Instant People Skills: Coach Yourself & Others

Beliefs or Just Prejudice?

Workforce Management collects the most intriguing human resource challenges imaginable. A California software company announces it will hire only Vegetarians (the owner is one, so we must assume he imagines there is some moral issue involved unless he means higher cholesterol will cause greater health cost as we're seeing with tobacco). On one hand one can applaud someone with the gumption to put their money at risk to promote what they believe in. He will certainly forego many great employees and others will lie, which will inevitably damage cohesiveness and teamwork. On the other hand do we find it OK to impose one's will because one can?

Of course this goes on nearly everywhere in one form or another. It's just that hiring managers mostly don't mention their pet beliefs in their job ads. When I talk to groups of executives in job search I use my own case of being screened out of some jobs because I never played football or hockey well. I was terrible at basketball. I can't run due to asthma. Scrawny as a kid, I went on to squash and swimming and grew to appreciate the team sports I missed sometimes taught great leadership lessons... though they also sometimes taught a sort of elitism that excludes a wide range of people as in the vegetarian example. No specific experience or lack by itself dictates later job results. It's what people do job-wise that counts.

Today, for the moment, employers generally can't be quite so prejudicial though many still subconsciously apply their beliefs for far less moral reasons. They really should look instead at the work an applicant can deliver and their motivation to do the work. Unless it's for a job playing football or working for a company that makes it's living selling vegetarian, then why are these relevant? In the grand scheme it doesn't matter. Unless the number of vegan owners far exceeds their percentage in the workforce there will always be jobs for meat eaters.

Still, raising this low impact question highlights a raft of related issues managers should ponder when making decisions.

We Need To Change The Way We Multitask

By now you've read that multitasking isn't what people imagine and largely distracts us from effective work (Slashdot link, for instance). It's really switching quickly back and forth between two or more tasks and each switch wastes time as we struggle to re-orient to the next item. That's been well researched.

The problem is we all do it. And actually, if you think about it, a certain type of multitasking is necessary and worthwhile, though much isn't. We need to understand the difference.

What helps is if we pay attention to the one key multitasking that helps us to be most effective, a facet we often overlook. While doing anything, the key question is what its effect will be on other people - will they be more motivated and more capable of helping get things done as a result of what we do?

Everything we do connects with others - customers, co-workers, family members, even other drivers on the road. If we plough through task after task to get "things" done as quickly as we can, it's inevitable that we start ignoring people - the loud cell conversations in crowded places, the calls taken during meetings and dinners, the brush-offs of co-workers when we "absolutely" have to make something else a priority. No one learns from us, except that in future they'd rather have less to do with us.

The real multitasking requirement we all face is how our work can get done and at the same time people can be helped along the way so they, too, can be optimally productive, learn new skills, improve, grow and thrive. What else are we in business and in life for? And, by the way, some of that greater productivity and improvement will come back to help us get more things done faster ourselves. If we model helping, we will be helped in return. Reciprocity is our human link.

How To Get Past Frustration

People at every level of work often ask how to cope with frustrations they feel sometimes to the point of despair. Some days it seems there isn't a sane boss or co-worker anywhere. If it helps to know you aren't alone, I can certainly reassure you. Not only do I have my own moments of despair (and I'm the only boss I have to blame for that), but being in the leadership coaching business, I hear this constantly from every direction. Unfortunately it's part of humans working together.

People need to vent. It helps to have someone just listen. Often this can't be a spouse because it causes them too much worry and they usually just want to convince you things aren't so bad. Co-workers may cause problems, too, by gossiping about your venting. With splintered families and social relationships there are fewer listeners. A non-work friend or coach is definitely a better choice, but they in turn need to learn coping skills to handle the deluge that usually arrives.

Venting is healthy - to a point. When it goes over the same ground too many times and becomes circular, it's just more worry. You need to break off the conversation and come back later. Once the person is stuck in the rut, they can't and won't let go. They just want your commiseration at that stage.

When you pick things up later, a technique called reframing helps. First, see the challenge differently - it's a learning opportunity. You're going to encounter many others like the person now causing grief. If you can learn to handle this one, you'll be far less likely to reach this awful level of despair next time… so can we move from that to get focused on strategies for coping and improving the situation?

Examples might help.

Recently a friend told me how he'd actually jeopardized his career because he was so frustrated with his boss. He's in charge of quality improvement and needed the boss' support to insist other managers follow the process he'd designed. The boss kept advising to cool things off, but my friend is evaluated on results and there weren't going to be any unless people cooperate. In a risky outburst he basically told the boss she wasn't doing her job and should get off the pot and do it. This resulted in a counter-speech about "catching more flies with honey than vinegar."

Ouch! Listen when you get that comment. The boss is telling you to cool it and they mean it. Further outbursts are definitely likely to be career limiting. A far better solution is to draw the boss in by asking for coaching. Ask how you should approach people, how important it is to get results, what should you do if there aren't any by year end? This way the boss can solve problems with and for you and can see what you see… that results, which she, too, is ultimately responsible for won't be easy to get without a better strategy.

Another recent case: a co-worker of a friend was asked to present to a team meeting on my friend's project (and take credit for work my friend has laboriously achieved in improving relations and results with a difficult client). This capped some obvious prior efforts by the co-worker to get my friend to give her all the information about the project. Was the boss suddenly favoring the co-worker and ignoring my friend and her effort? Well, it didn't sound like it to me. My friend had opened our conversation by telling me she'd just been given a terrific performance appraisal rating her in the top 10% of all employees… by the same boss.

Once the venting was over (or at least waning), I suggested the boss might see my friend as so superior she was becoming a "fixer" - opening new client relationships, getting them up to speed and then being able to turn them over to a weaker co-worker and take on yet another challenging situation. If that's true, that's not only a great compliment, but a major step toward ensuring promotion to more money and responsibility.

Before venting to the boss or complaining, it's important to seek feedback that could help determine if the better interpretation is or could be in play. Perhaps the boss hasn't been fully aware that's what they were doing and how my friend might react. If asked, "is this what you want me to do, train my co-worker," he might leap at saying yes… or at least begin thinking, "that's not a bad idea," to my friend's great benefit. Venting could hurt.

Often these useful twists only come to mind after the initial conversation. Both parties have to get out of the rut they set for themselves when they approach the situation with highly emotion. Emotions don't let go within that first conversation. You need time out. The next day or so is usually soon enough to step back and ask more strategic questions, look at other possible interpretations and where they could take you. You can even go get several opinions (again, ideally from non-work, non-spouse parties). If you ask, "why else might someone have done [whatever it was]," you may be surprised.

Next - what if there isn't a really good alternative interpretation? Settle on the most positive one you can even it seems far-fetched… and then check it out… doing so may actually help it come about. No single guess may be the best view. It often takes trial and error to work toward something positive, but just the step of coming up with one new idea to try takes a lot of the sting out of the situation and gets you back to driving toward a solution instead of just sympathy.

Did I Hear That Right? No Kidding?

Googling "people skills" dredges up some mighty strange stuff. Their sixth highest listing is a blog or column in a publication called AskMen.com, Canadian Edition. I haven't looked at the American version because this one is so… well… astounding. However, I'm easily won over. If it's true that 5 million read this stuff, it has to have some value and impact.

If this is what it takes to get men, presumably mostly young men trying to find their way up in organizations, to read some of the 40,000 articles claimed on the site, it can't be all bad. But you have to read to believe. The article in question on "people skills" is a said to be a re-post. Apparently this is a popular topic. It supposedly responds to a guy who asks how he can stop swearing so much at work. Would anyone really ask that? No matter, it supports developing effective social skills - much to be applauded.

The author suggests in the first couple of paragraphs under the tip "Speak Clearly" that men should wake up and become "eloquent" as a way of getting ahead. Sounds like a fairly big jump. To quote: "He can beautify, amplify and impress his colleagues with his million dollar words and witty comments." Say what, "beautify… his colleagues?" Even allowing for cultural differences in approach and language, that's an unusual suggestion.

I was also mightily intrigued by the words linked to other articles. "Listen" shows up as a blue link to an article about the need to listen to your significant other - excellent advice, but some of the examples might be called questionable. The same with the article linked for "Emotions." Again, a laudable topic with undoubtedly good intent, but definitely backed up by what you'd say at the very least are 'unusual' examples. I'll leave it to readers to check these out since reporting the contents would not really fit here.

The bottom line? Everyone is and should be concerned about their people skills at some point. If it takes rather odd examples to get through to a certain segment of potential leaders, so be it. It won't be my market, but I'm glad someone's making the effort. I just hope they graduate to something a little more focused at some stage.

Imagination - Our Necessary Blessing and Curse

Imagination makes us human, but challenges our happiness. Dan Gilbert points out in Stumbling on Happiness that what distinguishes us is our ability to imagine a different present, future or even past. Though he identifies many pitfalls, he doesn't offer a lot of advice for solving the problem this raises.

We need this ability to be able to plan change, but it comes with a cost.

Writers such as Nobel Prize winner, Andre Gide, pointed out long ago that comparison makes us miserable. When we think how things could have been or could be different, we often torture ourselves with the thought. He noted: "In order to be utterly happy the only thing necessary is to refrain from comparing this moment with other moments in the past, which I often did not fully enjoy because I was comparing them with other moments of the future." 

Buddha offered a solution among his first principles (All life is suffering; all suffering results from desire), advising us to work at avoiding desire, meditating toward peace and acceptance, while Helen Keller advised: "Instead of comparing our lot with that of those who are more fortunate than we are, we should compare it with the lot of the great majority of our fellow men. It then appears that we are among the privileged." That she could do this despite severe disabilities provides a ray of clarity.

It isn't imagination that creates problems, but what we do with it.

The same is true in leadership. If we dwell on what people could have done and make them miserable because of it, we won't get nearly as good performance as if we appreciate even small progress and encourage thinking about what else can be done right now that can lead to great results in future. Finding the right balance, as always is the key.

The Balanced Scorecard

David Norton presented in town recently at a Canadian Society for Training and Development meeting. He is co-developer of the Balanced Scorecard, now used for setting strategy reliably in many industries. Again its origins go back 15 or more years, but it has been adopted by far more organizations than the more complex Toyota Way. Hearing directly from the author always adds emphasis to the concepts, which by now are widely proven.

David didn't present a lot that was new, but some audience members asked questions as if it was. It's always interesting to see how deeply a tested approach has penetrated... or hasn't. Its entire purpose is to ensure that when setting strategy companies build in goals, visions and measures for more than just financial results. The added ones needed to "balance" the overall picture usually include process improvement (like Toyota), people learning and growth (like Toyota) and customer focus (not so obvious, but clearly in the Toyota system). More and more those who use Balanced Scorecard approaches are including relations with suppliers and other stakeholders, too, in the aim of safeguarding sharehlolders "long term" interests.

It was interesting to see the evolution that's happened in the Scorecard approach itself. Specifically it has become even more clear that managing people well for engagement and commitment are now recognized as broad foundation issues and often key in all the elements, not merely "part of the puzzle." That has broad implications. 

Amazing New Items... or Stuff?

Today we're constantly bombarded with useful information, so much so we don't have time to go read much of it and if we do there's a danger of all of it becoming uselessly entangled due to overload. I'm not sure what the solution (though speed reading seems to be needed). Blogs are supposed to be all about gathering links to stuff their readers would find interesting as a way of helping people find just what they want or need. I'm not sure. Here's an example.

Here's a piece on managing barriers to thinking and creativity and what blocks us from seeing things in new ways - a theme that seems to fit with my approach: The Seeing Believing Gap. To make it short, I liked the opening story (a good article feature I haven't yet learned to do well myself) and I like the paragraph headings (which save us from reading most sections for detail). From the headings I liked two paragraphs: See Past Isolated Concepts, which emphasizes a key point I make - that seeing connections helps - and I liked the last one: See past your usual circle because it mentions another source, a book that might be interesting, and again, a broader view.

Then I glance to the bottom of the page, a Blog World conference link catches my eye and I wonder 'what's that; maybe I need it' and I'm off again on a hunt for more interesting stuff that might be useful. I realize there's lots I don't know. I don't even know if this page I'm reading on Fast Company is really a blog or just how the two relate. It's all interesting, but not "transparent" or self-explanatory - it's just stuff at some level.

Human beings are great at processing "stuff." The actual work we accomplish today takes up less and less time. Yet we're busy with "stuff" - ideas, possibilities and continuous learning. That seems to be working for us although it often leaves us feeling overloaded and perhaps not having accomplished as much as we'd like.

I don't have the answers for this. If anyone does, I'm always looking for "stuff" to read (and pass on) that might help. Help. Some days I almost want to be back in corporate where constant interruptions demanded that I actually do stuff. But no, I'm happier overall working on my own and deciding when to goof off with "stuff" without feeling like I'm cheating anyone, but me.

Complexity Skills

Complexity is managed by seeing, sensing or "intuiting" patterns. The human mind almost always instantly grasps a pattern or seems to - for instance, even in a picture composed of loosely spaced dots - unless someone has purposely made it too abstract. The same applies with stories, which is why they are highly recommended as a leadership communication technique.

We sense meaning as much as fully understand it. Our minds fill in "the whole story" from a few details. We can sense how we would feel. When we find ourselves in situations, we often don't need to fully understand each aspect. Once we have the gist of it, we determine the best next steps or judge what is most likely to follow without actually analyzing every element. We're right more often than wrong according to Malcolm Gladwell in "Blink." Overall pattern recognition is a very different set of skills from command and control analysis. We can't always be absolutely correct because we bypass some of the detail in favor of grasping a larger, more inclusive view. Both methods have advantages and are best applied in different situations. The challenge is knowing when to use intuition and when to analyze details. Unfortunately most organizations can't or don't distinguish the processes very well and tend to mix them.

Our goal should be to choose the approach which most quickly gets you very close to the truth "more often than not" depending on the circumstances. In the days when most organizational decisions needed lots of analysis, facts or previous experience, command and control worked in most situations. Today diverse input often helps more. although analysis still has it's place.

The tremendous speed of pattern recognition or "intuition" far surpasses anything achievable by analysis and formal decision-making. That fits today's need for faster action and it doesn't result in many more mistakes than painstaking analysis that may well miss some factors.

Those who are uncomfortable with managed uncertainty, who like every detail nailed down, are increasingly likely to be left behind in a rapidly changing world where the advantage tilts toward those willing to make educated guesses and take calculated, but definite risks in their day-to-day work. These are hallmarks of effective leaders that are now required by every level of operation within organizations. The day of assembly line, rote following of rules to accomplish a job is fading, taken over by computers, which can do such fixed tasks more easily.

Coaching Communicates Across Our Differences

Sometimes a break from the routine is what's needed to clear one's thinking and gain perspective.

During a longer than usual summer layoff I spent tons of time reading and watching people. I looked at situations I usually don't have time to ponder. In stores, restaurants, service businesses and, yes, even occasionally in offices I happened to visit I constantly noticed how different we are... and yet how strangely similar. What we often have in common seems to be our lack of listening.

My reading was largely about coaching. I concluded the simple solution to the world's problems, especially business problems, is to build a culture in which everyone coaches. I wanted to survey what's out there on coaching yourself as well as coaching others. And I looked to see if I could see coaching-style leadership happening around us. Mostly I couldn't, though it certainly goes on. It's just lower key than the usual wrangling and grumping we see and hear everywhere from both bosses and staff. A great feature of coaching as a leadership style - it goes almost unnoticed when done as a matter of routine. There's virtually no resistance to it.

We learn at least as much ourselves while we're trying to coach others. A coaching point of view encourages us to think in terms of learning, changing and improving at the same time we urge it on others. That in itself encourages others to take it seriously because they see the coaches true interest includes learning for themselves as well as changing the coachee.

What's clear is that no one truly likes "advice." Coaching takes a different approach in which the coach encourages the individual to figure things out for themselves. The back and forth discussion actually allows both to air their concerns, their hesitations and begin to build new ideas for action... for themselves. Ultimately everyone's interests are served. The truth gets out on the table and it's dealt with in a highly constructive way without orders, fault-finding or threats. 

I loved the Henry Ford quote cited by Jim Clemmer in his newsletter: "No one is apathetic except those in pursuit of someone else's objectives." Coaching offers a chance for everyone to develop and begin the path to one's own objectives for oneself - a far more appealing road than orders or advice.

I hate "reality" game shows

Above all two things make today's "reality shows" despicable for me: they create far more losers than winners and they enforce the belief that a slim majority of by-standers' votes means everything - as if life were no more than a rigged lottery or popularity contest. Thankfully life isn't like that.

As a debater, I can list a dozen more points pro and con. I don't even fault those who enjoy the spectacle, the guilty pleasures of seeing people lose and be brought down and the momentary vicarious joy they share with a winner. These at least reinforce the idea that someone can win at least some of the time. Unfortunately, though, they show winning as mostly luck among relatively equal players. We need every type of person who contributes, every set of skills no matter how few those skills may serve. In my view, every contestant is about equally justifiable as a winner, a person who is putting themselves out there to achieve, to contribute and offer their effort.

Game shows, which is what these are, have always been with us and always will be, right from gladiatorial times and their earlier versions. At least the many losers today get to go home. They provide a pleasant distraction for many people some of the time. Daily news provides worse "entertainment." We learn from defeat. Can we not learn even more from success?

Who is singing the praises of cooperative success, of the societies we can build on working together to see that everyone wins? Fortunately there's some emphasis today on such things as successful business ventures, home renovations and other constructive projects and what makes them so - people working together for good ends. We even get a bit of information now and again about the tremendous success in less developed areas of micro-investing, where extremely small loans enable creative local people to build thriving businesses, repay the loans and get their footing firmly established to advance their families and communities.

Of course competition is healthy. It motivates us more than some like to admit and for good reason. Being the best, however, does not mean everyone else must experience defeat. My beef with a steady diet of winners versus losers is that there's more important stuff in life. An exaggerated emphasis on winning over others, on who's kicked off the show, rather than on how they helped each other along the way to different levels of success makes it seem as if in our daily lives we should concentrate on destroying others chances to ensure our own. It's fine that some people win bigger than others. It's a fact of human psychology that an element of chance stimulates human interest more than any single addictive force we know. My concern is with the culture of losing as the only alternative that seems to be emphasized to an appalling degree. In the end, for me, there's just too much of it by far.