Edward Miller Coaching Reflections Blog

Tips for "Difficult Conversations

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:17:00 GMT

Here are tips, inspired by The Power of Positive Criticism by Hendrie Weisinger, that will help you manage those "difficult conversations" you've been putting off.

1. Prevent defensiveness: Defensiveness blocks all the things you need the other person to do -- listen to your views, see the benefits of change, trust your role in helping him get better, commit to change. When someone gets defensive, the game's over, at least for that session. Keeping the conversation focused on the benefits of change is the best strategy for preventing defensiveness.

2. Protect self-esteem: This will increase the likelihood that the other person will process information with an open mind.

Avoid sarcasm and derogatory comments.
Avoid phrasing the criticism as a right-or-wrong issue.
Give him a chance to develop a future, not just account for the past.

3. Get him involved: People become more receptive to your opinions when they can freely express their own, so don't filibuster. Getting the other person talking keeps him involved in the moment and helps your determine if he understands your message. It also prevents his "defensive daydreaming," those moments when he looks like he's listening but is actually preparing his counterattack.

4. Acknowledge strengths: Openly acknowledging a person's strengths will:

Highlight what the person is doing right.
Allow you to perceive him in a more positive manner.
Keep anger and disappointment in check.
Convey that you're aware of and appreciate his efforts.

Stressing strengths will allow the other person to conclude, "I'm doing some things well and can improve on others." Adding your offer to help him improve will increase the likelihood of changed behavior and performance.

5. Understand your own role: When managers talk to someone about performance, the message is usually, "You have a problem and it's your job to fix it." The tone is that of an ultimatum: "Change or else." To make a difficult conversation go well, the initiator has to take responsibility for its success. Show you are more interested in helping the other person do well in future assignments than you are in flogging him for past transgressions. He may be accountable for improvement, but you are responsible for the success of the "difficult conversation."

6. Coach with questions: Asking questions helps the other person discover solutions for himself. When someone comes up with his own solutions, he feels more competent and in control.

7. Have a follow-up plan: A follow-up plan shows that your initial expressions of wanting to help were more than a pep talk. If the other person begins to believe you are committed to helping, he will look forward to your feedback as expressions of that help.

Planning Difficult Conversations

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:57:00 GMT

   The very thought of stepping up to a difficult conversation stokes a manager's anxiety. After lengthy procrastination, one of two things usually happens:
   • The manager continues to avoid the confrontation, rationalizing that the situation is either not so bad after all, or that it's hopeless and therefore not worth trying to fix
   • He charges ahead without preparation, making matters even worse.

   A few among us have a talent for carefully planning and rehearsing how to get a message across to a reluctant listener. For the rest of us, a nasty cycle usually kicks in. Because we're not very proficient, we lack confidence; we just know the conversation is not going to go well. Our insecurity makes us even more reluctant to take action.
   Here are four strategies that will help build competence and confidence:

Focus on the future.
Dwell on the task.
Clarify the benefits.
Think of options.

Focus on the future, not the past. This is difficult for most managers. When something goes wrong, our sense of justice calls for blame and reprimands. But dwelling on what went wrong focuses attention on the past -- which won't change -- instead of what must happen in the future, where change is still possible.

If the path toward learning and changed behavior is indeed in the future, we need to know exactly what we want that future to be. Unfortunately, it's easier to describe what we don't want than to articulate in any detail the actions and results we do want.

What's worse, seeking accountability for past actions will interfere with the very learning we are trying to encourage. If our objective is changed behavior and improved performance, we must put aside our need for retribution and concentrate on the future.

Dwell on the task, not the person's "flaws." People don't like to be on trial. Power and authority lurk in any judgment, even when the verdict is positive. When it's negative, people become even more resistant to accusations and implicit threats of punishment. Here are a few opening lines that work well, or at least well enough to help reduce defensiveness and keep the conversation going:

• "Here's why I'm troubled by what's happening." Follow this by suggesting specific actions or behaviors that would be mutually beneficial, emphasis on "mutually."

• "I think I see your reasons for......, but here's the problem that it is causing." This lets you describe the consequences of the target behaviors.

• "I have a problem and need your help in solving it." This approach signals a shared responsibility and invests you in the solution.

All three examples isolate the behaviors as the problem, not the people themselves. To maintain this distinction, be wary of questions that begin with "Why?" It sounds too accusatory. Similarly, don't use closed-ended questions that can be answered with "Yes" or "No;" they encourage defensiveness. Instead, ask open-ended questions that invite explanations:

• "What worked and didn't work as you neared the project deadline yesterday?" This lets you raise a sensitive subject in terms of actions and results, not motives and character.

You can't reshape someone's character, but you can modify his behavior. People will respond more readily to your change initiatives if they trust that, despite your concerns about their performance, you like them personally. Building this trust means avoiding character assassinations.

Clarify the benefits. People won't change just because you want them to; they will change only when they want to, so sensitive conversations should move quickly toward the likely benefits of change. To do that you must have them clearly in mind before you initiate the exchange.

Think of how you would handle a touchy subject with your boss. You wouldn't confront her with a problem and demand an immediate solution: "Here's the mess; you clean it up." Good sense dictates a more helpful approach: "Here's a problem I have, and here are three solutions that might work."

Use that same strategy with colleagues. Show them the consequences of their actions and then quickly suggest a few practical ways to change behaviors, changes that have direct benefits to all involved. If your objective is modified behavior, identifying and selling the benefits of change is an essential first step.

Thinks of options. If all you want from the conversation is the chance to find blame, options aren't very important. But if you want the other person to perform better, you need to help him fashion a strategy for change. Smart leaders bring potential strategies to the conversation.

Don't be afraid to be part of the solution, but don't promise what you can't deliver. Your first promise might be to help draft some options, followed by a discussion about how to proceed. Be careful not to cross that line between offering assistance and adopting the problem as your own. You can share responsibility and still hold someone accountable for his action.

Trailheads

The Power of Positive Criticism by Hendrie Weisinger. Amacom, 2000.

Difficult Conversations: How to discuss what matters most by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen. Viking Penguin, 1999.

Ten Evaluation Tips

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:00 GMT

   Here are 10 tips for making your performance evaluations more effective:
   Don’t rely on the formal evaluations. In most companies, they are a fact of life. That they might be wasteful and unpleasant doesn’t change their inevitability.

   Remember, the objective is learning. Don’t let the formal system and annual appraisals turn you away from a larger truth: The purpose of evaluation is to identify the learning that will lead to higher levels of performance. Evaluations should be signposts for future learning, not law briefs about past transgressions.

   Forget the “Golden Rule; learn the “Platinum Rule.” Don’t treat people the way you want to be treated; treat them the way they want to be treated. One way they probably want to be treated is as mature adults. If the task involves making judgments about someone’s work, the first step is to ask: “How would you like to be evaluated?” Resolving this question will help avoid adversarial attitudes in the subsequent dialogue.

   Be sure of your goals and standards. Goals need to be more than prayers and must be linked to agreed-upon standards of measurement. People often resist standards, believing that what they do cannot be measured. But attempting to evaluate performance without first establishing agreed-upon goals and standards will inhibit rather than enhance performance.

   Beware of expectations. It’s a manager’s job to create the conditions for people to do well. One of those conditions is an individual’s expectations. If people expect to do well (and have managers who expect them to) they probably will do well. Managers who expect little generally get little in return.

Learn to coach. Expectations are not enough to guarantee good performance. People who don’t know how to do something need to learn. That means they need coaches and teachers who can help, not overseers more interested in control. Most managers are not taught how to be good teachers. Too many are like older athletes who were once great “players” but failed to make the transition to coaching. There’s a big difference between having been a great sales rep and then coaching others to be good at it. Effective appraisals must begin with assessing the managers’ abilities as coaches.

Be careful with “constructive criticism.” All criticism is negative. Its intent may be constructive, but its inherent nature is negative, which explains why people don’t like it. Telling people they did something wrong may be an accurate appraisal of their work, but it does little to insure that the task will be done properly in the future, so avoid carping and cultivate teaching.

Evaluation must be continuous. Most appraisal systems are once-a-year rituals. Anne Seunier, a Princeton consultant, has observed: “Doing annual appraisals is like dieting only on your birthday and wondering why you’re not losing weight.” Editors need to negotiate goals and standards and monitor progress every day, not once a year.

Disconnect performance appraisals from pay increases. Determining how someone can improve skills and performance must be divorced from compensation decisions. Think about it; asking someone to identify and work on their deficiencies is asking them to be candid and vulnerable, not the kind of posture you want to take when your salary for the next year is at stake. If an appraisal of what someone needs to learn is linked to their compensation, honesty is often thrown overboard in favor of lobbying for a salary increase.

Turn the process upside-down: At Parkview Medical Center in Pueblo, CO, the evaluation is called APOP: The “Annual Piece Of Paper.” It begins with managers asking three questions:

What gets in the way of you doing your job the way you’d like to be doing it

What kind of learning would you like to do?

What quality improvement process are you working on that you need help with?

That’s an entirely different approach to appraisal. It invites individuals to assess their own work in order to identify obstacles and opportunities and how managers can help deal with them.

Motivating People to High Performance

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:35:56 GMT

You can't motivate people; they need to motivate themselves. But you can create and sustain the conditions that nurture self-motivation. You can begin by throwing away all those airport paperbacks on motivation. Here are four powerful factors to stimulate self-motivation:

Competence
Recognition
Involvement
The work itself

Competence: There is a direct and powerful link between people's skills and their motivation to do high-quality work. Those who excel don't need to be motivated; they prod themselves to sustain excellence. What's more, the act of striving is itself rewarding. Look at the people in your organization who are really good writers, photographers or artists; you don't have to do much to motivate them. Their competence is part of a self-motivating "virtuous cycle."

Competence has another benefit: It fuels the need to achieve. In some people –– the "self-starters" and "drivers" –– this achievement drive is built-in. In others it needs to be cultivated, and building competence is the best way to do that. As competence increases, so does satisfaction, which in turn builds the confidence that helps perpetuate the cycle.

Recognizing and nurturing the drive to achieve is important because, of all the predictors of high performance, the achievement drive is the most reliable. Competence is the engine propelling the achievement drive.

Recognition: Another foundation of motivation is recognition. Recent studies asked people to list the most important intangible benefits of their jobs. Everyone from the boardroom to the shop floor put "Feeling appreciated" high on the list.

To be effective, recognition has to be authentic and purposeful. Superficial recognition, like casual praise or meaningless rewards, might stimulate short-term compliance, but it won't motivate anyone to deeper commitment and higher performance. Quite the opposite; inauthentic recognition can actually retard motivation by breeding cynicism.

Recognition has real purpose and power when linked to competence. As performance improves, timely recognition can reinforce the gains. Competence and recognition are like two poles in an electromagnetic system working in concert to keep energy in motion.

Recognition has another purpose: To reinforce the mission and values of the organization. The word recognition comes from Latin roots meaning "to know again."

When we recognize superior performance, we are acknowledging not only individual achievement, but also how that achievement contributes to the organization's guiding objectives and core values.

Involvement in decisions: Recognition and involvement are powerful motivators; the absence of one or both is an equally powerful disincentive. People who put forth effort that is never recognized, or have no voice in the important decisions that affect their work and their life, are less motivated than those who are recognized and involved. Involvement doesn't cede authority; it spreads accountability. People who feel accountable to their colleagues and readers are more motivated to perform well.

The work itself: It should be no surprise that people who find their work stimulating are motivated to do it better. Editors need to examine each job and ask: How stimulating and satisfying is it? Does it offer a chance to learn and grow?

What can managers do to boost self-motivation?

Provide training. The more you help people improve their skills the more they will be motivated toward high performance. There is simply no substitute for teaching people how to do something well and then recognizing them for doing so.

Assess your recognition. Start by listing 15 ways you recognize superior performance. When you've finished, delete all the contests and prizes. If there's not much left, you need to expand your repertoire of recognition.

Make a checklist. What do you really know about your colleagues' self-esteem, self-efficacy and values? If you're not certain, have a conversation with each. You'll learn a lot.

Get rid of grunt work. Make a public display of vigorously trying to eliminate drudgery. Even if the gains are modest, the effort will be appreciated.

Be honest about involvement. All managers swear public allegiance to the idea of "involving people in decisions that affect their work." The truth is most companies are still ruled by top-down, command-and-control hierarchies. If people have an influential role in key processes that govern their work-including schedules, assignments, training and performance evaluation-they will be more motivated.

Trailheads
   Working With Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. Bantam Books, 1998.
   "How to Kill Creativity" by Teresa M. Amabile. Harvard Business Review, September 1998.
   1001 Ways to Reward Employees by Bob Nelson. Workman Publishing Co., 1964.

Be Careful With Praise

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:38:00 GMT

Alfie Kohn, writing in Punished by Rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes,

cites several valid reasons for praising people in the workplace:

Enhance performance
Promote appropriate behavior
Help raise self-esteem.

All are valuable objectives, but Kohn concludes that "over the long haul, praise, at least in the form it usually takes, fails to achieve any of these objectives and may even prove counter-productive."

What's wrong with praise?

Praise often implies low expectations for low ability. "Nice job" can be an encouraging aside, but more often it's a casual comment about a low-threshold activity. When people sense that the praise is being used to get them to do better at what is essentially an easy task, their self-esteem drops, and their persistence at more difficult tasks is likely to drop with it.
Praise is intended to raise someone's self-consciousness. By drawing attention to something positive, the hope is that it will be repeated ("Do this and you'll get that.") But for some, self-consciousness applies pressure that actually inhibits performance, a common challenge for piano teachers and sex therapists.
Praise sets up expectations of continued success. Kohn cites a study by Mary Budd Rowe in which she found that elementary school students whose teachers frequently used praise showed less task persistence than their peers. Expectations of continued success can lead to fear of failure. In Kohn's words, "If we steer clear of situations in which we might fail, we eliminate any chance of being criticized by the very person who just praised us."
Praise, an extrinsic motivator, often undermines the intrinsic motivation that is essential to high performance. If a child loves to play a game, he'll play it without compensation. If offered token rewards, he'll eventually play for those rewards, not the love of the game, which, in time, will diminish.

These consequences are not what most people intend when they offer praise. How can a manager avoid the pitfalls and make praise work to enhance performance, promote appropriate behavior and help raise self-esteem?

Two principles of effective praise will help:

Promote self-determination: All rewards, including praise, are designed to control others. The intentions may be noble, but the technique still implies control. Ask yourself if you praise to help people extend their control over their own lives or to manipulate them toward your own purposes.

Build intrinsic motivation: Praise should create the conditions for someone to become more deeply involved in her work (intrinsic motivation), not turn the task into something to win your approval (extrinsic motivation).

The value of praise is in the information it conveys. If praise illuminates information about a person's success -- that is, the specifics of what they did that was praiseworthy and suggestions for building on that success -- it will be valuable and appreciated feedback. Before you praise someone, ask yourself if you have any information to convey, and if that information has any value to the other person.

Some final advice from Kohn:

"It takes skill and care and attention to encourage people in such a way that they remain interested in what they are doing and don't feel controlled. It is always easier to do things to people, or to take over and do things for them, than it is to work with them to help them make their own decisions. It feels good to have someone in the position of looking to us (figuratively and sometimes literally) for our approval."

Praise can be a valuable tool if used as information that helps people extend their control and competence in pursuit of something they love to do.

Trailheads:

Punished by Rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes by Alfie Kohn. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999.

Listening to Complaints

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:26:00 GMT

   High on every manager's "I-wish-I-didn't-have-to-deal-with-this" list are complaints from the staff. These can be about anything: routine assignments, the air conditioning, performance reviews, food in the cafeteria, disappearing desk chairs, bonuses, hiring freezes, insensitive supervision, vacation scheduling, parking.

   Before you reach for Harry's wand to make them all go away, consider this bit of wisdom from a Harvard Business Review article:
     "People complain only about the things they care about, and they complain the loudest about the things they care about the most."
   If that's true, complaints can be important "leading indicators." Just as geologists can learn a lot from a few rock outcroppings, smart managers can assay the complaints they hear to discover a deeper vein of fear or discontent.

   Complaints fall into three general categories:
     ·Whines and whimpers. These are the shallow half-complaints that annoy more than antagonize. They tend to be diffused and unfocused - the verbal equivalent of a bad-hair day. The usual responses are "Deal with it" or "Get to the point and tell me what you want."
     ·Bellicose bitching. These are industrial-strength complaints that leave no doubt about the complainer's passion or purpose. Someone is feeling aggrieved and wants everyone to know it. His short-term strategy includes revenge or revolution. Whatever the problem, he wants you to fix it. Now!
     ·Loyal opposition. These appear rational, but are the most difficult to assess. The complainer feels loyal to you and the cause (I don't mean to complain ..."), but she is in opposition to something and feels justified in bringing up the issue. The loyal-opposition complainer is more certain, less passionate but no less determined to have you fix the problem as she perceives it.

   Behind most complaints you'll find fear. Of what? The loss of status, perhaps. Or being ignored,or exposed as less-than-competent. The difficulty is that people usually try to hide their fear, so managers need to learn how to uncover it. Here are two common examples of overt complaints that mask underlying fears:

     1."This team doesn't function well." Hearing that, a manager might begin to review the team's performance to determine if the indictment is true. But performance may not be the issue at all. It's quite common for team members to mourn the loss of personal identity and recognition in a team setting. Complaints about the team's performance may actually be about the loss of individual control.

     2."The bosses only give lip-service to teams." This sounds like an authority and resource issue. It probably isn't. As small groups become successful at bonding and team building, they often value camaraderie over results. When managers begin to question the team's performance, the inquiry itself may threaten a team's status or social order. To defend their group, members often launch a"You're-either-with-us-or-against-us" attack, in this case, on the leader's commitment to teams.

     How can managers dig beneath complaints?
     1.Be patient. Tell yourself that behind the noise of the whining, bitching or loyal opposing are more important messages.

     2.Use humor. You don't have to take every complaint as an ultimatum. While taking every person seriously,you can use humor to tease out what's really at issue.

     3.Distinguish between style and substance. Some complaints are about leadership styles, habits and idiosyncrasies. Treat these differently than complaints about values. Someone may be willing to negotiate concerns about wasteful meetings, but will be far more rigid about defending a value.

     4.Encourage venting. You don't have to wait for complaints. I know one company where the senior executives open their weekly staff meetings with an agenda item called"venting." Each one of the half dozen junior managers has the right to vent without argument or opposition. It's always done in good humor, and it always uncovers something of substance.

     5.Organize the criticism. In workshops I often use an exercise called"Start/Stop/Continue." It's easy to do. Distribute index cards and ask people to write down something they want the organization to"Start" doing. Then, on another card, ask them to write down what they want the organization to "Stop" doing. Finally, ask them to cite a practice they think should "Continue." All suggestions should be kept anonymous. Have a facilitator study the cards fora few minutes and report out the ideas and themes, beginning with the"Start" cards. You'll be surprised how this simple exercise can focus and explore seemingly random complaints.

   Grumbling is part of every workplace, but grumbles and complaints can be valuable information if you take time to determine what's really behind them.

   Trailheads:
     "The Real Reason People Won't Change" by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lehey. Harvard Business Review,November 2001.

Performance Appaisals Don't Work

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:01:10 GMT

Here's a challenge to conventional wisdom: Performance appraisals don't work. In fact, they probably do more harm than good.

According to Peter Scholtes, author of The Leader's Handbook, most managers believe appraisals "serve to clarify an individual's work responsibilities, align the worker with the organization's goals, hold each worker accountable for his or her responsibilities and motivate them to continuously improve."

Scholtes thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong. By encouraging what he calls "a superficial, culprit-oriented approach to problem solving," that is, looking for the "Who" instead of the "Why" underlying performance, appraisals actually diminish individual effectiveness and organizational progress.

Performance appraisals share a number of failings:

• They focus on the actions of individuals instead of the more relevant relationships and activities within groups. Faulting a new manager for not properly guiding an employee overlooks the role of the senior management that failed to offer that new manager sufficient coaching instruction and practice. The manager may not have performed adequately, but if the appraisal ends with an individual indictment, the opportunity for meaningful improvement in the larger system will have been lost.

• Appraisals substitute subjective judgments for reliable information. Unless supervisors subscribe to the more rigid definition of feedback outlined below, their appraisal is likely to be more opinion than useful information. Even when editors point out someone's obvious deficiencies, there is no assurance that the faultfinding will improve performance and understanding.

• Too often appraisals search for blame and accountability instead of improvement. It's easy to point a finger and find fault in the past. It's far more difficult to build competence for the future.

For Scholtes, the harsh truth is that performance appraisals simply don't work. "There is no legitimate data to support the effectiveness of performance appraisal ... Underneath it all, performance appraisal is related to a manager's need to maintain control, or at least the illusion of control."

Still, most people want feedback, especially if it involves instruction, direction or recognition. But they will accept and respond to that feedback only if it has promise of leading to personal growth and development. If the feedback is perceived as negative or unfair, it will be rejected. The lesson is clear: Evaluations are effective only when they lead to learning.

Here are some guidelines for evaluation:

Redefine feedback. It is more than casual opinion or quick reaction. Feedback has four components: Information about progress toward specific goals measured by mutually agreed upon standards. That's a far more rigid definition that most managers use.

Clarify goals and standards. Without specific goals and mutually agreed-upon ways to measure them, there can be no valid information about progress toward those goals, so be sure you and the person you're giving feedback to first agree on the objectives and then the methods for measuring progress.

Make the evaluation voluntary. No one should be forced to be evaluated. This sounds more radical than it really is; if someone is resistant, the process will be a waste of time anyway. To be successful, you need to persuade that person that an evaluation-leading-to-learning process has direct benefits.

Let the person control the process. This is radical, but it works. The person seeking feedback needs to approve the timing, frequency and methods for the evaluation. Ceding control will improve the outcome by minimizing top-down judgments and focusing the conversations on the individual's learning needs, not just the manager's opinions.

Focus on learning. There should be only one purpose to any evaluation –– the individual's growth and development. Don't call it a "performance review." That puts the focus on the past, not the future. I wouldn't even call it an "evaluation;" that sounds too judgmental. Remind yourself that you are working on two things during an evaluation - someone's learning needs, and your role in helping to meet them - so make it a planning process, not a trial.

Trailheads:

The Leader's Handbook by Peter R. Scholtes. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999.

Mangled Blocks

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:52:00 GMT

   In 1463, the authorities of the cathedral in Florence acquired a 16-foot-high block of white marble. Two long-since-forgotten sculptors worked on the piece for a while before abandoning the badly mangled block, which was put into storage. Over the years, other artists were offered the block, but each time it was rejected. The artists said they couldn't possibly produce a work of art out of the "damaged" marble.

   Forty years later Michelangelo took the block from storage and within 18 months carved it into what became one of the world's most famous statues - the youthful David. How much flogging of this metaphor - borrowed from Cracking Creativity: The secrets of creative genius by Michael Michalko - will it take to get you to think about the "mangled blocks" in your organization and the works of art you might still get from them?

   Who are some of these "mangled" people?
   The burned out: This person was probably a star of yesteryear, the steady go-to guy in tough situations. But recently, his production has been down. So has his disposition. His performance isn't exactly substandard, but it is declining.

   The eager but untrained: This person, probably in her first management job, is young, bright, eager, and scared to death of being exposed as a "fraud." She was probably promoted to manager with little or no training. For her, "just-in-time training" never arrived. The result is a perpetual balancing act between potential competence and shaky confidence.

   The marginalized: Too young to be burned out, too old to be waiting his turn, this person has been bypassed, often the victim of labeling inflicted years before. People typecast as "mediocre" or "once had great potential" find it hard to shake the branding, so they are sent to the shadows and ignored.

   The anonymous and stressed: For these people, their routine tasks make it difficult to stand out. They often feel anonymous, thankless and stressed.

   The English word "resuscitate" comes from the Latin verb meaning "to revive." Here are three thoughts about resuscitation:
   Reconsider your assessments. The "burnout" may be bored. The "eager but untrained" probably lacks confidence, but the potential is still there. The "marginalized" hasn't met anyone's expectations recently, but then again no one expects much. The "anonymous and stressed" is just that, so you really don't know how good she might be. In all cases, evaluations shouldn't be an annual ritual. They should be frequent, and should be focused as much on potential as performance.

   Put the money back in training Hard times invariably bring budget cuts, and the first cuts usually come in training. That response will only guarantee more "mangled blocks" in the future. Training and coaching don't have to be expensive. I do a lot of work with small organizations that take training seriously, but have limited resources. A commitment to individual development is the primary prerequisite, not a big budget.

   Think about better "matching." A lot of people are in the wrong jobs, or in the right jobs at the wrong time in their career. A promotion, especially to a management job, may be a curse without careful matching and thorough preparation. A manager's assessment of the staff has to cover not only the potential and performance of individuals, but proper "matching" as well.

   Every organization should create and sustain a culture that prizes individual talents, however hidden, and enables people to get a fresh start each day. No business can afford to be a warehouse for "mangled blocks."

Trailheads:

Cracking Creativity: The secrets of creative genius by Michael Michalko. Ten Speed Press, 1998.

Jazz Up Your Meetings

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:06:00 GMT

   Imagine a symphony orchestra with a conductor who can't read music and musicians who are never told which instruments to play or when to play them. That's what most meetings sound like to me.

   A good meeting is like a performance by a jazz quintet. There may or may not be a score to follow, but leadership emerges. A leader chooses a melody, a key, and a tempo. He knows how to get the piece started, how it might change along the way and where it might end. The sidemen know how to use their instruments appropriately. When called upon, they can play solo, or they can blend in behind the others to build inventive harmonies, rhythms and patterns.

   How can leaders make their meetings more like good jazz?
   Know the tune. Every meeting should have a single, clearly defined objective. Too many meetings try to do too much. It's hard to fit brainstorming and decision making into the same meeting; the skills and disciplines required for each are simply too different. Similarly, problem solving should not be shoe-horned into a session designed to pass along and clarify information. "Do one thing well" is a good rule to follow when planning meetings. If you have two objectives, have two shorter meetings. You'll get more done in less time.

   Recruit the right players. Some great classical music has been written for strings or brass alone, but most jazz requires a blend of complimentary instruments. A typical quintet might have a piano, bass, woodwind, brass and percussion. Any one of the five could be the group's leader.

   Similarly, every meeting needs at least three distinct voices. Early on, especially if the objective is to search for options to solve a problem, the first voices to be heard should be the "divergent thinkers." These are the instinctive idea generators, the people who pipe up long and loud with ideas and suggestions. Divergent thinkers are like the brass at the opening of a lively piece. They shout, they screech, they bring forward all sorts of musical ideas. They have a lot of energy, and are fun to listen to, but after a while, they run out of original ideas and need to sit down.

   Next up should be the "connectors." Their special talent is to reflect on the array of ideas coming from the "divergents" and to recognize patterns and connections. They bring more than order; they create new sounds that build on the themes introduced by others.

   Finally, there are the "closers." Their talent for convergence will help consolidate the emerging patterns and options and bring the piece to natural conclusion.

   Every meeting needs all three voices. The leader's role is to make sure the "divergents" play long enough to give the "connectors" some ideas to work with, and then to cue the "closers" when it's time to move on. Although any given person at the meeting could play all three roles, it's more likely that each person has a specific voice. Leaders need to know each person's voice and when to cue it.

   Be willing to improvise. In all jazz classics, a simple theme is enriched by variations. A jazz ensemble rarely plays a piece the same way twice. Meetings, too, should have creative meanders. Whatever the meeting's purpose, its management must be a blend of the intended and the serendipitous. You must always make room for inventiveness.

   Don't expect perfection. Some meetings will soar with creative ideas; others will sound flat and lifeless. Sometimes the horns never sit down, the percussion is out of sync or the bass line gets in the way. Don't stop tinkering; jazz lets you try something new each time.

   Here's something you can try in a practice session. Ask one group of "divergents" to lead off with as many ideas as possible. Give them 10 uninterrupted minutes to jam. Ask another group of "connectors" to listen carefully, and on your cue, come in with suggestions that build upon the initial ideas. Your solo can be to play the "closer" when energy and ideas have peaked.

   Play some good jazz in the background while you doing all this, pacing the meeting to the music. At best, people will begin to understand a meeting's dynamics in terms of voices, rhythms, pacing and blending. At worst, you'll enjoy good jazz in the background.

Giving Good Feedback

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:06:00 GMT

   When I was growing up there was a popular book about child raising entitled, Where did you go? Out. What did you do? Nothing. That book was my first encounter with inadequate feedback.

   The most important question a manager can get from a colleague is "How am I doing?" Because most people have a built-in drive to improve –– and to be recognized for improvement –– they need substantive and sustained feedback, so a short answer is insufficient, even a complimentary one.

   Here are some thoughts about how to give better feedback.

   Feedback should information, not just opinion. Substantive feedback is more than a top-of-the-head reaction to "How am I doing?" There are four components: information about progress toward specific goals measured by mutually agreed-upon standards. It follows that before you can pass along useful information about progress, you must understand what you want and how you'll know when you get it.

   There must be shared responsibility. Although it's true that people want feedback, it's also true they quickly dismiss unfair or unfounded criticism. The difference usually can be measured in how much control they have had in determining how their performance will be measured. Establishing goals and standards requires thoughtful negotiation. Imposing them is more efficient, but imposition is a sure way to inhibit progress.

   The objective is learning. Whether the feedback is a spur-of-the-moment observation or part of the annual performance review, the objective is always the same: learning. Evaluation is about change, helping someone move from where they are in terms of competence to where you want them to be. Feedback that doesn't teach won't change anything. It will simply reinforce resistance.

   Feedback is never easy. You need to know a lot about the person and the job. Michael Dobson, author of Managing Up: 59 ways to build a career-advancing relationship with your boss, believes that although most managers can describe the jobs they've given subordinates, they don't know enough about what their subordinates actually do. This is especially true when someone's effort (as opposed to outcome) is not visible.

I once criticized a photographer for a mediocre photograph at an important event. What I learned later was that he had stood in the rain for nearly two hours preparing for what would have been a superb shot, and that only bad luck prevented him from getting it. How useful was my feedback, and what did that photographer learn about me that day?

A connection to compensation inhibits candor. If I ask you how you are doing, and your salary for the next year depends on the answer, how forthright are you going to be? Yet in most companies the annual performance review leads directly to decisions about pay. Evaluations leading to individual development have to be rigidly separated from decisions about pay. When they are not, both processes suffer.

Finally, feedback can't be rushed. Richard Farson, author of Management of the Absurd, believes "the currency of praise is time." The same principle applies to feedback. To discuss with care the details of someone's life's work takes time and attention. "Drive-by" feedback is convenient but inadequate.

Trailheads:

Managing Up: 59 ways to build a career-advancing relationship with your boss by Michael and Deborah Singer Dobson. AMACOM, 2000.
Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. Simon & Schuster, 1996.

Do People Trust You

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:54:23 GMT

Do people trust you? A recent Canadian study found compelling evidence that "low levels of trust in a work force can indeed lead directly to high stress, reduced productivity, stifled innovation, slowed decision-making, and indirectly, to low morale, high turnover, and frequent absenteeism."

That may not even be the worst of it.

It's clear that credibility and staff retention are connected. An article by Ron Zemke in Training magazine linked them this way: "Customers abandon companies they do not trust, and so do employees."
Change depends on trust, first in a leader's vision, and then in her ability to actually manage a transition. Change often fails for lack of initial trust in vision and competence.
Trust is a fragile asset. Ron Zemke cautions that trust "develops over time, can be dashed in an instant, and is repaired very slowly."

What can leaders do to build trusting relationships? Here are some ideas inspired by Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace by Dennis and Michelle Reina.

Expectations: Relationships form and are sustained because people have expectations. In any workplace, these hopes and goals have to be clearly understood and agreed upon. So, too, do the standards for evaluating progress toward mutual goals. If expectations are not clear and explicit, the relationship will be equally uncertain.

A corollary to what you want is what you don't want. Boundaries of behavior (the so-called "civility" issues) are important foundations for building trust. Goals and boundaries need to be defined early, clearly and mutually.

Delegation: Delegating tasks and authority is a powerful expression of trust. Leaders who haven't learned how to delegate, who interfere or micromanage, are seen as both inefficient and distrustful, a double indictment. A particularly effective form of delegation is asking others to share in the responsibility for your personal goals. To openly link your own success to the collaboration of others sends a strong message of trust. To your colleagues, that message is motivating and bonding.

Career development: Building competence builds trust; staffers are more likely to trust leaders who help them develop new skills. That's why training programs that involve the front-line managers (and not just a professional training staff) are high-leverage investments in competence and trust. This is especially important when training newly appointed managers who one day will themselves be responsible for training others.

Criticism: One of the many risks of criticism is that it can erode trust. Learning how to criticize someone "positively," with an eye toward learning instead of flogging, is important if the relationship is to remain durable. Positive criticism is a learned skill. So is mastering all those difficult conversations that seem to fill your day. Criticism is like a fault line in a relationship. If the movement along that line is sudden, violent or unexpected, the collateral damage will be seen or felt in the trust in the relationship.

Maintaining trust can be a difficult balancing act. Unpredictability makes people nervous, but so does inflexibility. To be trusted you need to balance consistency with adaptability.

Trailheads:

Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace by Dennis and Michelle Reina. Berrett-Koehler, 1999.

"Can You Manage Trust" by Ron Zemke. Training, February 2000.

Resolving Conflict

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:14:00 GMT

Organizations tend to react to conflict in one of two ways:

Fight: This strategy tries to control conflict with arrogance and self-deception ("We're above that sort of thing here.") or military-like edicts ("Intemperate behavior will be punished with floggings at dawn."). Neither approach works very well.

Flight: More common are the three flight strategies: Denial ("It's not really hurting anybody.") Avoidance ("That's someone else's responsibility.") Accommodation ("Please don't make waves while we're understaffed.") These don't work very well either.

Here are some strategies to think about when trying to resolve conflict in your organization:

Deal with the impact, not the intentions. You may think you know why someone did something you didn't like, but you may be wrong, so don't attribute motives. If someone interrupts you a lot, don't try to stop him with character assassination ("Why are you such a selfish lug nut?"). Instead, deal with the consequences of his actions ("When you interrupt frequently, I can't adjust my thinking quickly enough to consider what you need. Let's talk later about how you can get my full attention when you need it.").

Anticipate to defuse conflict. Have some "What if...?" agreements, informal understandings between people on how to handle touchy situations before they occur. Answering "What if...?" questions with someone else will lead to some useful understandings: "What do we do if I make a mistake?" "What do we do if you make a mistake?" "How do we tell each other we're disappointed?" "How can we disagree and then move on?" Anticipating the potential for conflict before it comes up makes successful resolution more likely.

Learn to listen. I know you've heard this before, but one of the first casualties of conflict is your ability to shut up and actually listen to what someone is saying. Letting people explain (and really listening to what they say) is smart management. It provides information you need, and builds the trust that's essential to resolving conflict. When I coach people on how to deal with conflict, I listen to their dialogue and then calculate the ratio of a person's questions (a good indicator he's listening) to declarative statements. If the ratio is any less than 3:1 the conflict will almost certainly persist.

Watch your language: Profanity is never appropriate; neither is sarcasm. No less offensive are words like "never" ("You never do this right!") and "always" ("Have you always been a screw-up?"). Even the simple question "Why?" can be too aggressive; it often sounds prosecutorial. Try probing for information with the more casual "How come?" ("How come what we agreed on yesterday didn't make it into your memo?") It's not good syntax, but it's smart conflict management.

Repeat, rephrase, reflect: When someone would rather continue the conflict than resolve it, you need to be patient. One way to hold on is to repeat what they are saying, rephrase it in your own words to show you have heard and understood, and then invite the other person to join you as you reflect on the facts and circumstances of the case. Unless anger demands a halt to the conversation (you have to wait for anger to subside before any progress can be made) you can keep the issues in play until resolution is possible.

Trailheads:

The Power of Ethical Persuasion by Tom Rusk. Penguin Books, 1993.

Designing Conflict Management by Cathy A. Costantino and Christina Sickles Merchant. Josey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

Managing the Boss

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:13:00 GMT

What do bosses expect from those who report to them? Invariably, "performance" tops the list; bosses want you to do your job.

Tied for second,however, are "loyalty" and "candor." This is dangerous ground. In response to this tension, bosses tend to send mixed messages: They encourage subordinates to be candid, even critical, yet they often bristle with disapproval when that candor is negative. Sometimes this disapproval is subtle, sometimes overt. In either case, the subordinate is quick to pick up the signals.

Appearing loyal through appeasement becomes a safer strategy than candor. Furthermore, bosses expect deference. After all, isn't power a perk of being the boss? When the demand for deference becomes excessive, however,resentment builds among subordinates. Appeals for candor are seen as inauthentic and manipulative.

There is no single strategy for managing up; successful relationships can be built in many ways. But one question will get you started: How well do you know the boss? People have individual styles, preferences, goals, standards and fears. You need to understand them all.

Here are 10 questions (using the feminine form to simplify syntax) that will help identify a person's style of management. Jot down the letters and see if there's a pattern.

1. What does the boss like to focus on most: a) getting the job done, b) mending relationships, c) exploring the ideas of journalism and management, d) understanding the details and procedures?

2. Does she prefer: a) taking charge himself, b) coordinating others, c) solving problems, d) monitoring and analyzing progress?

3. What does she value most: a) practicality, b) teamwork, c) innovation, d) documentation?

4. What is her preferred management style: a) authoritative, b) democratic, c) self-directed, d) systematic?

5. Does she want to be valued for being: a) productive, b) flexible, c) self-reliant, d) accountable?

6. What does she value in other people: a) successful experience, b) group participation, c) questioning, d) compliance?

7. When the boss is a follower or subordinate, she respects: a) strong leadership, b) group consensus and focus, c) personal relevance and sound reasoning, d) clear policies and procedures?

8. She works best when given: a) clear goals, b) broad or generalized goals, c) ideas and input, d) systems to follow?

9. Her management focus is on: a) achieving goals, b)involving people, c) expanding input, d) following procedures?

10. She learns best by: a) doing, b) observing and participating, c) listening and self-study, d) repetition and following instructions?

If your answers tended to be "a" your boss is a"Focuser," someone who likes and uses authority to get the job done. The "b" group describes a "Relater," someone who values relationships and encourages participation. The "c" group is an "Integrator," the idea person who wants to know why, and loves to brainstorm and challenge ideas. The "d" group is the"Operator," the engineer concerned with details and procedures.

These questions and categories, found in Michael Dobson's Exploring Personality Styles, are, like any classification system, crude instruments to measure complex people. But they can be useful. If you can identify patterns of preferences, you can manage more effectively. For example, if you are a relationship-oriented "Relater" working for a goal-oriented "Focuser," there could be friction. Similarly, two detail-driven "Operators" might clash continually over routines and procedures.

In both cases, by understanding the preferences, people can make them complementary strengths instead of barriers.

Resourcefulness and Preparedness

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:06:00 GMT

Are you tired of being told you're on the deck of the Titanic? Would you like to replace some of that anxiety about your future with some hopefulness? Here are two thoughts that will help:

You underestimate your resourcefulness.
You overestimate your preparedness.

Resourcefulness: Most journalists received a full dose of this at birth. A requisite for journalism is the ability to balance limitations (like deadlines and poorly trained editors) with opportunities. Most of us can recall hundreds of examples of "Hey-kid-we-need-this-in-an-hour." We always delivered, often with distinction. You don't survive in journalism without being resourceful.

But as I continue my coaching of journalists looking for a Plan B, I am surprised how many undervalue this skill. Perhaps they take it for granted, or perhaps they can't see how accomplished they really are.

When I lived in New Jersey I was a passionate offshore sailor. The first thing you learn 100 miles offshore is that there are always three ways to solve the inevitable problems, and if those three fail, you can find a fourth. We called it survival, resourcefulness at it most intense. Sailors need to learn it, but to most journalists it comes naturally.

Here's an exercise to reinforce the point: Recall a time when you were exceptionally resourceful solving a problem or resolving a difficult situation. It might have been at home, at work, out in the wilderness facing brown bears. The revelation will be simple: Your are more resourceful than you know.

Preparedness: No passenger on the Titanic spent the voyage in his stateroom building a lifeboat. After all, the vessel was "unsinkable." So was the newspaper industry, and very few of us built lifeboats. But here again, you're good at this.

Preparedness implies the ability to anticipate and respond to the unexpected. But just because something is unexpected doesn't mean it's unanticipated. You don't have to wait for the unemployment shoe to drop; you can anticipate the permanently changed economic conditions in the media and begin your preparation for whatever comes next, even a continued stay in journalism. You can do more than think about the unthinkable; you can do something to prepare for that next career that has been hitherto unimaginable.

Here's another exercise: What do you need to do to prepare for whatever is coming next? It's tough question not because there are too few answers, but because there are too many.

Over the last few years, my coaching work has shifted from teaching editors how to manage newsroom to helping journalists (and more than a few editors) understand how to put their resourcefulness to work strengthening their preparedness.

Two Myths of Changing Careers

edward@edwardmillercoaching.com (Edward D. Miller) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:58:00 GMT

When newspapers began cutting costs by eliminating training and development programs for staff members, I began attending to the victims of this short-sightedness by coaching journalists into second careers. It's a sad but fulfilling mission: sad because the world of daily newspapers I loved has cast adrift thousands of talented people, fulfilling because many of those people are finding rewarding futures outside journalism.

Over the years, I've encountered two myths that need debunking:

"All I'm qualified for outside journalism is PR or freelancing."
"I was a good performer in a newsroom, but those skills are not transportable."

Nonsense to both.

Regarding the first: There's nothing wrong with PR or freelancing, but those are not the only choices. Pick up any recent issue of "Fast Company" magazine and witness the energy and entrepreneurship through the world. The blast furnaces and truck-assembly plants in my old hometown may be shut down and rusting, but hundreds of modern and profitable ventures have taken their place and are attracting innovative and energetic people.

On the second myth, consider the skills of experienced journalists, especially those with management experience. You have mastered:

Problem solving
Project planning
Decision making on deadline
Reacting quickly and effectively to surprises in the news
Initiating creative presentations
Budget management
Conflict resolution
Coaching and teaching others
Collaboration with other disciplines and departments
Writing and editing the English language with competence

When a coaching client tells me she's not really qualified to do anything outside journalism, I recite that list and more. Journalism is superb training for whatever is coming next, but first you must get over the myths and fears holding your back.

Here's an exercise that will help. Take your resume, which is probably a chronology of activities, and rewrite it based on skills. Itemize what you do well and make the case to support each skill. You'll be pleasantly surprised how well equipped you are for you next career.

If you want some coaching on that resume, send me an e-mail. I'd be happy to help. If you're ready to begin making a Plan B for your career, I can help there, too.