Laura Wolfe Coaching LLC

Supporting the Evolution of Careers, Leaders,

& Climate Consciousness

Did You Say Something?

By

earI’ve been watching news covering the government shutdown and seen both sides talking, talking, talking, talking about why their action is the right thing to do. In fact, wasn’t it just last week that Ted Cruz talked for 21 straight hours in support of what he thinks is right?

Then, I remembered this video by Tom Peters about research on healthcare that found on average, doctors let patients speak for 18 seconds before interrupting to voice their expertise. That’s in spite of the fact that the patient is the best source of information about their condition. I can definitely relate because I’ve had two different encounters with health care providers in the last year where I wasn’t able to finish a sentence.

Most of us know people who talk nonstop and interrupt others. On a personal level this can be frustrating and annoying. But in organizations it can dangerous and for leaders it can be disastrous.

I believe the higher up the management ladder one climbs, the more important listening becomes. In fact, I believe there is usually more power in listening than in talking.

The good news is that listening skills can be improved via the concept known as active listening.

According to Tom Peters, the single most strategic strength that an organization can have is a commitment to strategic listening and “as a leader, to a significant degree, your profession is listening.”

Hear that Washington? I doubt it.

Size It Up

By

I’m  re-reading The First 90 Days by Michael Watkins because an updated and expanded version came out recently. It’s full of great info for managing the transition into a new role especially, but a lot of the recommendations are good ideas for leadership in general.

The book makes clear that one of the initial and most important tasks for anyone in a new role is diagnosing the situation in order to determine what the course of action needs to be. And here’s the big takeaway – different types of situations require different responses. For leaders, one size does not fit all.

This isn’t a new concept and actually makes me think of situational leadership theory and the work of Hersey and Blanchard. But The First 90 Days is really useful because of the focus on the transition into a new role.

It introduces the STARS model of common business situations leaders in new roles may find themselves in (start-up, turnaround, accelerated growth, realignment, sustaining success) and offers guidance on appropriate actions given the particular situation. And upon diagnosis, a leader may discover their responsibilities include a variety of business situations, requiring a variety of approaches. Again, one size does not fit all.

I’ll close with some wisdom from the book on personal development: “Don’t restrict your focus to hard skills. The higher you rise, the more important the key soft skills of cultural and political diagnosis, negotiation, coalition building, and conflict management will become.”

Would love to hear your thoughts on leadership transitions.

Another Oldie

By

exact balanceI lately mentioned the distinction between MGT1.0 and MGT 2.0, roughly 20th century management as opposed to what’s needed now in the new world of work. I do want to make clear that management today couldn’t be without the lessons, theories and research of the past. There’s some pretty good stuff back there. I hope you’ll bear with me for one more post from the history of management thought. I promise to come back to the present next week.

Another oldie and goody, which has been in most every management textbook I’ve used, is equity theory. Sometimes it is discussed as a theory of job satisfaction but is also categorized as a theory of motivation. I think it’s another piece of the employee engagement puzzle.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the basic idea is that people are always, either consciously or unconsciously, monitoring their inputs against the outcomes of their job. Inputs are what a person brings to and puts into their job such as their knowledge, training, education, experience, loyalty, work ethic, etc. Outcomes include pay and benefits, status, recognition, job security, company car, corner office, etc.

Another component of equity theory is the idea of a comparison other. This is someone to compare a situation against and can be a coworker, friend, classmate, neighbor, relative, or some idealized other. People look at their ratio of inputs to outcomes in light of their comparison other’s situation.

If a person perceives inputs = outcomes, they feel OK.

If an employee believes that their outcomes > inputs, they probably feel pretty good about the situation and may even be motivated to work harder and be a better organizational citizen.

If the perception is that their inputs > outcomes, they will feel not right – kind of like the cognitive dissonance marketing gurus talk about. This discomfort leads people to take action to balance their equity ratio. The options are to either increase their outcomes (ask for a pay raise or bonus, steal office supplies, etc.) or decrease their input (come in late/leave early, take care of personal business on company time, stop going above and beyond, etc.). Some extreme ways workers deal with inequity are to bring in a union to represent them or to withdraw from the relationship completely (quit).

Observe the behavior of employees you know. Do you see equity theory playing out?

Would love to hear your thoughts on equity theory.

C’mon Get Happy (Or Not)

By

Smileys Show Happy Positive FacesAwhile back, I discussed the job characteristics model and its origins in explaining and understanding job satisfaction (JS). JS is a very Management 1.0 idea and it was researched like crazy throughout the 20th century. Gary Hamel refers to the last 100 years of management as MGT 1.0 as opposed to MGT 2.0 which is the new management thinking required in today’s work environment. I totally dig this distinction.

But back to job satisfaction. I discovered the incredible volume of research out there on the topic while doing the lit review for my masters’ thesis which examined JS as an outcome. There are easily more than 100,000 articles on job satisfaction in the academic research.

On the surface, it seems like employees satisfied with their jobs would be a worthy goal for organizations. However, the research is mixed. Sometimes satisfied workers produce desired outcomes, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes dissatisfied workers produce desired outcomes, sometimes they don’t. Inconsistency does not a useful construct make.

For a 21st century example, check out the story of the culture at Eventbrite, the online event scheduling company. After clarifying expectations, Eventbrite now has happy and productive workers. Effectively having tough conversations and stewarding the desired change is MGT 2.0 work.

Over the years, the job satisfaction research evolved; additional and more useful distinctions regarding employee attitudes have emerged including employee commitment and one that is regularly measured and discussed – employee engagement.

Would love to hear your thoughts on job satisfaction and performance.