I’m often asked by friends and mentees whether they should make a career change, or be “afraid” due to an organizational change or another major corporate event. Often frustrating to them, my answer is almost always “It depends.”
The truth is the answer to that question is most often not a binary yes or no.
First, changes at the top rarely have a significant impact on the day to day work and job satisfaction of individual employees. Being in the c-suite, we sometimes overinflated our impact or the impact of org org chart shuffling. Yes, we drive strategic direction and significant changes have a knock-on impact throughout the company. But the reality is the top layer in most large companies at most directly touch 5-10% of employees. Ask the best CEO to handwrite the names of employees he or she talked to personally last quarter.
According to an in-depth time study by Harvard Business School professors Michael Porter and Nitin Nohria, CEOs spend, on average, just 6% of their time with frontline teams, only 3% with customers, and 72% in meetings. I would imagine this to be close to the same for many others in the c-suite. I personally began to miss team interaction the higher up in the organization I climbed.
The sad, or not so sad, reality is that hundreds of decisions are made everyday at the top that have little or nothing to do with you as an individual employee amongst thousands of other employees. And some decisions were influenced by executives outside of your chain of command.
Second, unless it is specifically relating to an individual’s power, position, AND perspective (3 Ps), simply moving a function from one individual to another does not necessarily change organizational dynamics overall. Power influences how much air cover your team will have. Position influences budget and ability to spend money on things important to your function. But perspective of the new leader ultimately determines how much of their power and/or position they are willing to leverage on behalf of the new function they inherited. Some CIOs found this out the hard way when their dream of reporting directly to the CEO was fulfilled. They found the move hurt rather than helped their tech strategy objectives when the CEO had little time or interest to focus on technology and their voice was heard less.
Finally, and most importantly, one should never make decisions based solely on any one factor. Be it an org change or a budget cut, an acquisition or spinoff, the impact on your career depends on your specific circumstances across a spectrum of experiences and events. What have you already learned and how much more can you learn within the new environment? Is your job bringing you joy or satisfaction for the most part and, if so, how likely is it that the change would impact that?
The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual. – Vince Lombardi
Having a successful and rewarding career is a key part of your life journey. But it is only a part. Remember that finding life balance requires at least a modicum of joy at work. But it’s also enjoying time with family and friends, taking care of one’s health, and aiming to truly figure out what you as an individual want out of life. Don’t fall for the trap of overreacting to changes that might make for a great press release but ultimately not impact your individual journey.
The answer to all of life’s questions is to some extent, “it depends”, because ultimately it depends on YOU.
I’ve recently had several conversations about change and resistance to change. Someone I greatly respect continued to say that certain people were resistant to change. I disagreed vehemently, saying they were BEGGING for change. So why were things not moving fast given these new demands? Turns out they really were “resistant to change” but it wasn’t what we typically think of when we hear that term. Or at least not for the entire group.
There are countless reasons why people fail to accept change and this impacts all parts of life. These barriers, or blocks, can show up in the workplace or in one’s personal life. They can harm your psyche and your career. The key is to identify why an individual is opposed to change since the refusal to change often has negative effects.
Change is all around us. Since change is inevitable, how do we accept it?
1. Conquer fear by embracing the unknown.
Dinner with my nieces at a sushi restaurant years ago had me thinking about one aspect of change reticence. Shortly after we sat down at our table and ordered, the sushi arrived. I travel a lot and eat food from all over the world. I’m also a foodie and even blogged a lot about favorite restaurants when I lived in Chicago and London. I will try almost anything once. So clearly I am comfortable with sushi. For my nieces, they were not as exposed by that age to a huge variety of foods. They were faced with what they consider unusual cuisine.
This leads to my first answer as to why people resist change: fear. The food made both of my nieces feel uncertain and afraid. It required them to try something different. Something potentially uncomfortable. What if it had a negative impact when they tried it?
My youngest niece started examining the food and even smelled it. She poked at the sushi as if she were a world-famous chef or food critic examining a meal. After a few moments, her older sister spoke up.
“If Uncle Adam likes this, I will try it,” she declared. She did. And while I don’t suspect she became a regular after that, she kind of liked it.
She conquered her fear by focusing on the fact that someone she trusted was not afraid. All that I had to do was make a show of enjoying my food. These kids were afraid of something unknown showing up in their world. With positive reinforcement and example, I was able to convince them (at least the older one) that sushi was nothing to fear.
When reluctance to change is rooted in fear, then the solution is to show people the opposite. The unknown is not always positive, but many times it can be beneficial to them! It doesn’t always have to be a negative, repulsive experience.
2. Eradicate ignorance by encouraging education.
People who are resistant to change are often unfamiliar with the type of material to which they are being exposed. It can differ from their educational background. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is perhaps the best example of an area where this element of change reticence has impact. In some areas in the United States, the people who decide the curriculum might not touch on what they consider sensitive topics based upon their personal beliefs. When their students become adults and have been raised in such an environment, then they have no experience with diversity.
If all you’ve seen your entire life are green crayons, seeing a purple crayon at age 55 might just freak you out.
Whether they were sheltered by their parents, their community, or an educational system, it leaves them intellectually ignorant when it comes to diversity and inclusion issues. Before I get the negative reactions, let me add that this isn’t to say that this is the case for everyone from that background or that diverse communities don’t have their own prejudices and biases! Rather, this means that issues like discomfort with race or sexuality become an issue for many people for reasons other than hate. For some, they might see the outside world and retreat to a system that is more comfortable for them and doesn’t challenge their beliefs. Many others embrace differences and are enamored with them.
Regardless of where we originate, all humans have genes that wire them with intellectual curiosity. We can leverage this more. If we can get people excited about learning, then this element of change resistance diminishing. When confronted with something new and shown support for learning about it, the majority of people will be more open to changing their thinking patterns.
3. Inspire change by defeating apathy.
Some people really just don’t care. And that makes change even harder.
You know these people. They are often sarcastic, lethargic, and comfortable with the benefits they receive without changing. Even if they don’t include others in the workplace, or embrace new solutions or ideas, they tend to think it’s fine since they have been successful just the way they are. They get change. They even understand why it may be relevant to others, unlike those that are afraid of change or ignorant of the opportunity.
Many apathetic people use their sentiment as a crutch because at one point they did care or wanted changes. Their life experiences taught them change wouldn’t happen or that they had to fight with sticks because stronger weapons were not available. They develop shells and don’t engage. When faced with this “I don’t have time for change” crowd, it’s easy to become frustrated (and sarcastic in return). But alas, there is hope. This groups simply needs to have an opportunity to incorporate change into their lives and see results. You’ve got to make the dream seem real, the benefits tangible.
I used to joke that every important email needed a subject “You will make more money if you do this”. That was until all the hackers and spammers started using it!
4. Be aware of argumentative entertainment.
Lastly, there are people who aren’t like the apathetic types who resist change due to their own defense mechanisms or historic lethargy. In social settings, there are often those who simply enjoy criticizing. These people enjoy feeling powerful and find that shutting other people down makes them feel better about themselves. When introducing change or new ideas to a workplace or any setting, beware of those that detract from the meetings for attention or to otherwise derail it.
When it comes to the detractors who ruin positive and important messages about change, the key here is to not let them change you. They might be dedicated to rejecting ideas as some form of entertainment in what they consider a droll office meeting or other situation. When faced with that type of attitude, it’s important to nurture the people who are listening.
The odd benefit of dealing with a heckler or extremely disruptive person is that they will often lend support to your cause. If you’re giving a seminar on change and someone is completely obnoxious, people who would otherwise be on the fence about the content might change their minds. They are seeing someone willing to stand up for their beliefs and attempt to live these values, despite the criticism.
Change matters and it will never stop happening. Blanketing everyone that has an issue with change as “resistant” is oversimplified. Instead focus on what is the cause of the reticence. Understanding that might help you find a means to get them on board after all. There are no easy answers but change leaders must be able to preach to the choir and reach the apostates.
As always, I would love to hear what you think.
Be well. Lead on.
Adam
Be good to people.
Adam L. Stanley
Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
Change is hard. Teaming is harder. So when you have challenges within the team, effectively delivering on a change program can be next to impossible. Multiply that by a factor of X if you have multiple programs underway and you could see how some leaders struggle. Accountability at the workplace has often been a thorny issue. Whenever it is uttered, people immediately think of shortfall scorekeeping, negativity, and a forced top-down management system.
In this kind of thinking, accountability is only necessary if the person who requires it of you is your boss. Also, problem-solving is assigned or adjudicated by the bosses. This approach is wrong because problems are rarely ever solved in time or satisfactorily.
Problem solving works better when those most directly involved in the solution collaborate and reach an end goal. Involving the boss or requiring any external arbitration slows progress. Holding each other accountable, therefore, is key.
Joseph Grenny from the Harvard Business Review calls this the Universal Accountability Principle. Here’s a breakdown of what it’s all about and how it can help you.
What is the Universal Accountability Principle?
Example: Have you ever worked in a group on a team project where that one guy simply did not carry his weight? He was late to meetings, never delivered on commitments, and when he presented output, it was of poor quality?
In teams with poor peer-to-peer accountability things can get way out of control and mediocre behavior is allowed to become a lifestyle. Ultimately, everybody loses. The better and faster your teams are at peer-to-peer problem solving, the healthier they are. The less skilled and slower they are, the more ground they prepare to breed mistrust and the dire consequences.
To a great extent, problem solving is a litmus test for the strength of workplace teams. Grenny breaks teams down into the following categories according to the Harvard Business Review.
There is no accountability in the weakest teams. In our example, no one would say anything. The guy would continue to do dumb stuff, and the project would be less impactful/successful.
Bosses are the source of accountability in mediocre teams. In our example, someone would tell me their thinking that the person was not holding their own. I would then need to spend time getting involved, asking the other team members, seeking out evidence, etc. … you get it? Slowing down the process!
Peers manage the vast majority of performance problems with each other in high-performing teams. Wouldn’t it be much more efficient if the rest of the team created a means of tracking and reporting on progress that gave transparency to his failures and forced the correction without involving the boss?
Developing a Culture of Universal Accountability
Your job as a thoughtful leader is to eliminate the laxity in solving problems and nurturing accountability among teams. It’s easier said than done. Employees may be resistant to change and unlearning takes time. However, you stand to lose a lot if you don’t start. Here are some tips for you.
1. Be the Best Example
Become accountable too. Company culture trickles down to lower cadre employees from the top. Get a coach if needed to help you do what you’re asking your juniors to do.
Other than that, watch what you say. They may get the idea that you’re the complaining but not the solving type. Why should they solve their problems if you don’t?
You can get a coach for your employees as well to teach them the value of accountability and how they can practice it. Attend the sessions as well.
2. Make Peer-to-Peer Problem Solving a Policy
You can’t nurture a culture of universal accountability by being too available to solve problems. Let the employees understand that problems must be solved ASAP, and that they can’t bring it to you unless they absolutely can’t find a solution. Should the problem have to come to you, encourage or require the employees involved to bring it in together.
3. Avoid the Temptation to Respond to Premature Escalations
Escalation is okay when there’s a deserving issue – such as harassment or engaging in unethical activities. Premature escalation, however, calls management to an issue that can be solved between the aggrieved parties –resulting in wasted time and dragging more people into the mess. (My name is Wes …)
When someone tries the premature escalation, you can help them solve the issue with the source without getting involved. Find out whether they’ve talked to the person about it and how they responded. Encourage them to talk about it over coffee or something else to reach a consensus. Encourage them to perhaps involve another peer from the project as an objective listener and/or mediator.
Behaviors to Avoid
Made up your mind to embrace universal accountability? Great! It’s good to know what the GOOD behaviours are. But, you also need to shed some behaviors if this is going to work out. There are likely loads more but here are two I find most important.
Panic
Stressful times are bound to come. But there’s a difference between reacting and responding. There’s a difference between hearing and listening too. Panic is a reaction. It exacerbates the situation and throws people off balance.
Listening involves empathizing with the grieved party. Empathy will help employees deal with the situation or solve it altogether.
Narrowly Defining Your Team
The relationship between team members has to transcend the ‘shared boss’ parameters. High-performing teams have nothing to do with cadre and levels. Cross-functional teams are 15% more likely to succeed in innovation. Their chances of success are 76% higher if top management supports them.
Peers should solve problems between them together regardless of their position in the workplace hierarchy.
In many ways, the value of peer-to-peer accountability is destroyed when two bosses from two different departments have to step in to solve a problem between two employees.
The Benefits
Here are the tell-tale signs that your teams are getting grounded in the universal accountability culture.
Problem Solving Without Involving Management
If a problem arises and the employees are able to solve it without involving the boss, it’s a great indicator that the right culture is setting in and hauling in the benefits. There’s more. It will increase cohesion among teams and of course, satisfaction, confidence and morale among employees.
Reduced Time To Solve Problems
A boss who has to oversee 10 teams and report to another boss has little time and admittedly, mental bandwidth to solve conflict whenever it arises. Even with an award-winning HR department, they would be dismal performance if all HR does is solve conflict.
When two peers, or cross functional employees can solve their problems amongst themselves, the issue never has to get to the boss’s desk. It saves time for everybody.
Shorter But More Effective Meetings
If we’re honest, none of us thought it was possible to get burnout from online meetings until they became normal. It’s worse if half of the meeting agenda is about problem solving. The fewer problems there are, the shorter meetings there will be. Fewer problems also shift the focus to more important things.
Problem solving works better when those most directly involved in the solution collaborate and reach an end goal. So the next time you are working with someone and are tempted to “bring it to the boss”, rethink that decision and try one more time to make it work with your peer. You might just be surprised how things resolve with a little extra attention.
And remember, we are not defined by the titles on our business cards. The words printed there do not empower us nor should they stifle our ability to contribute to the team. Regardless of the labels attached to us, each of us brings ideas, questions, experiences, and a unique perspective which allows us to contribute to a conversation beyond the scope of our title.
Do we need the title “Business Partner” to be a partner?
Let me start by giving credit to a peer of mine who reminded me of this blog post long since drafted and patiently waiting for its day to be made public. It began with a conversation around teaming and leadership. What resonated with me was the tactical use of the word partner in titles.
It’s seen all over the corporate world in titles such as IT business partner and HR business partner. Pretty much everyone that isn’t directly aligned to the business unit as a leader is called a business partner. Yet it is perhaps in the name of the function and the expectations that it drives where we find most problems arise. In short, we don’t need partners. We need players.
Sports
My sports analogies tend to be pretty bad since I’m not exactly a super athlete nor do I spend much time following sports. That said, I do recognize that on a sports team there are various roles and responsibilities. Many parts that work together as a cohesive unit.
There are the leaders on the sideline that strategized from afar. There are the leaders on the field that drive play by play execution of those strategies. And there are players that both follow the lead and make ad hoc critical decisions when there is a need to deviate from the strategy.
Each player and every leader is important. They’re all part of an ecosystem and the most effective teams master putting each of those players together in the most efficient and optimized manner such as to drive towards a shared goal.
Avengers
Anyone who knows me knows that I’m a massive Marvel fan and I’ve watched every movie in the franchise multiple times. So forgive me for this one.
The Avengers came together over the years as a result of a series of problems. Each member of The Avengers was highly equipped to solve some of those problems. There were several episodes, or comic books, where there was one superhero and one specific problem to solve but The Avengers came to light when the problem became too big for any one of the superheroes to solve alone.
Once The Avengers came together, it was no longer relevant what their history was as much as it was relevant how they worked together to solve the problem. They all brought something to the table, and for the most part they all recognized Captain America and Tony Stark as leaders of the Avengers. But each of these people brought their unique skills to the table AND contributed to strategic planning for the issue they were trying to solve.
Corporate World
The corporate environment is not at all like either of these two scenarios. Hierarchies in structures have created in so many ways inefficient teaming. Individual behaviors are driven so much by the title on their business card, their level within the organization, or the particular background they bring to their role.
As a result, we have the proliferation of titles such as business partner. Have you ever thought about the significance of that title? In what world must you add the word partner to someone’s title to encourage the right behavior? And are you trying to encourage the business with which the individual is partnering or are you trying to encourage the individual?
If the title was something that did not include the word partner, would you only let the person in the room for a few minutes instead of the entire meeting? Is there an alternative to a partner mentality that is so negative that you use the word partner to excise that mentality? And if I do not include the word partner in my title, do you assume I am not partner-like? Perhaps I’m being a bit dramatic but I think you get the point.
Whether we are partners, players, or leaders there are more effective ways to nurture a successful team beyond the addition of an arbitrary word to a title. Consider the strength, skills, and perspective of individuals. How can we coax out the value of those unique attributes for the benefit of the team?
Tips for moving from being an invited “partner” to a needed player
1. When you have that thought or opinion, say it.
How often have you been in a meeting but left without sharing a thought that came to mind which you felt was brilliant, or at least relevant? Perhaps it was a meeting with peers or superiors in which a topic came up that was outside of your expertise. Maybe it felt safer to stay in your lane and not speak up.
So often, fear of embarrassment or perhaps the fact that the topic was outside of our expertise keeps us from sharing. Even more likely, the culture of the company was such that no one even acknowledged our presence during such a topic. Too often we are known solely for our role as stated on our business cards.
Playing it safe and not sharing our thoughts doesn’t benefit anyone. As the saying goes, no guts no glory, so throw caution to the wind and say what’s on your mind. You’ll never know what can come of your idea unless you send it out into the world.
2. Ask a question in every meeting
In every meeting, regardless of the topic, ask a question. Someone I respect is very good at doing this effectively. To be perfectly honest at first I found it a bit strange, but I can’t argue with the fact that it works.
Initially it reminded me of some of my classmates in business school that simply wanted to be heard. Frankly some of those classmates barely listened to the conversation at all. They certainly didn’t acknowledge what had been said by fellow classmates.
This colleague however makes it clear that they listen to the conversation. They absorb the content and they craft the question in a way that both demonstrates their understanding of the topic and also pushes the conversation forward. This is a skill that I think every leader needs to learn.
You are in the room because you bring a unique point of view. You can make us better. Have you asked the right questions with a fresh perspective?
3) DON’T leave your hat or jacket at the door
I get kind of annoyed when I hear the term “leave your jacket at the door”. It is usually used when people want you to come into the room as part of a team to solve a problem. It’s not that the intention isn’t just but perhaps short sighted.
The fact is, I actually want my leaders to bring their expertise into the room. I want them to come in and represent their particular towers or functions. I just don’t want that expertise or the views of their particular towers to prevent them from thinking about the problem more comprehensively. I don’t want them so focused on their tower that they can’t see the problem from a bigger point of view.
When they enter the room, I want their number one team to be the team in the room and not the team that they represent. I want them to bring that hat or jacket in the room with them, but set it on the back of their chair. Your hat or jacket is NOT you. Your title is not you. You matter because you bring a different perspective individually AND you represent your team.
We are not defined by the titles on our business cards. The words printed there do not empower us nor should they stifle our ability to contribute to the team. Regardless of the labels attached to us, each of us brings ideas, questions, experiences, and a unique perspective which allows us to contribute to a conversation beyond the scope of our title.
Remember, being a better leader and creating a more consciously inclusive environment is good for your people and good for the company.
Giving feedback is critical to development. Especially now.
In recent years much has been said about diversity and inclusion. Studies continue to show that more diverse companies are both more profitable and faster growing. We are finally starting to have open and honest conversations about what can be done to improve racial and gender equity within the corporate environment.
I started thinking about this a lot recently as I overheard a conversation about a particular person’s performance. The comments, though not aggressively so, were negative. It was clear that the manager did not feel this employee was performing at an acceptable level.
I asked the manager if he had told the employee about these issues and if it was clear to the employee what she needed to do to improve to an acceptable level of productivity. Based upon the response that I got, it became quite clear there had not been the level of conversation that was warranted. The manager was not regularly meeting with the employee nor had he ever sat down to explicitly talk through the performance challenges and lay out an agreed upon improvement plan.
My suspicion is that this happens a lot and the end result is that individuals are not coached and instead end up being terminated. (Let me be very clear here: I am not a researcher nor have I done a study. This is a blog of reasonable OPINION.) A further suspicion is that if you are already part of a group that does not feel engaged socially or connected politically within a company your opportunity to thrive will be diminished. If on top of that you have a bad manager your chances of success are next to naught.
Could cultural differences lead to missed opportunities to learn from each other? When you really break it all down the question becomes is diversity and inclusion as much of a talent management and leadership issue as it is about racial bias and historical prejudices? Do we lose people of color in corporate America due to bad management more so than outright bad behaviors? What factors are contributing to these issues?
1. Everyone is walking on eggshells
I’ve heard from some that they are afraid of giving honest feedback to women or people of color because they do not want to appear sexist or racist. The argument is that the world has become so politically correct that providing feedback is a risk. These individuals often feel more comfortable discussing their colleagues in a forum where random and unrelated people can hear.
Instead of the individual getting the constructive feedback that can help them improve, they are simply getting the negative about their performance from coffee room conversations. This can lead to feelings of isolation. Sharing negative feedback with their peers instead of them directly has a negative impact on the reputation of that person.
2. Secondhand feedback is never as valuable.
Another phenomenon I have witnessed is that feedback is deliberately delivered through alternative channels. In this scenario, individuals who do not feel comfortable directly providing feedback to someone will instead have another leader deliver the feedback. They may not explicitly ask for this delivery but in telling a particular person that they know has a relationship with the employee, they know that the feedback will get back to that individual.
In many cases, they’re showing their subconscious bias by sharing directly with white men while avoiding women or people of color. This ensures that the problem will continue because neither party is learning how to deal with the other directly. The individuals being put in the middle serve as a barrier between the manager and employee.
Feedback is never nearly as effective when watered down through a chain. The addition of an intermediary increases the likelihood that the message will not be delivered as intended and adds the perception that the received message is flawed. Furthermore, any reaction by the employee to the feedback through this back channel will be deemed a reaction to the feedback when it may be a reaction to the channel.
3. Bad management has a greater impact on those “not in the room”
All employees need to have the right amount of engagement and interaction with their leaders to be successful in a job. Direct feedback, regular conversations around performance and objectives, as well as verbal and written praise when appropriate are all things that are important to the development of a professional. Not spending time on coaching and development sessions leads to an inability to fully understand the capabilities of your employee.
Most companies spend a lot of time recruiting but much less time onboarding, training, developing, and engaging. For employees that do not have another network within the company this can be much more detrimental. At the same time, employees who have broader networks within the company have vastly larger opportunities for exposure.
I spoke with a woman leader years ago who told me that on average she had 10 minutes per month of direct one on one time with her manager. She never had conversations about her career aspirations. Her manager knew of the skills that she had relative to her current role but had no clue of all of the other things she had done in the past that might be applied to different opportunities. He did not really know her.
This particular woman was never in the same locker room at the gym as her boss. She did not tend to hang out at the same bar over the weekend. She wasn’t often invited to lunch with the guys. So all of those other opportunities her male colleagues had to expose their personalities, their strengths, their experiences were not available to her.
Her manager might have been just as bad of a manager to all of his employees. However the impact on this person was multiplied due to the fact that as a woman of color her social networks within the firm were limited. Therefore, when a new opportunity came up this employee had very little chance of getting that opportunity because she had less likelihood of even knowing about it.
Strategies for Building an Inclusive Environment
The most effective managers ensure that every individual on their team is being included in the conversation. It is through inclusion that we can tap into the benefits of a diverse working environment. Here are a few tips for being a better manager and building a more inclusive environment.
1. Build and manage around the full employee lifecycle. From hire to retire, everyone is on a tour of duty and should have clear expectations, regular connections and engagement, and a respectful exit when that time comes
2. Provide feedback as much as possible directly to the individual. If uncomfortable doing so face to face, practice. And potentially use other mechanisms like written feedback.
3. Try not to share feedback on one of your employees with a peer or superior before you have shared it with the employee. That’s not fair to the employee and does not show strength. In the end, you are making both you and your employee look bad
4. Look around the room more. At lunch, in meetings, and around the coffee maker. See if there are individuals from your team that are never there. Find them, engage with them, and loop them in.
5. Expand your network and your skills base. If you are uncomfortable handling issues with a particular race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, that is not their fault. It is YOUR issue to solve. Read up, talk to people, ask HR for help.
Building an inclusive and respectful environment is up to everyone, not just the “diverse”. As leaders we need to treat everyone fairly and ethically not only to develop the potential of each employee, but also to serve as an example to everyone with whom we come in contact.
Ultimately, being a better leader and creating a more consciously inclusive environment is good for your people and good for the company.
Over the years I have often said that what you see is what you get when it comes to me. My authenticity is perhaps my most consistently recognized trait. Some will love me and some may be confused by me, but pretty much everyone that has worked for, or with me would say the same thing about me. I would hope that part of the good would be imprinted on companies where I have worked and within organizations I have led.
Organizational culture has a profound and long lasting effect on performance. The culture of an organization will develop whether it is guided intentionally or not and once it has formed it becomes very difficult to change. And boy have we found how critical this is! In a year where so many office workers were forced to work from home, away from their teams, the strength of company culture has been tested more than ever.
What is driving the culture of your company? Did it extend to a largely remote work environment?
Studies on culture point to a powerful phenomenon where, over time, organizations take on the characteristics of their leaders. This concept of the often unconscious influence of the leadership team is known as the ‘shadow of the leader’ though given the sometimes negative view of the word “shadow”, I prefer the concept of “imprint”. The behavior of the senior team has a direct impact on the performance and productivity of the entire organization.
In his article The Organizational Shadow Impact, leadership and change consultant Torben Rick discusses the occurrence of the ‘shadow of the leader’ and how it can be used to influence organizational culture in both a positive and negative way. Rick writes “The head of an organization or a team casts a shadow that influences the employees in that group. The shadow may be weak or powerful, yet it always exists. It is a reflection of everything the leader does and says.”
Walk the Talk
Employees take their cues on what is important from the leadership team. The leaders within an organization must model the desired behaviors and let others see the company’s desired values in action. High performance leadership teams understand that their behavior casts a shadow across the entire organization which affects its culture. In order to be effective leaders they must be aware of the shadows they cast and learn to have their actions match their message.
“The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate.” writes Rick.
How would you say that your imprint is shaping the culture of your organization?
When a company makes statements about desired values and behaviors without modeling them within the leadership team, employees see a lack of integrity. Not only is it unlikely that employees will adopt the desired values and behaviors, the message being received is likely to affect the organization’s culture in a negative way. In order to build a winning culture the top teams must be seen as living the values and walking the talk.
Making a Good Imprint
The most important cultural influences come from the top starting with the CEO and their team. The highest level of leadership will influence their teams, who will make their own imprints and influence their reports in turn. The core values of an organization must come from the top.
While each level of leadership must be responsible for the imprint they themselves make, how effective their influence is will be either limited or empowered by the prints being cast by higher levels of leadership. A high performing leadership team will imprint resilience and positive culture throughout the entire organization.
What intentional or accidental imprints are affecting your organization? Are they weak or are they strong? Here are five things to watch to gauge effectiveness and look for opportunities to improve.
1. Teaming
An organization is a collection of individuals who are organized into teams. These teams must work in harmony with other teams as a cohesive unit which is cooperative, responsive, and functional. High performing organizations understand the value of teamwork and building a successful team requires work.
Organizational leaders need to model the traits of good teamwork. Instead of seeing themselves as the one in charge, they need to include themselves as part of their team to demonstrate the importance of working as a group. There is further opportunity to model positive qualities when interacting with leaders of other teams and when working on cross functional teams.
2. Sharing
Sharing on an organizational scale most often refers to the sharing of information. In an environment where knowledge can be viewed as power there can be a tendency to hoard information, especially when the culture supports it. In order to be responsive, inventive, and functioning at their best an organization needs a free flow of information.
It is important that leaders prioritize the dissemination of information to their reports to demonstrate the importance of information sharing. As decision makers release information to the leadership team, it must be delivered to all team members in a timely manner. Failure to share information may force people to rely on the grapevine which can not only be inaccurate, but gives the impression that there is a need for secrecy.
This watch area is incredibly important in the new heavily remote work environment.
3. Caring
Every company wants employees that care about coworkers, clients, and organizational success instead of having employees that are only showing up for a paycheck. So how can an organization make employees care? Caring is a two way street. If an organization expects employees to care about organizational goals and values it must show employees that they are cared about.
If the leadership team is making employees feel that they are nothing more than a means to an end, employees will have little motivation to care about the organization they work for. It is important for team leaders to consistently demonstrate that people come first. Caring employees feel that the organization cares about their wellbeing and recognizes that they are human beings with real lives outside of their places of work.
4. Honesty
Honesty is perhaps one of the most important values that any company needs to embody. If an organization doesn’t conduct itself with honesty and integrity it can’t expect its employees to be honest either. A company must live the value and be transparent and honest with all company stakeholders.
If the organization and the leadership team consistently demonstrate honesty, then the only thing employees need in order to adopt the value themselves is a little trust. Team leaders need to show employees that they are trusted to do the right thing. Honesty can’t grow when employees are micromanaged in an environment of suspicion.
5. The Little Things
Organizational leaders can make a major imprint on the organization by living the core values of the company and making sure their interactions with employees and other stakeholders consistently demonstrate those values. Some ways that team leaders can do this are structured and obvious. Other ways are more subtle and yet just as effective.
My out of office reply says “If this is urgent, important, and can only be addressed by me, you should still contact one of my direct reports. Otherwise please follow up with me when I am back from my holiday.” The reality is that of course I am available to take critical calls. However, it is really important that I demonstrate my respect for time away from work. It also signals that I trust my team and truly want to highlight and promote potential successors.
Company culture is an integral part of organizational success, yet there are no easy answers when it comes to shaping it. Leaders must see themselves as role models and understand that what they do, and how they do it, affects either with intention or by accident their imprint on the organization. The leadership team needs to have a solid understanding of the core values that the company wishes to embody and then live those values by demonstrating them every day in everything they do.
How strong is your imprint?
Be well. Lead on.
Adam
Covid is still an issue. Please stay safe and wear a mask.
Adam L. Stanley
Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
