A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes
In this series of posts, I am focusing on the four steps in my model for facilitating collaborative processes. I’ve included my model as a reference, and in this post we’ll focus on the fourth step, IMPROVE.
A Review of A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes:
Deliberate
• Thoughtful input (advance notice)
• Inquiry driven (ask & listen)
• What(s), why(s) & how(s)
Decide
• Choose/"Bless"
• Define Success
• Create Plan
Implement
• Ideas to Action
• Time for Deliberation is Over (for now)
• Team Players vs. Team Members
Improve
I have often referred to continuous process improvement as The Relentless Search for Better Ways. A key word in that phrase is “relentless”, as in never-ending or ongoing. This, the fourth step in our model for facilitating collaborative processes, reinforces the relentless characteristic of such efforts. Here are the three bullet points under this step:
- Finding better ways
- Processes & outcome
- Remember, apply, forget
Finding better ways
If perfect ways was a realistic option, then the search would end after finding them. Or it would end after finding processes that we believed were perfect. In fact, perfect ways don’t exist; neither do perfect processes. And what that means is that we must persist in our search, not for perfect but for better. At predetermined points along the way we must step back from our implementation efforts, evaluate the efficacy of the things we’re doing and identify alternatives to the ones that aren’t producing the results or the progress we’d expected.
“Improve” is more than just one step in our process improvement initiative; it is the central premise on which that initiative is based. It is what we look at, what we look for and what we do with what we find.
What we Look AT
So let’s start with what you look at when evaluating the new or modified processes you are implementing. You’ll look at two things: the activities you’ve performed in your implementation efforts (processes) and the results or progress (outcomes) those processes have produced.
The plans that you have been implementing include activities, people who are responsible for completing those activities and timeframes for beginning and completing them (who’ll do what by when). In this step you’ll step back and look at each of the activities, and for each of them you’ll determine how well they are working. The processes & outcomes are the things you’ll look at.
What we Look FOR
What you’ll look for are those processes (activities) that are working (producing positive results or moving you in the direction you want to go) and those that are not. Remember, no matter how much time and effort you invest in deliberation and planning, some components of your plans just won’t work the way you’d expected. There’s no dishonor in that, but there is plenty of risk in either not finding the parts that aren’t working, or doing nothing about the ones you do find.
What we DO with What we FIND
The processes that are working should be acknowledged and retained as part of your plan going forward. The processes that are not working (we’ll call them mistakes) should be replaced with alternatives that you believe will produce better results (we’ll call them lessons).
So in this step, “Improve”, you’ll step back from your implementation efforts and evaluate the plan for implementing new and better ways. As part of this evaluation you’ll look at the activities that are being performed to implement the new or modified process and the results that those activities are producing. You’ll look for activities that are working, and you’ll retain those as part of your plan going forward. You’ll also look for activities that aren’t working (mistakes). After finding the mistakes, you’ll shift your focus and begin looking for alternatives, for activities that you and other participants believe will work better (lessons).
Remember, apply & forget
Leaders understand that process improvement—to be effective—must be an ongoing, collaborative effort. One of the things that facilitators can do to obtain and sustain participants’ commitment to continuous process improvement is ensure them that the objective is progress, not punishment. The more aggressive people are in trying alternatives to the status quo, the more mistakes those people will make, and since you want people to “push the envelope” and try new things, you must assure them that there will be no retribution for mistakes made in good-faith efforts to find better ways.
Before leaving this step in my model, there’s a commitment I want you and all participants to make to each other. After identifying the parts of the plan that aren’t working (mistakes) and alternatives to try (lessons), I want you to make the following commitment:
From this point forward we will remember and apply the lessons
and forget the mistakes
Every mistake provides opportunities for learning; there are lessons to be found in the mistakes made. But to find them, you’ve got to look for them. As facilitators, your job is to ensure that you and others acknowledge the mistakes and then begin looking for better ways, for the lessons you can extract from the mistakes.
And after finding the lessons, there’s no reason to hang onto the mistakes. When the people you’ve invited to participate with you in this collaborative process realize that you are a lot more interested in finding lessons than in pointing out mistakes they will become far more engaged in the process I call The Relentless Search for Better Ways.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes
In this series of posts, I am focusing on the four steps in my model for facilitating collaborative processes. I’ve included my model as a reference, and in this post we’ll focus on the third step, IMPLEMENT.
A Review of A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes:
Deliberate
• Thoughtful input (advance notice)
• Inquiry driven (ask & listen)
• What(s), why(s) & how(s)
Decide
• Choose/"Bless"
• Define Success
• Create Plan
Implement
• Ideas to Action
• Time for Deliberation is Over (for now)
• Team Players vs. Team Members
Improve
• Finding Better
• Processes & Outcomes
• Remember, Apply, Forget
IMPLEMENT:
The first two steps, while important, are only the preliminaries to what I see as the “main event”, and that is the implementation of whatever alternatives are selected, and for which plans are created. As with the other steps there are three bullet points under this one, and they are:
- Ideas to action
- Time for deliberation is over (for now)
- Team players vs. team members
Ideas to action
If there is no shortage of “good ideas” in most organizations, why aren’t more organizations more innovative; why don’t more of those ideas translate into more success? The short answer is because few of them are ever implemented. Many of these ideas have great potential; they contain elements that could produce great results, but they never get off the ground.
One of the things I hope you’re noticing as we progress through the steps of this model is that facilitation is essential to successfully completing all of them. Nowhere is the need for facilitation greater than at this step, implementation.
In this step we’re translating the plans created in the previous step (see my previous blog posting) into action. People will be doing different things or doing things differently than before we decided to pursue the alternatives that we’re implementing. Do you think the new will wear off before we start seeing any real benefits? You can count on it, and when (not if) that happens, many of the people who you’re relying on to implement these alternatives may want to quit and go back to what they were doing before.
We’ve also seen that with any new process or variations on old processes, people will not be as proficient as they were with what they had been doing. They will make more mistakes, and since people are not fond of performing poorly, they may again be inclined to abandon new processes and return to the ones at which they were more proficient.
Translating ideas into action will often be a short-lived phenomenon unless people in leadership positions function effectively as facilitators of this important step in the process.
Time for deliberation is over (for now)
Looking at the model you’ll find that deliberation is the first step, and you may recall my encouraging you to seek broad participation in that step. The people whose efforts are required to implement alternative processes should be invited to participate in creating those alternatives. What you’ll find is that some of those people will accept your invitation and will participate actively. Others will show up but not participate, and others will decline your invitation.
Ironically, many of the people who don’t participate in deliberation when invited to do so will express interest in deliberating when informed of the decisions that have been made and plans that have been created by the people who did participate. When called on to participate in implementation, they suddenly develop interest in deliberation.
By expanding participation in the decision-making process you’ve offered people opportunities to participate in all phases of that process. Those who choose not to participate in steps one and two may not choose not to participate in step three, nor may they delay implementation by “reopening” deliberations. You will return to a form of deliberation in step four, but when you arrive at this step, Implement, that’s exactly what all participants are expected to do.
Team players and team members
Much has been written and said about the importance of being a “team player”. Without seeking to identify all possible characteristics of such people, I believe that our four-step model provides two places where team players reveal themselves. The first is step one, “Deliberate”. Team players are the people who will tell you what they think, not what they think you want to hear.
Likewise, step three, “Implement”, offers opportunities for you to identify your team players. They are the folks who may disagree with decisions that have been made but will still put good-faith efforts into implementing those decisions. Instead of withholding their efforts as a means of demonstrating their disagreement or putting half-hearted efforts into implementation, they roll up their sleeves and do their part in this step in the process.
Leadership & implementation
Winning organizations—ones that are “chronically successful—are led by people who are playing to win. Facilitating continuous process improvement is an example of that type of leadership. Instead of waiting until processes fail, these leaders aggressively pursue continuous improvements. That proactive approach reflects a more realistic perspective. Instead of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, their mantra might be: “If we haven’t found a better way, it’s only because we haven’t looked”.
Looking for and finding better ways are important to achieving & sustaining organizational success. Unless those better ways are implemented, their value will remain theoretical. And in the absence of effective leadership (facilitation), implementation will often be a short-lived process.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes
In this second in a series of four posts, I am focusing on the four steps in my model for facilitating collaborative processes. I’ve included the model as a reference, and in this post we’ll focus on the second step, Decide.
The Relentless Search for Better Ways
A Review of A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes:
Deliberate
• Thoughtful input (advance notice)
• Inquiry driven (ask & listen)
• What(s), why(s) & how(s)
Decide
• Choose/"Bless"
• Define Success
• Create Plan
Implement
• Ideas to Action
• Time for Deliberation is Over (for now)
• Team Players vs. Team Members
Improve
• Finding Better
• Processes & Outcomes
• Remember, Apply, Forget
Focusing on the Second Step: Decide
Deliberations are done in support of—not in lieu of—decision making. Too many organizations seem to get bogged down in endless deliberations. At some point facilitators must move the process forward, and the next step in collaborative processes is Decide. You’ll find the following three bullet points under this step:
-
Choose/”bless”
-
Define success
-
Create plan
Choose/”bless”
Facilitators have two decision-making options. They can make the decisions themselves, or they can delegate decision-making authority to one or more of the participants in this process. If the facilitators are going to make the decisions themselves they should ensure that participants understand that going in. When inviting them to participate let them know that their input will be considered and that you will be making the decision regarding which changes to make.
The alternative to making decisions is delegating the authority to do so. Delegating decision-making authority will have positive impacts, not only on the people to whom such authority is delegated, but also on other participants in the process. When participants see evidence that leaders have faith in them and their judgment they will often raise their participation to higher levels. When other participants see this same evidence many of them will also become more actively engaged in the process.
There are also risks associated with delegation. Facilitators can minimize those risks by ensuring themselves that the people to whom they’re delegating this authority are capable of making sound decisions and by making themselves available to answer any questions they might have and to generally support them. This is especially important the first time a participant is delegated this authority.
Define success
What will have to happen for you to conclude that the changes you’re making are “better” ways and not just different? Identify the criteria you’ll use for assessing the merits of the changes you’re considering. I refer you back to the why(s) you identified in step one, Deliberate. Make sure that all the parties understand the potential benefits of making the changes you select and that you have established metrics for determining if the changes are delivering those benefits.
Create plan
You’ll notice that the next step in our model is Implement. One of the reasons that so many “good ideas” never come to fruition is because there are no plans for translating those ideas into action. In order to ensure that transition, I strongly encourage you to stay with this step until you have answers to the following question:
Who’ll do what by when?
If you can answer this question, you’ve got a start-up plan. If you can’t, you’ve got no plan, and you’ve got little or no chance of getting to the next step in our model, Implement.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes
In this and the next three posts I will offer thoughts about each of the four steps in my model for facilitating collaborative processes. I’ve included the model as a reference, and in this post we’ll focus on the first step, Deliberate.
The Relentless Search for Better Ways
A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes
Deliberate
• Thoughtful input (advance notice)
• Inquiry driven (ask & listen)
• What(s), why(s) & how(s)
Decide
• Choose/"Bless"
• Define Success
• Create Plan
Implement
• Ideas to Action
• Time for Deliberation is Over (for now)
• Team Players vs. Team Members
Improve
• Finding Better
• Processes & Outcomes
• Remember, Apply, Forget
Deliberate
Process improvement, like most other initiatives, will not just happen; facilitation is required. You’ll notice that for each of the steps in my model I have included three key points for facilitators to keep in mind. Let’s look at each of them, beginning with Thoughtful input (advance notice).
Thoughtful input (advance notice)
As people who are expected to facilitate deliberations, leaders should do whatever they can to ensure that participants provide thoughtful input. One of the things they can do to get that sort of participation is give participants some advance notice. Instead of bringing people together and then asking for their thoughts on a topic, leaders should extend the invitations in advance, and identify the specific topics on which participants’ ideas are being sought.
I’ll add one more suggestion, and that is to do timely reminders between the time you extend invitations and the date for the deliberations. For example, if you extend invitations on a Monday, for a meeting to be held on Friday, you might reconnect with participants on Wednesday or Thursday and tell them again how eager you are to hear their ideas at the Friday deliberations. That is a “non-nagging” way to remind them to spend some time thinking about the topics before the meeting.
Inquiry-driven (ask & listen)
As facilitators of this process, leaders are not “on stage”. Deliberation is not the place for leaders to showcase all of their ideas. The objective in this important step is to get participants’ ideas. Effective facilitators initiate deliberations by asking questions; they sustain the process by listening non-judgmentally!
What that means is avoid verbal or non-verbal techniques that convey disapproval of participants’ ideas or of the participants themselves. Yes, you’ll hear some really bad ideas; you’ll hear things that don’t make much sense. But remember, you want to sustain their participation as they work through their initial discomfort and unfamiliarity with this process, so ask questions and listen non-judgmentally to their responses.
What(s), why(s) & how(s)
Too many people in leadership positions underestimate staff members’ potential contributions to deliberations. They expect too little, and—not coincidentally—too little is what they get. As the facilitator of collaborative processes you should expect staff members to come to the table with ideas about three components of the topics being discussed.
What(s)
Process improvement often begins by identifying specific operational areas in which improvements are needed and then identifying specific changes to be made. Participants’ what(s) would be their lists of areas in which those improvements are needed or the specific changes they believe should be made. That is important information, but it’s only the starting point. In order to be able to make good decisions regarding which changes to make, more information is needed.
Why(s)
After listing the specific changes they think should be made, participants should be asked about their rationale for wanting to make those changes. Since there may be several changes that participants suggest, and since it may not be possible to make all the changes at the same time, there must be some basis for prioritizing them. Participants’ thoughts about the benefits of the changes they suggest making (or the costs of not doing so) will be helpful when assigning priorities.
How(s)
Finally, since participants may be the very people who will have to do the work necessary to make the changes being considered, let’s be sure and get any ideas they have about the steps necessary for making those changes. After participants have identified the changes they believe are needed and their reasons for thinking so, ask them to identify the steps necessary for making those changes.
Any collaborative process requires plenty of energetic, good-faith deliberation. Such deliberation depends on thoughtful, honest input and willingness to listen to and consider others’ ideas. None of that will happen without effective facilitation, and facilitating collaborative processes is a key role for people in leadership positions.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
Leadership: Most Difficult When it’s Most Needed
Occasionally I encounter clients whose organizations, industries or professions are dealing with especially profound challenges. As leaders within their respective organizations, they are called on to provide leadership at times when it is most needed, and most difficult. In this post I want to use my experiences with one group of clients, school board members (trustees/directors), to reinforce one of the things that effective leaders do, especially during troubling times: Facilitate the search for ways to win.
Troubling Times for Public Schools
While the impact of our most recent economic setbacks have been felt by all segments of American society, public education has been especially hard hit. School district leaders are being asked to provide the leadership necessary to help their districts and all of their constituents do more than just survive these troubling times. They must find ways to continue providing top-quality education in spite of the severe budgetary constraints under which they must now operate.
Everywhere it seems that districts are eliminating faculty, staff and administrative positions while still being expected to provide quality education for all of their students. In addition to their impact on districts’ ability to provide that type of education, staff reductions and program cuts are also negatively impacting staff morale. Teachers, administrators and other district employees must be wondering about their job security and the future for their programs. It is a recipe for despair, a situation in which many people make classic victim choices such as blaming, wallowing and just quitting (surrendering to despair).
Benefits of Collaborative Processes
Over and over again I remind people in my leadership sessions that the primary role for leaders—the reason organizations create and staff leadership positions—is to influence the choices other people make. While it is always important to provide such influence, it becomes especially important in troubling times, when many people might opt for the types of choices I referred to above.
Effective leaders understand that neither they nor the people who look to them for leadership are limited to only one way to view and respond to the setbacks they encounter. While some individuals (and organizations) respond by “hunkering and hoping”, others look for ways to win, regardless of the hands they’re dealt. Not surprisingly, organizational responses are driven by the behavior of the people in leadership positions.
Facilitating a collaborative approach to finding ways to win, regardless of the hands they’re dealt, is something that will provide at least two key benefits to the leaders who commit to doing so:
- By soliciting and considering ideas from the people whose efforts will be required to implement them, you’ll get better ideas (ones that have higher practical value), you’ll create better plans (ones that the implementers will more readily embrace and implement) and you’ll make quicker progress
- By including staff in the search for better ways, you will help them make better mental choices (looking for things that would help mitigate the impact of budget cuts and layoffs instead of mentally “feeding” their anxiety, anger and frustration).
Staff Engagement
Over the past several years there have been numerous studies and white papers bemoaning low levels of staff “engagement”. The findings have referred to levels of engagement ranging from actively engaged (at the high end) to not engaged (at the low). Comparing several sources, it seems that the averages in each of these three levels look like this:
- Actively engaged - 18%
- Engaged - - 33%
- Not engaged - - 49%
Here are a couple of observations about these statistics.
First, the quality of work associated with the different levels varies. As you would expect, the more engaged employees provide better quality work than their less-engaged peers.
Second, these statistics are “across-the-board”. In the wake of cuts that school districts are encountering, we could reasonably expect that the levels of engagement would fall. The corresponding decline in the quality of work would further jeopardize the quality of education provided. And that, my friends, is why it is so important for school board expand staff participation in one crucial collaborative process.
A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes
In my next few posts I will focus on a four-step model I have created for facilitating what I call “The Relentless Search for Better Ways”. While I have used school board members (trustees/directors) to set up this series, I’m sure you can see that my model—and my emphasis on leaders as facilitators of collaborative processes—apply to every industry and organization impacted by difficult economic circumstances (I guess that would pretty much be all of us).
Click on the link below for a preview of the model I’ve created and will use in our next few postings:
The Relentless Search for Better Ways
A Model for Facilitating Collaborative Processes
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
RESPONSES TO LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
“Climbing the organizational ladder” is a time-honored tradition in American workplaces. People expect to begin on the “lower rungs”, but many of them aspire to “higher” places, to positions of leadership. I’ll go on record as saying that’s a good thing, since I believe that organizational success is directly linked to the quality of organizational leadership.
I like the idea of people wanting to lead, and when their performance, perseverance and patience are finally rewarded and they find themselves in leadership positions, it is truly time to celebrate. It is also time to carefully monitor their early leadership behavior in order to detect—and correct—any mistaken notions they’ve brought with them about how leaders are supposed to behave.
I want to offer some thoughts about what leaders can do, and a widely-held illusion many people in leadership positions have about what they’re supposed to do. I’ll begin by looking at three typical ways that people respond to leadership opportunities.
When they find themselves in leadership positions, for the first time or at higher levels than they’ve previously occupied, people tend to take on one of the following three personas:
1. Doers
2. Controllers
3. Influencers
DOERS
One of the criteria often used when promoting people to leadership positions is their performance, how well they’ve performed in their other positions. For example, top sales producers are often made sales managers. The rationale—not altogether unreasonable—seems to be that people who perform well in non-leadership positions will perform well as leaders. While there are behaviors and characteristics that apply almost equally to non-leadership as well as leadership positions, it should be noted that success in the former does not ensure success in the latter. Top sales producers do not always become effective sales managers.
One reason that past success doesn’t always translate into effective leadership is because the skills required are simply not the same. Staying with the sales example, there are certainly many ways that sales and leadership are similar. They’re both “people positions”, and success in both positions is determined by occupants’ ability to influence the choices others make. But there are also some significant differences, including—but not limited to—prolonged versus occasional interactions. Salespeople interact with their prospects and customers far less frequently—and far less intimately—than sales managers interact with members of their sales teams. So in spite of past successes, the skills required for success as leaders may be significantly different from the ones required for success in other positions.
People who are promoted to leadership positions based on their success in other positions have proven themselves to be effective “doers”. Those same people often undermine their success in leadership positions by continuing to be doers.
Instead of facilitating collaborative processes and influencing others in order to achieve organizational objectives, they continue to rely primarily on themselves to perform tasks that could—and should—be performed by others. Instead of training, evaluating, coaching and delegating to others, they continue to “just do it themselves”. You’ve got to admire their work ethic, but their suitability as leaders is suspect—at best.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
The “Gunny’s” Lesson
In my younger days—much younger—I had the privilege of serving as a Marine officer. The training required to earn a commission in the Marine Corps is rigorous, and the providers of that training are mighty demanding. They are also very good at what they do. You might say that they have a passion for it.
One of my instructors at Officer Candidates’ School (OCS), was a Marine gunnery sergeant, a “gunny” (although officer candidates are well advised not to take the liberty of calling them anything other than “gunnery sergeant”). The “gunny” was absolutely certain that his mission as an instructor at OCS was to ensure that every one of us who earned our commissions (survived his tender mercies) was able and willing to lead Marines just like him.
The “gunny” used every activity as an opportunity to teach us fundamental truths about leadership. Field exercises, long runs, classroom sessions and every imaginable form of physical training became his “pulpit” for instilling in us his passion for leading men in difficult situations. There are probably variations on his central message that are more eloquent or sophisticated, but none will ever have more impact on me than this lesson on leadership we learned from the gunny: “You can’t lead from the rear!” That lesson from a man for whom I had—and still have—so much respect, is the basis for what I see as a key characteristic of effective leaders. They are out front.
Leadership – A Working Definition
Leadership is a multi-faceted discipline that defies attempts to assign a “one size fits all” definition. Having described the context in which I’ll deal with leadership, here is a working definition we’ll use as a frame of reference for this and other posts:
LEADERSHIP
Positively & supportively influencing the choices others make
Our success as leaders is measured by the choices others make, and our success is determined by our ability to influence those choices. Every person who occupies a leadership position influences the choices others make. The things that people in leadership positions say and do are influential, and—not surprisingly—the quality of people’s responses is determined by the quality of the things said and done. The two tools for influencing others’ behavior are words and actions.
Leaders’ Tools for Influencing Choices
“It’s only words, and words are all I have, to take your heart away.” In addition to demonstrating my recall of words from a song that’s 30+ years old (and, thereby, dating myself), I want to use this line from the Bee Gees’ song, “Words”, to make a point about the tools we have for influencing the choices others make. The title of the song accurately depicts one of those tools, our words. And the line I quoted tells us something about two common mistakes made by people in leadership positions.
The first mistake is assuming that words are the only tools necessary for influencing the choices others make. The second mistake is acknowledging the other tool, but assuming that it is less important than their words.
The tool that leaders not only have, but use continuously, is their behavior. Words and actions are the tools that leaders use for influencing the choices others make, and while words are powerful tools, their power pales when compared to the impact of behavior.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
Initiative is a desirable trait, especially in people occupying leadership positions. Instead of waiting for people to come to them, effective leaders take the initiative by becoming actively accessible. They don’t wait for people to come into their offices through their “open doors”; they use those doors to exit their offices. But when they get to where their employees are, they don’t settle for “management by wandering around”, they employ two communication techniques favored by truly effective leaders: They ask & listen.
Collaborative processes
One of the most important things people in leadership positions can do is facilitate collaborative processes, activities that will enhance organizational success by:
- Identifying areas in which changes would be beneficial
- Identifying specific changes to make in those areas
- Identifying specific, worthwhile and realistic objectives that can be achieved by making those changes
- Developing actionable plans for doing so
- Implementing and fine-tuning those plans
Collaboration means active group participation. All parties to this process bring their own perspectives, opinions and suggestions to the table and share them. All parties also demonstrate their willingness to consider the input provided by others. And none of this happens unless someone steps up to facilitate the process. That’s why I believe that facilitating such a process is one of the most important things leaders do.
Active accessibility and facilitation go hand-in-hand
Leaders who are actively accessible get out where the action is, where the people whose efforts are essential to organizational success are doing what they do. While they’re out there, effective leaders ask those other people to share their perspectives on things they think need to be changed and on the specific changes they would make. Effective leaders understand that the best way to obtain others’ ideas is to ask for them. They also understand that in order to get input from as many people as possible, they’ll have to ask for it more than once!
Ask & Listen
Before you can benefit from others’ ideas you must know what those ideas are, and the best way I’ve found to encourage people to share their ideas is to ask them to do so. Pretty tricky, right? Leaders initiate collaboration by asking questions; they sustain it by listening to people’s responses to their questions. Here’s my rationale for encouraging you to ask more than once. Let’s say that you take my suggestion for asking and listening to heart, and that it is a bit different from your past behavior. After reading this post you get out of your office and begin asking members of your team questions about areas they think could be improved or for their ideas about how to make improvements. What do you think their first response might be? Here’s one you can expect: “Oh no, he/she’s been to another workshop or read another book; let’s just lay low until this blows over and things get back to normal”.
You’ve got to ask them often enough to convince them that you’re genuinely interested in what they have to say. Here’s a common comment from people in leadership positions who discontinue their facilitation efforts based on some staff members’ initial responses: “I tried that, and it didn’t work”.
Trust me when I tell you that asking once will not generate the response you’re looking for from everyone, maybe not from very many of them. You must persevere, and by doing so, you’ll convince others that you are, indeed, interested in what they think and that you are committed to facilitating a collaborative process.
Your commitment, as evidenced by your perseverance as a facilitator, will have an impact on the behavior of others. Commitment, like apathy, is contagious. When you function effectively as a facilitator of collaborative processes, you show others what commitment and perseverance look like. Telling them that you expect behavior that reflects those characteristics is how you inform them. Showing them what that behavior looks like is how you lead them.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
It should come as no surprise to you that accessibility is one of the things the people who look to you for leadership expect from you. A good way for you to get your arms around how important accessibility is to them is by thinking of how important it is to you.
For example, all of us rely on services like telephone, cable, internet and utilities. How important is it for you to have access to people in those companies when you lose—or have questions about—the services they provide? And what sort of feelings do you have when you experience problems or have questions and do not have access to someone who can help you? You expect to have access to them, and the people you lead expect to have access to you. That accessibility will generally take one of two forms: Passive or Active. Let’s begin with the more common.
Passive Accessibility
This is probably the more widely-practiced, and it often takes the form of an “open door policy”. Why do I refer to it as passive? Because the people behind those open doors—the people occupying the leadership positions—rely on others to initiate contact.
Open Door Policy for Dissatisfied Customers
It would be like a company telling all its customers that if they have problems with the products or services they’ve purchased they should feel free to bring them to the company’s attention – an organizational variation on the “open door policy”. So, you say, what’s wrong with that? I’m glad you asked. Study after study of consumer behavior has proven beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of dissatisfied customers will not initiate such contacts. The figure most often cited is 3%, so if a company has 100 dissatisfied customers, only 3 of them will bring their complaints or questions to that company’s attention. But that doesn’t mean that the other 97 will remain silent; they’ll tell plenty of other people.
Most Will Not Come Through Your Open Door
The same phenomenon applies inside organizations. If you occupy a leadership position, and if you rely on the people you lead to come into your office when they have something to say, or a question or a complaint, you’ll never hear many of them. But others will. There will always be chatter among members of an organization, and some of it will be divisive and damaging to morale and performance. If the people who occupy leadership positions in those organizations were more actively accessible, the employees who look to them for leadership might use more appropriate forums for addressing the issues they otherwise discuss “around the water cooler”.
The Costs of What You Don’t Hear
Passive accessibility also comes with a high opportunity cost. Effective leaders have long understood that members of their staffs are quite capable of participating productively in collaborative efforts to improve the processes and techniques that drive organizational success. The only way leaders can ever gain access to those ideas is through contact with their staff members People in leadership positions who are only passively accessible not only limit employees’ access to them, they limit their access to problems before they become crises and to ideas that could translate into better ways.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com
A question that I’m frequently asked has to do with these two terms: “What’s the difference between leadership and management?” Since the terms may have been used interchangeably, there is certainly room for some confusion. I’m sure that the dictionary can provide help with definitions, so instead of competing with Mr. Webster, I’ll offer my thoughts about what I see as the key functional difference. While managers and leaders (not always mutually exclusive roles) have administrative and people responsibilities, “management” seems more related to the administrative, and “leadership” is all about the people.
Before you start penning your protests of that distinction, let me acknowledge that the people in management/leadership positions can and should strive to be effective in both roles. Many—but not all—managers have some people responsibilities, so leadership skills are important to their success. Leaders also have some administrative responsibilities, and fulfilling those responsibilities is important to their success.
Admin at the Expense of People
Now, let’s look at a potential problem for people wearing both hats. Over the years I have worked with people in leadership positions who devoted disproportionate amounts of their time and energy to administrative tasks. These people almost sequestered themselves in their offices and busied themselves with reports, correspondence, phone calls and a wide array of other administrative tasks. While I appreciate the importance of those tasks, I question managers’ decisions to assign them higher priorities than their people.
Likewise, some leaders seem to downplay, or even disregard their administrative obligations. Even those with exceptional people skills do themselves, their organizations and the people they lead disservices when they either refuse to perform those tasks or perform them poorly.
People at the Expense of Admin (and People)
I learned the importance of balancing administrative and people tasks as a young Marine rifle company commander in Vietnam. My primary responsibility was to provide leadership in the field. We spent weeks on end conducting search & destroy operations. I was pretty sure that my administrative responsibilities were limited to ensuring that we had the logistical support we needed (“beans, bullets & bandages”). Happily, I had a seasoned First Sergeant (probably 15 years my senior), who handled most administrative matters for me. The one administrative task that only I could perform was one that had the potential to dramatically impact the careers of the officers and staff noncommissioned officers in my command. Only I could write their fitness reports (called performance evaluations in corporate settings).
Under pressure from our First Sergeant and ultimately the Battalion Executive Officer, I hurriedly and distractedly prepared those reports and submitted them for review. They were promptly returned for more thoughtful attention than I’d given them. That same day the Battalion Executive Officer contacted me and helped me understand the importance of this administrative task.
Was he suggesting that I ignore my tactical/operational leadership roles? Of course not. But he was most assuredly letting me know that my leadership position did not allow me to make “either/or” choices between my people and administrative responsibilities. I was accountable for fulfilling both, and the same holds true for most leadership positions.
So in summary, many of the people occupying these positions have both managerial (administrative) and leadership (people) responsibilities. The ideal is a person who functions effectively in both arenas. Remember, it isn’t “either/or”; it’s “and”.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com