to that is ensuring that the messages that are being sent are accurately portrayed and ensure that they are accurately received. Allowing the communication to be misinterpreted will have a similar result--it allows for the disintegration of the organization. And it will only cause problems later.

Leaders are the key to communication. They must develop a "transparent" approach to activities and ensure that the team is aware of developments and activities. And this doesn't just mean email. Communication is a process that requires the use of multiple transmission modes: verbal and non-verbal. And then there are the formal and informal means. Consider the difference to be the difference between a newspaper and a blog. Both get the news out--but each will have it's own spin on the truth. Good leaders know what is being said on the "grape-vine."

Here is a danger. something big is up and the team knows it. But, then nothing is heard formally. This is when the informal communications network takes over. In an information void rumors and speculation abound. And morale can plummet Openness is the key. Transparency. Leaders must bring as much to their team about what is happening as possible.

Another aspect of communication regards the day-to-day operations of the team. Keep them open. Constant communication will help a team come together. Years ago there was a management philosophy called: "Management by walking around." I like that concept. Don't just talk about work when you walk around. Go deeper into communications and find about about people's lives. What makes them tick. Why they are who they are. Find opportunities to catch people in the middle of doing good work. And praise them. In front of others. Let them know you saw what they were doing and appreciate it. Communicate your approval. Give them a high five!

Learn about communication. Develop your leadership skills and one of the key tools is communication. Try it! Communication is a unifying force when used properly.

Organizational Whitespace

The pastor at the church I am attending has been teaching about whitespace. While the actual concept of whitespace is a printing and graphic design term, it has application in life and for teams. He has been teaching that whitespace is necessary in everyone's lives and that Jesus, himself, saw the need for whitespace in order to stay in touch with God and what was important. There are many verses in the gospels which relate how Jesus withdrew to eat, or pray, or be alone with the disciples.

What is whitespace? It is the area of our lives we haven't filled up with meetings, or dinners, or some other preplanned activity (like driving the kids to and from practice).

Whitespace is the area where creativity and reflection can occur. It is the unplanned portion of our time and it is the time where people can reflect on their direction and their strategies. People, he maintains, need whitespace to decompress and to help order their lives. In terms of capacity and load whitespace is what is left over after the load of our lives is subtracted from our capacity. If the our load equals our capacity--then there are problems because there is no whitespace.

I have experienced this in my own life. I feel that lack of whitespace contributes to burnout. It may also contribute a sense of being out of control and a victim of what is occurring around rather than participating in life as the individual desires. When I run out of whitespace, I don't sleep well, I can't think well and my actual capacity for accomplishing things diminishes. The funny part of it all is that I don't believe I'm actually fully maxed out on my capacity when this happens. But over the course of a few weeks, it becomes apparent that there is not enough whitespace in my life. We, as people, can function at max capacity for a time--but not for an extended time.

As leaders, we must be aware that our teams and organizations can suffer from lack of whitespace, too. Organizations or teams where the pace is frenetic are prime candidates. Or where the team members are constantly moving from meeting to meeting and then dutifully creating meeting minutes or correspondence are another example of an organization in need of whitespace.

What are the symptoms of loss of whitespace for an organization or team? I think there are a few that can be listed as sort of a list of symptoms to look for:

1. Innovation decreases or stops all together

2. The organization or team becomes stagnant

3. Team member morale declines

4. Social networks begin to collapse

5. The team does less outside work together--parties, get togethers

6. Simple tasks become monumental endeavors

What can leaders do to create transforming whitespace for teams? Of course first, recognize that whitespace is valuable and (this sounds funny) plan for downtime to create the whitespace.

1. Create situations where the team is together just to talk and vent with no ulterior motive. This could be an extended lunch outside the office or it could be a morning coffee break.

2. Assist the team members in devoting part of their day, say 20-30 minutes (about 5 percent of an average work day) as unscheduled time. Let them surf the net if they want to.

3. Ramp up slowly in the morning as the day begins and encourage exchange of ideas and niceties.

4. Get the team away from their desks for meals--or at least ensure they are reading the paper or surfing the web if they remain at their desks.

5. As the team gathers for projects allow some time to get off task and digress--do not be quick to keep everyone focused. Great ideas are born out of free association.

Whitespace is a new concept for me--but as I learn more about it, I see how valuable it is. The applications to teams and organizations are just as valuable as to our personal lives. I used to think that unplanned time was wasted time--but now I am beginning to believe that unplanned time is the most valuable time. It is the time where I am most creative and it should be the time which is most productive for teams as well.

Consistency

Leaders need to be consistent in thought and direction. This is different from the concept of minimizing dissonance. Leaders need to set an organizational objective that enables the team to implement strategies and develop the tactics to achieve the objective.

I was once part of a team which had a pretty well defined objective. The strategy though was not so well defined and the tactics shifted weekly. As a result, the team under performed. It went through the motions of establishing itself, but the leader of the team kept changing the strategic direction which kept the team members from achieving their potential. It seemed that every time the leader went to a conference, class, or seminar--everything had to change. I agree things had to change but one strategic direction was never adopted for long enough to give the team a chance to develop the tactics necessary to make the strategy successful and then to achieve the objective.

Leaders are driven people. They are inherently successful and want to be successful. I know I like to be on the cutting edge of my profession. But the downside is that if, as leaders, the direction of the organization or our leadership style is constantly changing, the team cannot adapt and learn how to be successful. Worse, if the objective or strategy is constantly changing, the organization cannot succeed.

So what is consistency? Does that mean we can never change or alter our organizational course? No, of course not. Leaders need to carefully consider that every change comes at a cost. At a minimum the cost is lost momentum as the organization shifts to another objective. Organizations undergoing change become inward looking--focusing on internal mechanisms and operations. Successful organizations remain outwardly focused--keenly aware of the changing external environment and the competition. Successful teams adapt to the changing environment because their strategy already incorporates the ability to change to meet external stresses. A major reorganization and redefinition of the strategic goals should not be necessary every time a new external obstacle/threat appears.

Some leaders work well with organizational chaos, but for the most part long-term chaos is not healthy for people or organizations. Boundaries need to be set, goals determined and the approached fairly well planned. In military speak--the objective is identified, the strategy defined, and the tactics to implement the strategy are developed in response to the external forces which impede progress towards meeting the objective.

I attend leadership conferences and seminars to improve my skills and tool set. It is critical that leaders continue to improve their skills. The danger is that, based upon attendance at a conference or seminar, the leader will return and "change everything." While the leader may see a need to do this, the incorporation of change needs to be carefully considered and orchestrated. It must be communicated and if the change can be incorporated within the existing structure--so much the better. People expect product improvement and organizational improvement--these at least should be values that the organization is built upon. So small changes and incorporation of new procedures and ideas should be the norm. But if, as in the case of some leaders, the desire to change everything occurs after attendance at every seminar or class--then the problem is much larger and is probably related to feelings of inadequacy or inferiority that the leader has regarding the task or the organization or the situation.

Consistency is the ability to, when all of the chaos is happening, keep the organization's focus on the objective. Use the existing strategies to adapt and succeed. Consistency allows a leader to incorporate improvements and enhancements within the existing framework and not have it appear as a shift of focus from the existing objectives and strategies. The leader who lacks consistency is always chasing the next fad or invention and clearly is behind. The consistent leader is ahead of the fad and can rapidly incorporate ideas without giving the team a sense of emergency or panic.

Respect for People Helps Improve Balance

A very difficult subject is respect.

Leaders want to be respected and their people want to be respected as well.

It is very easy to become so focused upon the mission that people become tools to achieve a goal and are therefore devalued as the most important part of the team. I use a simple memory device to describe the difference between a leader and a manager. Leaders lead people and managers manage things. When leaders lose focus of this little idea, they are in trouble of losing the team.

People are not tools. People are not objects. People are people. They each come equipped with wonderful talents and capabilities. Leaders must resist the tendency to devalue people and talk about them in terms of resources or billets or positions. There are faces and families attached to those impersonal concepts.

Leaders need to deal with people differently. Leaders must recognize that when the team is working late, there are family events being changed or missed. When business trips happen, there are many other people who are being affected. This stresses the people and may impact optimal performance. It may contribute to burn out.

It isn't all about the job--hopefully, we a working to live and not living to work. In my own adult life, I have made the decision to accept a salary cut to take a new job because the net quality of life improvement outweighed the value of the additional income. People are making these kinds of decisions everyday. Sometimes they are too afraid of the unknown to make a change, but then their stress over feeling not in control of their lives will negatively impact the team and others around them.

What are some examples that in certain circumstances could be construed as lack of respect for the people part of the team equation?

- Calling a mandatory meeting for 4:30 PM which will definitely go until after 6PM (and most people are off by 5PM).

- Emailing a team member a task overnight and expecting it in place for an 11 AM function--hoping they check their personal email before they come to work.

- In volunteer organizations, not understanding that some people are working 45-50 hours or more per week at their main job and then devoting then next best part of themselves to the volunteer organization.

- Constant short notice meetings without published agendas so the team members can prepare in advance and make the meeting productive

- Line of sight tasking.

- Believing that the reward for good work is less punishment.

- Sending someone on a trip when you know there are important personal events planned.

A wise person once told me--when you leave the organization you are in, who is really going to remember you after five years. You have your family with you your whole life and five years after you leave that company, if you are mindful of them, you will still have your family.

Good leaders understand that their workers or volunteers are trying to achieve balance in their lives. I remember The Karate Kid movies in which the wise sage taught Daniel-san about balance and lives being in or out of balance. Leaders need to help those around them achieve balance. Look for the warning signs that the lives of your people are out of balance: divorces, stress, illnesses, short fuses in discussions.

Respect those around you. Sure, there are going to be those times when everyone needs to pull together to achieve a goal, but it should not be an "every minute of every day and then some" environment. Be sensitive to the families and friends behind your people and to the drivers in their lives. Then, when the team really needs it--they'll be there and be happy about pulling together to achieve something really important.

Recognition--the Force Multiplier

Leaders are responsible for ensuring the members of their teams feel as if the contributions they make are important. To do this leaders need to both acknowledge contributions and recognize the value of the contributions.

Not every contribution needs to be recognized, but it is too easy to fall into the trap of recognizing no contributions at all--or even worse--calling out only the not so good contributions. This is demoralizing. After a while the team begins to wonder if anyone cares about what they are doing.



It is easy to fall into the trap of forgetting that people appreciate knowing that what they are doing is moving the mission forward--in whatever endeavor is being attempted: work, sports, music--leaders have an obligation to encourage. One of the best ways to encourage and reinforce good behaviors is to recognize--when it happens, good stuff. Don't wait until weeks later. Do it on the spot if you can. Catch people in the act of doing good!



We all generally have a real good grasp on reality and know when bad stuff happens. What we don't really understand sometimes is what is the good stuff? What do we need to emulate? That's the job of the leader--to recognize the good stuff and let everyone else now what it looks like so they can recognize it too.



How to recognize? A public comment that that was good is a great way to start. It can be done on the spot and in front of peers. Certificates are good. Awards are nice--especially money or time off.



Develop a culture that recognizes and encourages. Amazing things will happen as people push themselves a little bit more--without even realizing it, because they know their efforts are appreciated. And then the team, work unit, or whatever will be capable of doing more than it believed it could.

Dissonance--When Words and Actions Don't Agree

Have you ever run across someone whose words and actions don't agree? And they don't even realize it? Let me give you an example:

The weekly staff meeting is scheduled to start at 1 PM on Wednesdays. But every week the leader isn't ready to start until 1:10 PM. After a few weeks people stop arriving at 1 PM and start arriving at 1:10 PM. But what does the leader do? Gets upset that people are arriving late? But are they really late? So what time does the 1 PM staff meeting begin?

A similar situation is when the leader indicates that subordinates should be open and honest and say and relate what's on their minds. But what inevitably happens when something bad is brought up or a different (notice I didn't write opposing) point of view is presented? The slam dunk as I call it. Or even worse, the cold shoulder where it is made clear that input from that person is unwelcome.

This stuff is easy to do. I've done it to others and had it done to me. It is dissonance because I am no longer consistent. What I think I want is not what I am showing my team that I want. I get unhappy with the team because they're not doing what I think I want and the team gets frustrated with me because I say one thing, but do something else and hold them accountable for an inconsistent expectation. It causes a lot of problems when this happens and the good leader needs to be constantly aware of these situations.

Seven steps to reduce dissonance

1. Make the decision to change.

2. Realize that your own actions have caused the situation. Do not blame it on circumstances. Accept responsibility for the dissonance and work aggressively to overcome it.

3. Look for scheduling situations which contribute to the problem--like closely planned successive meetings or events. Ask yourself--Why do meetings have to begin on the hour or half hour? If there is a scheduling problem which does not allow getting from one meeting or event to another until quarter past, change the scheduled time to quarter past! And then stick to it

4. Do what you say and say what you mean.

5. Start on time, regardless of who is present. After a very short time, people will adjust to the punctuality just as they did the lateness.

6. When bad news or dissenting views are being presented--don't say anything negative. Say thank you--and mean it. Realize that you need to hear good and bad news and you will never hear the bad if you continue to shoot the messenger. Take the information away for processing later. Ensure you understand the context.

7. Ask a trusted team member if there are things you are doing which cause frustration on the team related to dissonance.

Dissonance is dysfunctional to teams and prevents teams and organizations from achieving their full potential. Be aware of how your words and actions contribute to dissonance and notice how people respond to it. If they can, people will often vote with their feet--and leave the dissonant leader for one more consistent.

Trust and Teams

Are there trust issues on your team?

How do you know? When there seem to be more and more secrets--things that everyone can't know--there are trust issues. When the words: "Don't tell ___ about ____" are being used, then there are definite trust issues. At this point the team is in trouble.

To develop the closeness which helps teams overcome rough times, secrets need to be minimized. If there is something out there which affects the team--then everyone on the team needs to be aware of it. Look at it another way--if there is an issue and members it is being kept from some members of the team, then the team is not able to fully use all of its resources to overcome the issue. It is like playing a baseball game with only seven players instead of nine. The team is handicapped even before the first pitch.

So the question the leader has to ask is: "Why do I not trust my team with this information?" or "Why do I only trust certain members of the team?" The savvy leader recognizes that there are no real secrets on close teams anyway. The whole idea of secrets and trust may be related to concern about control of the team. But in the end, the trust issues not handled properly will fracture a team and render it ineffective.

How does a leader handle proprietary secrets that senior leadership indicates may not be shared? Don't let the team know you have a secret. Someone else has determined that your team is not trustworthy. The leader's job is to convince that leadership that the team is indeed trustworthy and failing that, do not indicate to the team that there are trust issues with higher leadership. It is really demoralizing for someone to say: "I know what's up and I can't tell you." Coming from the background I do, I fully believe the best approach is to deny knowledge at all of the larger situation for the benefit of the team. Good leaders will protect their team.

But what if someone violates the leader's trust? Look, it's going to happen anyway sometime. The benefits of what I like to call "transparency" far outweigh the potential losses caused by occasional trust violations. We are dealing with people--and people make mistakes and interpret situations very differently. Why give people a reason to believe you are not being honest with them? Both in the good and the bad information. Expect people to be adults and even when getting bad news, set the expectation that bad news will be dealt with in a mature and encouraging manner.

Leaders need to look at themselves. How do they handle honest communication. Killing the messenger of bad news, although I do like the scene from the movie 300, doesn't change the news and generally does not encourage the openness and transparency necessary for effective teams. Leaders need to be able to hear the bad news, too. And to keep openness alive on a team they need to be able to hear bad news from their team.

Trust the members of your team--with the good and the bad. Allow and enable them to participate in decisions and situations which affect members of the team. Do not play the "I've gotta secret" game. Grow the team into one that pulls together when times are tough and plays together when they can and you will have created a team that will rise to levels even the leaders did not imagine possible.

Teams

I played football in high school. I am always amazed at how much I learned about life and being a member of a team from playing football. I was not a star on the team. More like, as my coach said--I was hamburger for the good players to use and abuse in practice to get ready for the games. I knew my place, I knew my mission and I did it as well as I could so that the team was successful. And for the two years I played varsity, the team went 17-0-1. I did my part, everyone else on the team did their parts and we were successful. We were well coached.

Leaders need to know the members of their teams. We have to learn to make the team successful by maximizing individual strengths and using others to fill in the weaknesses. Everyone can contribute--but they need to know their place and how they are going to contribute. Some will be the stars and be in front doing the high pressure presentations. Others will be in the background--the hamburger, getting what the presenters need to "win one" for the team.

On a sports team, players have different positions; similarly on work teams people fill different positions. The job of the leader (coach) is to put the right players in the positions where they can have the greatest impact for the entire team. Not everyone may be playing in their best position if there is a lack of talent in a particular area. But it is still up to the leader to maximize everyone's talent for the good of the team.

How do you maximize talent? Tear down and remind everyone how many shortcomings they have? Or build up and encourage them by reminding them that everyone makes mistakes, but no single person causes failure. If it is a team sport--everyone plays a part. But everyone working to their potential is a surer means to success than minimizing the abilities of the less talented. There is a place for everyone. And once the team is comfortable working together, begin to encourage everyone to increase their skills and, therefore, value to the team.

Let me give an example. How well would someone continue to be motivated for a team if the leader came to someone who is definitely giving 100 percent for the team and is one of the stalwarts on the team and encouraged them by saying: "You're really not that talented, if you want an assessment why don't you send a tape of your play to some scouts and see what they say?" Sounds like the leader has a bigger issues to deal with and is intent on driving someone they consider a threat away. And who loses? Everyone! The team member, the other members of the team, and even the leader. The team member knew, "I never had any aspirations of playing at the next level, I was happy to do what I could do right here with this team and these people." sometimes it is more about who you are with than clawing to the next level--whatever that is. And the obvious personal assessment of an exchange like this? I'm not valued--maybe it's time to move on.

Leaders have to get over their own frustrations (and pride) of being where they are versus where they want to be. The team you have is the team you have. Work with it or go somewhere else. Encouragement is critical. How many Cinderella teams with definitely less talent have shown superior talented teams that a close-nit, well-coached team can overcome the odds and win? I think the last Super Bowl is a good example. It is the same in all of the teams we are members of. A close, motivated, well-led team will almost always succeed.

Great leaders encourage their teams to success and facilitate developing close relationships between the members. Key word--encourage!

Communication - Email

I remember when I was in school one of my professors said that communication problems were the causal effect in 95 percent of the problems on the planet. Now whether that is actually true or not, experience shows that communication issues certainly are behind many of the situations we find ourselves in.

Think about this seemingly clear statement: "Bob would you pick me up at 4 at Nicole's?" And Bob--while in the room and not actively communicating (because he's watching the O's lose again) acknowledges that something was said. Later that same day when it's time to act Bob heard something more like, "Bob, pick me up at 4 at Coles." Trying to be a good husband, Bob goes to Coles and is doomed. The ensuing post-event discussion has no good outcome: Bob either has to admit he wasn't listening, needs a hearing aid, or worse--really doesn't know the difference between Nicole's and Coles.

Communication is a two way process--a sender and a receiver. But to have effective communication both the sender and receiver must acknowledge the communication and confirm the meaning of the message. Otherwise there is just a lot of noise or electrons (in the case of email) passing by each other in a disconnected manner.

Communication. We are living in an email world. Frankly, I love email. I have a Blackberry to access my email accounts (yes, plural) so I can receive and send information whenever I have time. I am no longer tied to sitting in front of a computer (desk top or laptop) in order to check email and respond to people. I love email because I can handle the communication on my schedule, unlike a phone call which usually comes when I'm right in the middle of something else and so I lose twice--once disengaging from the project I'm working to answer the phone and the second time to get into the conversation at hand. I can also think more deeply about the topic and if it is emotional I can let my emotions abate before responding.

So what's the problem? Not everyone understands that an email is an important form of communication. I receive well over 200 emails per day. Most are informational only (or advertisements for some Canadian prescription drug plan) which require nothing more than hitting the delete key. But there is a critical subset of the total which require action. At the least the receipt of these emails must be acknowledged with a quick note to say, got it and am thinking about it. Or even, call me and let's talk. Using email to lay out the agenda for a phone call or meeting makes these forms of communication even more effective.

What happens when, say, an email proposing a new idea is sent and the receiver does not acknowledge it? I'm an action oriented person. Most action oriented people I know wait a week to allow for a response. Then, if they believe the proposal is within their area of influence or responsibility the lack of communication is considered tacit approval and the idea is implemented.

Who is right and who is wrong? The receiver of the email has a responsibility to at least acknowledge the communication. It is the right thing to do. Face it--it is flat out rude not to respond at all. The leader who fails to acknowledge an email should not expect to sympathy later nor do they have any justifiable reason to be upset because the answer comes back--you were info'ed on the email, when did you send your objections? Additionally, if the leader sends objections--follow up to ensure they are received.

The bottom line is--respond to email! It is an effective form of communication which helps remove ambiguity while providing critical documentation for the future. Good leaders must be effective communicators and using email is a critical skill. There are rules of email etiquette, use them. I referenced my favorites here.

Email can save time, increase effectiveness, and provide necessary documentation for decisions! But, you must answer the mail or don't quibble about the consequences.

Saga of the Dead Horse

I had read this some time ago and needed it so I looked it up:

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

However, in government, education, and in corporate America, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:

1. Buying a stronger whip.

2. Changing riders.

3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.

4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.

5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.

6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.

7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.

9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance.

10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.

11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses

12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses

I've seen some variations, but it is critical for organizations and leaders to realize when they are riding a dead horse and to change. If it's not working--it's not working?

Empowerment and Encouragement

So there I was, in an organization which had stopped moving forward. And people began wringing their hands about the lack of progress. Numerous reorgs (the standard solution) had not generated the enthusiasm to motivate the organization to lean forward in the "chocks" and begin to make progress.

What was wrong? The leadership seemed to want to move forward--but something was holding them back. Two things: Empowerment and encouragement. One of the most interesting and dysfunctional things which had been happening was the consolidation of power into the hands of a seemingly apt individual whom as it turned out, was a micromanager with a risk avoidance mentality and a love for secrets. This is a recipe for disaster.

The motivated, fired up individuals in the organization were reigned in and had their creativity and innovativeness stifled. Empowerment was taken away and encouragement replaced by a fear of failure. Organizational secrets became the norm and only the "in" group was party to the secrets. The most motivated individuals in the organization were affected first and feeling minimized began to withdraw. This malaise stretched to the informal groups and the entire organization began to suffer from lack of energy and vitality. No one wanted to do anything for the organization or even with the organization. Even old established traditions of fellowship began to die. It went adrift. And the micromanager more tightly controlled everything because certain failure was looming. And the secrets grew.

Fear of failure results in organizational death. The most creative people in an organization need to be allowed to set the pace for everyone else to follow. They will lead. The micromanager needs to follow and resist the tendency to reign them in. In organizations searching for an identity, empowering and encouraging the motivated individuals will help the organization shake off its lethargy and the direction will become clear. Leaders need to be transparent and fully and honestly communicate both their values and vision to those working with them. Failure should be acknowledged as a necessary and valuable by-product of creativity. Not every idea is going to be a success--but not encouraging innovation is stifling and will strangle an organization. And hiding behind secrets only serves to foster discontent.

The worst thing for a leader to tell a highly motivated, creative person is that "we're not going to innovate in your area anymore. There are other places we need to focus our energy." And while this may seem reasonable on the surface, what is being heard by is: "We don't value you anymore." No matter what or where--everything we do and every part of our lives (professional, personal, spiritual) can be better. Stopping work on any area says--this doesn't matter anymore and I don't care about it. And the organizational result? People leave. Those who have been minimized and had been stifled leave first. And then the organization slowly begins to die without the infusion of new ideas. Many organizations go outside, recruit new blood and repeat the process all over again. Until the new people become discouraged and also leave.

Leaders first and foremost must set the vision. They must be transparent in their dealings and resist the urge to personally approve every minute detail of projects that are in progress around them. They must trust those working with them to have honorable intent and maturity. Speak in broad vision terms which lay out the goals and encourage and empower the creative energized people in your organization. In these cases, a funny thing will begin to happen and to use a colloquialism: "The horses will run" and in chasing them the organization will prosper.