Are you listening or waiting to voice your own opinions? A recent exchange with someone I respect for many reasons, but struggle to understand for many others, reminded me of how important this topic is today. If we expect to communicate effectively we need to listen for comprehension before we can reply constructively.
There’s so much anger, hatred, and misunderstanding in our world. The problem has been exacerbated by social media and related tools that make it very easy to communicate sound bites but difficult to communicate emotions. With technology getting in the way it’s easy to forget that behind the words are individuals with valid thoughts and feelings.
So the question I have is what can we do about it? I started looking at different communication streams such as WhatsApp and Twitter among others. I noticed that instead of using long form posts there are more people using the ability to string along multiple short messages to more comprehensively express an opinion.
This method of communicating in short bits is susceptible to a specific type of issue. Most of the responses seemed to be immediate responses to individual parts of the thread. As a result, instead of responding to the overall comprehensive thought, individuals are responding to one point which by itself might not adequately capture the idea.
Poor Listening is Bad for Business
The fact is, this is not a new phenomenon. It exists in many corporate offices today. It goes like this …
Me: I was thinking perhaps we should rethink the way our team works ….
Them (interrupting): I totally agree. We tend to only talk to those we think hold power.
Me: Actually, I was more specifically focused on the tools and processes we use for collaboration …..
Them (interrupting again): Yes, totally on point. Because the most important person in the room always takes up too much time during meetings.
Me: That might be true, but I really want to focus on the way we get work done, which as you know is 90% of our time whereas the meetings you are referencing are only 10% ….
Perhaps you have experienced this?
The challenge is that by the time you have finished your first sentence, everyone in the conversation has immediately jumped to a conclusion and their biases have surfaced. Once their opinions have come to the forefront of their mind, it becomes very difficult to shove them back. Therefore you find that regardless of what you say they will get their point out even if it actually has nothing to do with what you intended to cover.
Five Tips to Better Listening and Improved Communication
1. Prepare for the Meeting
Pre-read any materials sent out before a meeting noting important points and referencing things you didn’t know before. This will enable you to more constructively provide feedback both positive and negative. Having an overview of the key points will reduce the risk of you first seeing something that may cause a visceral reaction during the meeting.
Even if you read something with which you vehemently disagree, the additional time to consider and react will reduce the likelihood of a blow up during the meeting. It also gives you the chance to reach out and discuss the point in a one on one manner with the individual if necessary. As an added benefit this allows you time to do your own research and provide supporting information for your point of view.
2. Practice Active Listening
Active Listening is a requirement for both verbal and written communication. Effective listening requires an open mind, paying attention, appropriate feedback, and empathy. Without these skills disagreements and miscommunication are bound to ensue.
A family member of mine has what I call “rapid response syndrome”. He sees the first line of a message, assumes what the rest of the message will be, and begins to reply immediately. The disagreement starts before the first thought is even completed.
When looking at a text message whether it is on teams, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, or I message you should be able to see when an individual is still typing. I use this as a great indicator as to whether they have finished their thought and are ready for my response. Once they are finished typing, I read the entire stream, wait a few moments, consider both the words they wrote, the intention and context, then consider how I want to reply.
3. Breathe
Practice breathing. It can be very very uncomfortable, but consider the concept of buffering. Local television stations doing live shows actually broadcast with just enough latency that they can bleep out the errant profanity or crude gesture. It’s not minutes but seconds.
In a conversation, seconds can make a huge difference. Try to let your colleague finish his or her sentence fully, pause and breathe for 3-5 seconds. As you’re reading, it sounds like nothing, right? Try it. To many it will feel like FOREVER. Over time, it will be much more natural. If helpful, simply say “Well” or “Thanks” to cover some of that “long” gap.
4. Don’t Interrupt
Think about how you feel when you are interrupted at work or at home. It doesn’t feel good does it? When we interrupt someone it changes the dynamics of the conversation. They may feel that they are not being respected and that their point isn’t being heard resulting in anger, rudeness, or resentment.
A second but at least equally important problem with interrupting is that we don’t actually get to hear what the other person was going to say. Instead of listening we made an assumption and imposed our ideas over theirs. Additionally we likely derailed their train of thought in which case we may never get to hear where they wanted the conversation to go.
5. Be Empathetic
Always consider context and never forget the person with whom you are speaking is a person. They have feelings and a right to be heard. Try to visualize what you are hearing, put yourself in their position, and listen with empathy.
Effective communication is just as much about listening as it is about sharing our own thoughts and ideas. Consider your own communication prowess. Are you listening or thinking about what you want to say next?
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.
Follow me on Twitter | Connect with me on Linked In | Comment below.
The Big-D hit list: Disrupting the word disruption
Purging overused buzzwords is a big step we can take to open our minds to the realities and challenges of succeeding in business today.
The problem with business jargon, which most of us use ad nauseam, is that it’s not merely annoying, it carries the real potential to block progress. Those nifty little words and phrases may make us sound ingenious within our respective tribes (and own minds), but they can also narrow our thinking to the point where we start cramming our strategies and plans into the same universally-defined small boxes. So, just when we believe we’re thinking “outside of the box,” we’re not!
OK, in the name of creative thinking and staying focused on what matters, like our clients and growing our businesses, the time has come to retire some long-hacked-to-death words. In my first blog, I summarily purged the word “digital.” This time, it’s my pleasure to join a growing mob that can’t wait to see “disruption” in the rear-view mirror. Please, by all means, agree, disagree and/or share your own hit-list words.
“Disruptive innovation,” a term coined by Harvard Business School’s Clayton Christensen in 1997, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.
Don’t we love talking about disruption! Very rarely does a day go by when the word doesn’t pop up, and it’s applied to everything, from cool new apps to getting a new dog. There are copious books on the subject that everyone, including me, reference a lot. Christensen and his theories on how disruptive innovation are upending large incumbent companies is a favorite.
Here’s the rub: Disruption makes sense when you’re talking about revolutionary change that takes place over months and years. Christensen defined the difference between sustaining innovation and disruptive innovation. The sustaining side is what established market leaders do by listening to their customers and creating products that satisfy their “predicted” needs in new and exciting ways.
Disruptive innovators create markets that initially appear too small to attract the interest of established firms, which are more focused on delivering steady returns and growth to their shareholders. It isn’t easy for larger firms to justify the risk and investment needed to launch a new concept, which ironically gives smaller firms and start-ups a head start at cornering a market.
Major disruption occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s when new players suddenly burst on the scene with products and services that revolutionized traditional industries. BlackBerry disrupted the mobile telephony market, iPhone disrupted Blackberry and Kodak in digital photography, and so on. The big companies didn’t see it coming.
You could say that Moore’s Law, introduced way back in 1965, gave us the first idea on what disruption would look like. Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel, nailed the speed of change we were about to experience when he observed that it would take a year (later revised to 18 months) for costs to be cut in half and productivity to double, and that this rate of growth would continue for decades. Welcome to the early days of the information age! Today, such changes can double in months instead of years. And, as I discussed in a prior blog, just wait until quantum computing hits the scene. It will be like comparing texting to snail mail. Point being, we’ve been in this “disruptive” bubble since the ‘60s!
So, let’s get over “disruption.” Let’s see it as a constant and rise to the challenge of operating in a world where change will only escalate. It’s business-as-usual in the high-tech fast lane and we need a firm grip. Our jobs as business leaders is to know our customers across the spectrum better than ever before; scan emerging markets; watch for new competition; react, not over-react; proactively search for new opportunities; and invest wisely in systems and strategies that are agile enough to withstand the change bombardment. For that, it always comes down to having the best and brightest people on your team.
Disruption is the second word on by Big D Hit List, following Digital. For my next blog, I’ll dig into another longer word that’s been choking conversation particularly in the business world for too long: Disintermediation.
Be well. Lead on.
Adam
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
Nothing good comes from being in the middle of the road. It’s funny we often take for granted little things that have overarching meanings in our everyday life. Take driving. Learning the rules of the road and using them keeps us and others safe while sending a clear message about the direction we’re traveling. What happens when we forget these rules? Ever seen the person flying onto an on ramp and merging into traffic without signaling? Or the person who wants to straddle the line on a thin dual-direction road? On the road and in life one thing is clear: you cannot both be coming and going at the same time. We can do either but the rules of the road force us to make a choice.
And in our career, what happens when we refuse to choose? Many believe we can straddle the professional line without anyone noticing. With one foot in our current role and the other waiting for the next best thing, we remain unaware that our ambivalence reeks.
It is important that we pick a side.
PICK A STRUGGLE
Adam wrote a blog a while back that was titled Don’t Miss your Bernie moment. The message was in general for leaders of organizations that have gone through major periods of change. The Bernie message was one of transition. It was saying to his supporters that the time has come to move on, united against a common evil, and rally together on a new shared mission. That blog was for leaders at the top of newly merged or fundamentally changed organizations. And it should absolutely resonate for many of you out there.
But there is another message and this is for everyone in the organization under such leaders. And the message is basically that once a leader has articulated the new shared vision for the organization you have a decision to make. Either align with that leader and support the mission, helping to drive the continued success of the organization. Or decide that this mission is simply not yours and move on. You need to pick a struggle. You need to pick a side. Just like being in the middle of the road while driving is not a viable option, being in the middle of the road as a member of a team is unacceptable.
Let’s be clear here. We are not at all saying that adherence to the mission of an organization requires a level of abject acceptance of any decisions that are made and any directions that are delivered. The value you bring to an organization is of course diversity of opinions and the ability to provide input into decisions driving the future of your organization. Never change that. However, there is a base level of acceptance that is required of any player on a major team.
Adam is a very big fan of Arsenal Football Club and anyone who knows the English Premier League teams knows that to some extent each team is fundamentally different than other teams. Their leaders are different and their style of play are also different. If someone joins Arsenal, the expectation is they will bring new talent, new ideas, and new strength to the club. However, they will still play under the style and direction that has been developed over dozens of years. They cannot come in and try to be a rock superstar constantly fighting against the leadership or their fellow team members. It simply does not work.
So, you’re at a Crossroads. You joined the company and you worked for a particular leader for years. You respected that leader and admired his or her vision for the future of the company. You now have been placed under a new leader and you dislike your new mission.
It is time to decide.
Our advice for you:
1) Consider what makes you happy at work. Be very honest and open with yourself. Be sure that you are not letting personal friendships or biases get in the way of sound judgment. I have worked for people who are fantastic people that I truly respected and I liked. But they were not always aligned with me strategically or going in the direction that I actually thought was best for our company.
2) Ask lots of questions and truly get to know the new leader. If you suspect there is a fundamental misalignment with your view of strategic direction for the company, do your research. List out your perceived differences and ask questions that get to a point where you can confirm one way or the other. You may actually be surprised both at your misunderstanding of the misalignment or in your leader’s interest and ability to change based on strong feedback
3) Check the grass on the other side. Research other players in your industry and see if they are going in a fundamentally different direction. It could be that your ideas are not aligned with the way the world is shifting. You could be the one on the wrong side of the road. And hey, we’ve all been wrong sometimes. This exploration of the other side will also help you and your decision to stay or leave for another company. If, after all, other companies in your industry will be going in the same direction, you might be left all alone.
4) Change your way of thinking. Adam wrote a blog on Allies on a Tour of Duty, about investing in talent for the long-term. The concept there was around each role being a different opportunity for you to build on particular skills and learn new ones. Never considering that any would be permanent. Change your way of thinking so that this new strategic direction under this new leader is another Tour of Duty. It’s an opportunity for you to prove that your intellect and your skills are transferable and can be applied under different fields of battle.
5) Determine your time horizon. There is a particular amount of time that you will wait it out and try to make it work before one of two things happens. Either you will become so despondent and disengaged that you will be miserable at work and miserable to work with. Or, your performance will suffer and your contributions will decline and instead of leaving on a high you will leave with an impression a failure. When not happy at work, your performance will suffer and your reputation can as well.
6) Just Leave. If you’ve come to the conclusion that it’s simply not going to work or you don’t want it to then you should do yourself and the organization a favor and respectfully exit. Fortunately, we are not tied to any one company and where we decide to work is a choice. Choose to be solid teammate and manager, productive and most of all happy…elsewhere.
Choose Your Side
Staying in the middle of the road is not good for any players involved. Your leadership will be disappointed in your performance and your attitude. Your peers will notice your lack of Engagement. And those that do not know you well will brand that as part of your personality and your skill set. And you will be unhappy and feel increasingly disengaged and alone. That is a position that no one wants to be in at work. Therefore, we encourage you to pick a struggle. Pick a side.
Let us know what you think. Have you been in a situation where your colleague was clearly straddling the middle line? Have you managed someone like that?
Be well. Lead On. Adam
This blog was coauthored with Apriel Biggs-Coker. These are our views and not necessarily those of the company.
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
Many of my American readers will have seen the commercial with an older woman who has fallen in the bathroom and needs help. “I’ve fallen, and I can’t get up,” she calls out. Luckily, she has Life Alert, a device that allows customers to, in the event of an emergency, simply press a button on a small pendant and call for help. The commercial’s premise is that because this woman had thought about her weaknesses BEFORE she had the fall, she was able to be rescued and live to tell her story.
When do most businesses try to change, or shift something up? (A new revenue stream, new reporting structures, reduction in headcount, etc.) Usually — not always, but definitely the majority of the time — change management efforts come when the company is doing poorly. When things have fallen and they can’t get up! This is logical. Usually change is a reaction to less-than-expected performance, or the belief that the company needs to be shaken up to get back on track.
I came across this thought from Trevor Edwards, the President of NIKE Brand, recently. It speaks to the same idea:
“Most change is driven by poor performance, but rather than waiting for a crisis — consider disrupting the status quo when the numbers are strong. Trying to revamp your business in a crisis can lead to bad decisions. Your thought process will be clearer when things are going well.”
I couldn’t agree more. I also think it applies to both personal and professional life.
Making changes in your personal life
Personally, a lot of people try to make changes when they feel they are at rock bottom. They’ve lost a job, a relationship has ended, a family member or friend dies suddenly, and emotions send them grasping for change. But when you make a change at that point, you’re entirely reacting to the most recent negative event. If you got fired for a specific performance issue, you may over-focus on correcting that performance issue as you look for new jobs. But you may have been great at that aspect of a job; the evaluation may have been subjective, or you may have really been terminated to help the company meet a growth target. Likewise, running away from a job, or any other relationship, because things are bad can lead to a disastrous “boomerang” effect. You may hate the new [fill in the blank] more than the former.
Negativity reduces context. That’s a good reason to consider personal improvements when you’re already feeling good about life. It will give you more perspective.
Applying this to companies
On the professional front, I use the term “tour of duty” a lot. It’s a different way of thinking about the standard employment contract. Basically, you are bringing people in for specific jobs. They do those jobs and they either roll off or they transition onto another team/project. Josh Bersin, a people development thought leader, calls this a “team of teams” approach. You see it commonly in the military and in the consulting industry, and it’s becoming more commonplace elsewhere.
It makes sense because oftentimes, job roles are very unclear. They’re clear at first — the hiring was a response to an immediate need of a hiring manager — but after that need becomes less of a priority, the person hired is still on the books. Sometimes, they can become a 8-to-10-year employee and not have a clear role for much of that time. This limits flexibility of the organization. You can’t do strategic pivots, and you can’t do effective change management, if you have a lot of people locked into intractable, potentially unnecessary roles.
The elephant in the room here is terminations. When we talk about companies changing in the bad times instead of the good times, usually the main way that happens is terminations. These happen for a variety of reasons: companies trying to clear money to prove growth, trying to deal with a performance issue that’s been lingering, or a host of other financial reasons.
Regardless of why the company is embarking on terminations, it’s almost always a bad play. Research has shown layoffs don’t have short or long-term benefits. They’re simply just a reaction to a bad revenue cycle.
If you consider the approach of “change while times are good” and you structure your hiring more as “tour of duty,” I think a lot of these issues can be alleviated. Sadly, the nature of most companies these days isn’t to reward employee longevity. So from an employee side, loyalty has been declining for years as people think they may be better off thinking as independent contractors moving from one project to the next.
Consider the example of Jason Fried, the CEO of Basecamp. They were doing super well in 2014, onboarding 100s of new clients every day. He still decided to radically shift the company and its reporting structures, saying at the time:
“Change is great – as long as it’s not forced change. Forced change is often resented change. When you’re forced to change because things aren’t going well, you’re often rushed and unhappy. When you decide to change when things are going great, you can do it on your own schedule and your own way. That’s what we decided to do – we decided to make this change right now while business has never been better.”
Amen, sir.
Top 3 reasons to change while times are good
Busy executives, especially those who are driving innovation in the digital economy, will continue to struggle with organizational change in the midst of transformation change. BUt the fact is, they are completely interdependent. You cannot lead a major business transformation without a people transformation and vice versa. So, constantly looking at your organization and looking for ways to restructure, rethink, reduce, and redeploy will make you more successful.
In short, there are three major benefits to changing while times are good:
Priority of focus: The changes occur on your time/schedule, as opposed to a rushed process to meet certain accounting goals.
Sensitive to employees: Changing in boom periods allows for thoughtful change that’s ultimately considerate of individual impact.
Smarter: When you change in a good cycle, the decisions will be better and rooted in a clearer thought process.
I know this isn’t always possible, and sometimes in the good periods you just want to ride the train of revenue growth and not think about what can be changed, but I hope the above is a compelling context for why your best quarters are exactly the time to shake things up.
Be well. Lead On. Adam
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
Let me start out this post by saying it’s NOT about politics. In fact, let me repeat that one more time right up top: it’s not about politics. It’s about how a figure in the 2016 political landscape — nope, not Trump — can teach you something about business and culture within organizations.
I was watching a few nights of the Democratic National Convention last week and when I saw Bernie Sanders speaking to the crowd, I sent a one-word text to a good friend of mine: Brilliant.
Why did I think it was brilliant?
Bernie Sanders took his followers through three major stages of any process:
Celebration
Application
Dedication
This is insanely hard to do. In fact, just the other week — after seeing Bernie at the convention — I was having lunch with a colleague and we were talking about merger integration. As I think most people know or realize, most mergers fail. (83% is a conventional number thrown around.) And yet, we see them every week — in this summer alone, we’ve seen Microsoft grab LinkedIn (for a lot) and Verizon grab Yahoo (for not nearly as much). That part makes sense: mergers are one of the fastest paths to growth.
Here’s what is harder: in every merger or acquisition, there’s a company and set of leaders who “won” or will “win” in terms of their ideas, processes, and culture coming through stronger. This happens in politics, obviously: Clinton beat Sanders, and Trump beat Cruz and Rubio and others. It’s the nature of competition that certain people, and ideas, win out over others.
Every company and leader that gets into these positions, though, has a Bernie Moment. It’s where you can choose to move from application to dedication on behalf of another set of leaders, or another company.
You can’t miss the Bernie Moment. When you miss it, your merger/acquisition is headed for that 83% failure rate stat above.
So what’s the method for arriving at the Bernie Moment? I’d say it breaks down into five parts:
Celebrate the previous victories
If you watched Bernie’s speech at the DNC, he spent the first couple of minutes on himself. He talked about all the votes he received. He mentioned that donations averaged $27 (the crowd loved that part). He mentioned all the voters who had never participated before. He defined it as a movement, essentially.
This was a crucial step because you had 5-10 minutes of yelling and hollering in a happy way. The crowd was chanting “Bernie!” almost the entire time. This needed to happen first, because if he had gone right into supporting Hillary, his supporters would have booed the hell out of that. A TV moment like that isn’t good for Hillary, and it isn’t good for what Bernie accomplished in this campaign cycle.
For a leader, then, it needs to begin with celebrating the wins that came before. That gets everyone aligned around the greatness of the cause and the work.
Be honest about change
After the crowd was fired up, Bernie admitted defeat. He lost. It wasn’t useful to sugarcoat it. He came right out and said it:
I understand that many people here in this convention hall and around the country are disappointed about the final results of the nominating process. I think it’s fair to say that no one is more disappointed than I am.
If you’re familiar with the standard stages of grief, it looks something like this:
As a leader or when building out a culture/movement, though, it doesn’t move in this exact way. Bernie almost began on the far right side — affirmation, hope — then moved down to depression. It’s almost the reverse of the standard grief curve, which usually happens when a loved one dies or something else terrible happens.
By now, though, Bernie had fired up the crowd then reset them in reality. Now it was time for the transition point.
Transition
Here’s what he did here:
Let me be as clear as I can be. This election is not about and has never been about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or any of the other candidates who sought the presidency. This election is not about political gossip, it’s not about polls, it’s not about campaign strategy, it is not about all the things that the media spends so much time discussing.
This election is about and must be about the needs of the American people and the kind of future we create for our children and our grandchildren.
In short, this is what he was saying: the mission is the mission, and the mission is important. It’s not about the people. It’s about the purpose.
This has TONS of implications in mergers/acquisitions, because usually what happens in those contexts is that one culture is totally absorbed by the other — so the “losing” culture is chucked out the window, essentially. If you have one culture based on financial metrics only and one culture based on collaboration/sharing, and the latter culture loses, well, those people who liked collaboration feel they now have to adapt or get a new job ASAP.
Leaders often try to skirt this issue by appealing to mission, purpose, and core values. That’s the “transition” moment in mergers. That’s when you move from “We were two companies” to “Now we’re one company, and let’s be honest, stuff will be different around here.” But you can make people focus less on what’s going to be different by appealing to a purpose. That’s what Bernie did and what a good leader can do.
Moving On
In standard grief cycles, this is “acceptance.” Bernie transitioned to supporting Clinton and encouraging others to support her as well. Days earlier, when he even remotely suggested this, he was booed. But here, he had to move on. Now, it’s easier to move on when you can …
Find a common enemy
In an article from The New Yorker about how the gun industry markets itself (and please remember, again, that this post is not meant to be political), there was a reference to the acknowledged technique of generating revenue by emphasizing the boundaries of a community. “We all have the need to belong,” he wrote in a presentation entitled “How to Turn One of Mankind’s Deepest Needs Into Cold, Hard Cash.” In a section called “How Do You Create Belief & Belonging?” he explained, “You can’t have a yin without a yang. Must have an enemy.”
Bernie made Trump, and his implied lack of focus on mission/purpose, the common enemy. In this way, he wasn’t necessarily “siding” with Hillary so much as he was working alongside her against a common foe.
This is really important in business. You wouldn’t do the merger or acquisition unless there was some value-add on both sides, right? So the value-add was there, the financials and legal repercussions were vetted, and it proceeded. Now you’re together. It’s going to be hard but you’re together against a common enemy — your competition, or the idea you’re trying to take down. When Google buys a company, for example, hopefully it’s fitting into the matrix of “organizing the world’s information.” The acquired company has common enemies with Google now — other tech rivals, but also processes that are making it hard for people to acquire and organize information.
That’s the five-step path to your Bernie Moment, then:
Celebrate
Accept fate and be honest
Transition
Move on
Find a common enemy
It worked for Bernie — he’s continuing his movement — and it can work for your business, whether you’re Satya Nadella and Jeff Weiner or two guys merging local ice cream stores. Just think about the process and try not to miss your Bernie moment!
I started to make this blog post one of my #SoapBox rants. It is in fact a topic about which I am passionate. Largely because I have seen really bad behaviors and would love to do my part to get rid of them. I’ve blogged about Trust, Empowerment, and Accountability, but never really dug deep into accountability. While I think many organizations are starting to do a really good job at defining expectations and holding people accountable, it is still too often the manager that is calling the tasks and managing the tough conversations. A few people have really argued that peers can play as active a role in this and they should. And I agree. So this post is about holding each other accountable, across silos and organizational hierarchies.
————————–
There is a dirty little secret in many organizations that teams oftentimes don’t want to collaborate, driven perhaps by the idea that while we do a lot of our work in teams, we still promote individuals. If you follow the two-pizza rule and assume most teams are 8-10 members dispatched to work on a business need, in a given fiscal year probably 1-2 of those people (at most) will get advanced. If you’re in the 7-9 who don’t get advanced and that keeps happening, you might eventually become a bit disgruntled about the idea of constant team-building.
Here’s the other problem with teams besides the motivation aspect: how they’re run. Oftentimes, teams are very driven by process — which is a good thing, as it sets rules and expectations for how the work will get done — but there’s a large concern over who owns the process, i.e. the team lead. This is also good in one respect (accountability), but bad in another — and ironically, it’s also accountability.
I saw this recently in an organization. One of the leaders designed a portfolio dashboard for project management in his group. It was pretty awesome — there was easy-to-access, intuitive information about timelines, budgets, due dates, and roles. Here was the problem: the tool was created by someone not responsible for creating that tool based on the operating model and org structure (it should have been the PMO). Because the team wasn’t getting what they wanted from the PMO, they did an end-run and created a better solution. Of course, this type of action can lead to a decent amount of politics and finger-pointing over responsibility, as opposed to a focus on being the most productive we could be.
Sadly in many cases, the way we structure teams is typically representative of the way we structure whole organizations. Hierarchy defines decision-making authority in the most formal sense. Since hierarchy may never die — despite what we’ve been told about millennials — we should, in a way, get used to this.
Think for a second about how ineffective this can be. You’ve probably seen this cycle a dozen or more times in different jobs you’ve had, but here it goes: an employee escalates an issue to a team manager, who then must go and talk to a peer manager. The peer manager has to go talk to the employee, who presents his/her perspective to the peer manager — who now has to go back to the team manager and explain the perspective. The team manager can now go to the employee. It’s like a massive version of reply all chain threads, but in real life and not in your inbox. It kills time and saps productivity, and yet, that’s typically how we deal with team management and issue escalation.
Escalations and circles of perceived accountability should be the exception and not the rule. I think of my work this way: 95% of real change comes from the direct reports of my direct reports. They do the actual work. I should be focusing on strategy and growth. If I’m spending all my time quashing escalations, we’re all in a free fall.
The basic principle is simple, but very hard to execute: anyone on a team can hold anyone else accountable if it’s in the best interest of the team. And yes, that means you can cross hierarchical lines and call out someone that outranks you.
In the weakest teams, there is absolutely no accountability: You’ve probably seen this a few times wherever you work, or in previous jobs.
In mediocre, middle-of-the-road teams, the boss/team lead is the source of accountability: This team might get a few things done, which is good, but there’s a tendency towards HIPPO Management (highest paid person’s opinion) and other flaws of ideation.
In high-performing teams, peers manage each other: This is hard to arrive at because of how people tend to contextualize bosses and hierarchy, but actually drives the best results.
How can you apply this to your team?
Focus on team composition a lot more
You need to think a little more thoroughly about team composition. Oftentimes teams are thrown together based on a few silos that have ownership of a product or service or project. There can often not be much thought given to who’s involved and what role they’d play. As a result, you have a random smattering of individuals and a team lead. That team could come together and achieve some great business results, but I wouldn’t necessarily throw $20 on that happening in Vegas. It’s more likely that role confusion will lead to overlapping responsibilities, which will lead to team members chasing their tails, and ultimately the team lead will be on the hook for the flaws.
2. Hire the curious as much as (or more than) you hire the smart
Universal accountability will tend to work better on teams with a high degree of self-awareness and curiosity, as those teams are more willing to embrace changes to conventional team management models. Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law, has written and spoken extensively about what makes teams smart or dumb — and while he embraces universal accountability, he admits the bigger driving force of a successful team is ‘C-Factor,’ or the ability to embrace new ideas while working together. Hire people that are comfortable with change and ambiguity as long as they are learning. Hire the curious.
3. Reward problem solving without escalation
Perhaps as importantly, publicly scorn premature or unnecessary escalations. When I was a kid, my parents often told me “everyone hates a tattletale”. Of course, they did not mean to say I should never tell them if something awful happened to me. They simply wanted me to learn to self-heal and self-resolve conflicts as much as possible. Little did I know then they were teaching me a life lesson. The more you can solve problems direct with the source, the more effective you will be. Celebrate the problem solvers.
4. Model the behavior
You likely have issues with your peers as well, and your frustration is very visible to your teams. Show them you hold your peers accountable and they are more likely to model this behavior with their peers.
In an average day, you will only have so many productive hours outside of meetings and required client events, so you need to make the most of them. Every hour spent dealing with someone else’s drama or problems is an hour you could be driving value. Try to build a culture of universal accountability and see how much more you can get done.
Ever been on a team where Universal accountability was the norm? Could it work in YOUR organization? As always, I would love to hear your thoughts.
4) Change your way of thinking. Adam wrote a blog on 
On the professional front, I use the term “tour of duty” a lot. It’s a different way of thinking about the standard employment contract. Basically, you are bringing people in for specific jobs. They do those jobs and they either roll off or they transition onto another team/project. Josh Bersin, a people development thought leader, 
Top 3 reasons to change while times are good
Let me start out this post by saying it’s NOT about politics. In fact, let me repeat that one more time right up top: it’s not about politics. It’s about how a figure in the 2016 political landscape — nope, not Trump — can teach you something about business and culture within organizations.
In a post on the Harvard Business Review blog, “