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 »
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!
Buckman Labs Is Nothing but Net explains that “Buckman Labs makes chemicals, but it sells knowledge” — with the help of the Buckman knowledge sharing system, K’Netix:
It came to him eight years ago, when he was flat on his back, confined to bed after rupturing his back. Unable to get up, unable even to sit up, Buckman propped a laptop computer on his belly and took dead aim on the real power of knowledge.
“Lying there thinking how isolated I was,” says Buckman, recalling his two weeks in bed. “I got to thinking about what I wanted.”
What he wanted was information, not just for himself but for all his people, a steady stream of information about products, markets, customers. And he wanted it to be easily accessible, easily shared. A relentless student of business and management writing, he had recently read a comment from Jan Carlzon, the former head of SAS, and it had struck a chord with him: “An individual without information cannot take responsibility; an individual who is given information cannot help but take responsibility.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Fast Company published its 2003-2004 list of the spineless in this month’s issue. See who’s on it here. How to become a member of the cowardly clan: act inconsistently, make soft decisions, or take no responsibility for your actions. The list reminds us of an important strategic communication fact: Leadership behavior and policy decisions send the most powerful messages. The best leaders get it, and the best communication professionals help leaders to understand the implications of their decisions and the power of the convincing decision.
The Wise Marketer reports…
The latest American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) stands at an overall score of 74.4 (out of 100) for the second quarter of 2004, remaining at its ten-year peak for the second quarter running.
…
But higher satisfaction scores have implications for companies beyond simply making customers happier. “A company that improves in customer satisfaction tends to perform better financially by generating more repeat business, which leads to greater profits and a higher stock price,” explained Fornell. “Sales of Apple computers are up and its stock value has improved by more than 50% over the past year.
You can view the entire article here: US customer satisfaction levels off at ten-year high
