The Wall Street Journal’s latest “Cubicle Culture” piece, Some Ideas Are So Bad That Only Team Efforts Can Account for Them (subscription required), takes a contrarian look at teamwork:
Amy Edmondson, a professor at Harvard Business School, says that teams represent an effort to pool diverse skills and knowledge, but they typically fail in three ways. First, people don’t recognize that the interesting and relevant information they possess is interesting and relevant, so they don’t share it. Second, people often overlook the fact that colleagues have opposing interests. (’Layoffs? They can’t come from my group.’) Third, people withhold information deliberately.
Teams often work better when they have at least some conflict, particularly if there is more than one dissenter, says Michael Useem, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. ‘A single devil’s advocate or whistleblower faces a really uphill struggle,’ he says. ‘But if you have one ally, that is enormously strengthening.’
In Fast Company’s The Realist-Idealist Dilemma, James O’Toole defines what it means for a leader to be a realist or an idealist:
Realists believe that most people are evil and, therefore, do whatever it takes to maintain power and protect the interests of their nations or organizations. Faced with a crisis, they respond depending on how they read the situation. In contrast, idealists, like Reagan, believe that most people are good and that the world can be made a better place if leaders adhere to inviolable values. In crises, idealists stick with principles.
In his opinion, both realists and idealists can make good leaders — and either can stand anywhere along the political spectrum — but they can only make good leaders if they’re either realistic or idealistic, but not both:
The leadership lesson for GW — and for any leader — is simple: Followers don’t much care if leaders are realists or idealists, but they distrust inconstancy. To make a mark in history, as Reagan did, Bush must decide which one he is. Doing so will require moral courage, because it entails commitment to a predictable mode of behavior. And that, ultimately, is what followers seek in their leaders. As Bush said: “Ronald Reagan believed … in the courage and triumph of free men. And we believe it, all the more, because we saw that courage in him.”
O’Toole’s point (stripped of its political context): Followers don’t much care if leaders are realists or idealists, but they distrust inconstancy.
If you’re tired of touching base with your empowered work force through enabled environments, MarketingProfs reminds us of eight reasons to avoid cliches:
# They don’t register. When faced with a cliche, we zone out. They just take up space and ensure that our audience will stop reading or listening, even sooner than they might otherwise.
# They’re a “cop out.” It doesn’t take skill to use them. They basically indicate that the user was too lazy to be creative or pull the thesaurus off the shelf.
# They’re confusing. Because they’re ambiguous, cliches can mean a million things to a million people. Use uniquely appropriate words.
# They’re flat. Cliches aren’t vivid. They do not stimulate the senses. (Worth noting … vividness is a marker of confidence.)
# They have no emotional impact. Since we’ve heard them before, they don’t cause our hearts to skip a beat.
# They do not result in changed behavior or a new understanding. If you’re trying to get someone to buy your product or prepare for layoffs, the worst thing you can do is use a cliché. The best thing is to say it straight and clear.
# They don’t differentiate you. If you’re a car manufacturer, why use the same stale advertising concept that the competition uses? Don’t show us another winding road.
# They’re habit-forming. Once we use them, it’s easier to use them again. If you don’t believe me, try writing an entire business letter without using one cliche.
The title should continue: “… and that suffer as a result.”
Today’s case study: TransformingUSAirways.com.
What better way to reassure the flying public and shareholders than through the first-person, personal, and timely voice of a weblog? Instead, USAirways conveys information about its bankruptcy and transformation with all the confidence and personalization of … well … a bankruptcy filing. Here’s what greets you on the home page:
On September 12, 2004, US Airways Group announced that the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The action is intended to provide the airline the opportunity to implement its Transformation Plan built on lower costs, a simplified fare structure, and expanded service in the eastern U.S., Europe, the Caribbean and Latin America. The case will be heard in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia.
One hopes they’re not also relying on this site to convey information about their transformation to the employee population …
Since the Reagan administration, corporate leaders have been attuned to a presumed need to communicate during the mystical “first 100 days” in a new leadership role. I was recently asked by a client to compile our thoughts on the topic, and I thought the general thesis would be of interest here.
The first several months of a leader’s tenure are important because that leader’s constituents hold a set of expectations for the leader and the role that are, for the most part, malleable. People take a “wait and see” approach to new leaders–and this is equally true of a familiar leader in a new position. Employees and stakeholders–while familiar with the leader–are unfamiliar with how that leader might execute his or her new role, and with the expectations the leader will have of others as he or she does so.
The bottom line is that for the first few months people are on the fence. The naturally optimistic temper their hopes with a bit of caution, and the naturally cynical suspend a bit of their judgment. Constituents, whatever expectations they may hold, are looking for the leader to either confirm their expectations (doing what they expect) or disconfirm their expectations (doing what they did not expect, be it better or worse than their expectations).
It’s an important time because the research demonstrates that it’s a much easier persuasive effort to convince an “undecided” than it is to change the mind of someone who’s mind is already set. So this suspension of expectations represents an opportunity for a new leader–but it’s a necessarily short-term opportunity. With time, constituents will interpret the leader’s behavior and decide if the leader is or is not who they thought, making up their minds as they do.
The key issue is that constituents will do this whether a leader actively communicates during that time frame or not, so the point of a cogent and aggressive communication approach during the first several months of a leader’s tenure isn’t just to get the word out; it’s to frame constituents’ understanding of the leadership conversation–the expectations, the corporate direction, the leader’s character–during a time in which constituents are necessarily more likely to be amenable and persuaded.
As such, we think leaders should view communication in the first three months as a persuasive activity–the leader is trying to get key audiences to believe, know, do or feel what he or she needs them to believe, know, do or feel, and is trying to do so during a window in which they’re more likely to be receptive to those objectives.
So what should the communication agenda be for the first three months? We suggest the following:
Read the rest of this entry »
This one comes from Central Ohio:
Papa John’s General Manager Jeanette Zimmerman lives next door to the 701 E. State St. business she runs. So, she sees much of what goes on there.
When she left to take her husband to work at 6:30 Monday morning, everything seemed normal. She returned 15 minutes later to find the unexpected: Two men heading for Papa John’s front door.
“They walked up to the store and they had a key, and I’m like, ‘Excuse me. Can I help you?’” Zimmerman said. “They said, ‘You’re out of a job. We’re closed.’” Although she managed the local store, she was among the last to know.
Another interesting piece in the current issue of Fortune describes three current ad campaigns from Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, and RE/MAX that “boast about basically ruining employees’ lives for the benefit of the customer.”
“It kind of surprises me that they’re doing this,” says Maynard Brusman, a workplace psychologist based in San Francisco. “So much in the workplace now is about emotional intelligence and understanding the needs of employees. This to me sounds clueless.”
Last March, we boldly predicted that: “By the end of 2005, any organization that really appreciates internal communication as a strategic business function will have figured out how to use weblogs to increase communication effectiveness.”
In the current issue of Fortune, Jonathan Schwartz, president and COO of Sun Microsystems, makes an even stronger assertion:
“I don’t have the advertising budget to get our message to, for instance, Java developers working on handset applications for the medical industry. But one of our developers, just by taking time to write a blog, can do a great job getting our message out to a fanatic readership…Blogs are no more mandated at Sun than e-mail. But I have a hard time seeing how a manager can be effective without both [emphasis added].”
As I sat at the breakfast table Sunday morning and my 16-month-old son was in his high-chair throwing scrambled eggs in his hair, I was breezing through the Sunday New York Times at record pace when this article caught my eye: Parenting Can Create Better Employees, by Lisa Belkin. (log-in required)
While I didn’t have time to finish the article before I had to rescue my son from his breakfast, I think the point is worth noting:
While there is much talk about the complications of blending parenting and work (i.e. flexible schedules, etc.), there is much less talk about the leadership skills that can emerge when an employee becomes a parent (i.e. juggling tasks, communicating simple messages, managing competing agendas, soothing executives feelings, etc.). We often tell clients that you lead everywhere in life, so the leadership skills you use at home may also serve you well at the office.
How Do You Rate? presents an amusing and insightful (but sarcastic) test of leadership mettle, including such questions as:
5] Your biotech firm has set a goal to enter into clinical trials by the end of the year on a drug that helps seniors live more comfortably. How do you get skeptics to buy in?
- ‘That’s for others to worry about, not me.’
- Communicate the vision of improving your parents’ quality of life. If you succeed, employees, the company, and the community all benefit.
- Hold pizza parties every Friday!
