Grown-Up Leadership blog

There is a Zen Buddhist philosophy that believes each of us can be understood as a rice bowl, filled with individual “grains” of thoughts, feelings, beliefs, personality, experiences, etc.  When people violate the “rules of rice bowls” it explains why conflict occurs.  There are 2 common ways people typically violate rice bowl rules.  1) They throw rice.  That is, they tell others what the “truth is”, what the solution should be, or what makes their point of view “right”. 2) They also take rice from someone without asking permission.  That is, they take over when they should delegate or work  together, or even take credit for another’s idea.  I don’t know about you but leaders witness (or commit) the conversational equivalent of food fights way too often, interfering with creativity, productivity, and effective problem-solving—and damaging working relationships.

So, what to do when the food fight begins?  Two things:
1)      Model, teach, and encourage dialog, and
2)      Keep conversations going when the dialog leads to differences of opinion or conflict.

In dialog, people spend more time exploring the views of others, rather than defending their own.  They ask questions about other’s points of view and how that point of view was formed.  When they do share their view, they do just that, SHARE it.  Picture the difference between someone offering the share a taste of their rice vs. throwing a spoonful in your face?  Under which circumstance are you more likely to accept it?

Continuing the conversation means people respectfully discuss differences, agree to a resolution and take action.  Off-line complaints don’t occur, and follow through does.  And, when misunderstandings led to the conflict in the first place, continuing the conversation can clear that up too!   Picture the difference between stalking off during a meal—or staying silent the rest of the meal, because you didn’t like what someone said.  Under which circumstance would the conflict likely be really resolved?

Yes, it’s much easier said than done but this analogy has helped many of my coaching clients begin to recognize when conversations go awry and put them back on track.

- Barb Krantz Taylor

As my kids headed back to school last week, one of the biggest things on their mind was not whether or not they’d like their classes or their teachers, not what had happened with their friends over the summer, not what kind of wierd food they’d find in the cafeteria but WHAT TO WEAR!  Even my 5 year old son who started kindergarten last Thursday had a meltdown when he saw what I’d picked out for him…  Clearly, it starts early.

As grown ups, we too are often concerned with what to wear.  Our choices in clothing are a reflection of our profession, our taste, and our self-concept.  The wrong choice can make a particular occassion disastrous - at least in our own minds.  I wonder what would happen if we placed as much emphasis on the attitude, mind-set, and values we choose to “wear” each day?  As I was looking for sources of inspiration for this blog, I found one in an unlikely place - the sermon at church yesterday.  The topic was “What Not to Wear” and focused on this very thing.  I’m taking the liberty to extend the message to the workplace. 

Here are a few of the things that best dressed leaders will be wearing this fall:

• Intention and focus
• Self-confidence tempered with humility
• A strong moral compass
• Positive regard for others
• Engaging presence
• A strategic mindset coupled filtered by a pragmatic point of view
• Receptivity to change and willingness to take risks
• Tolerance for ambiguity
• Willingness to engage in constructive conflict

 And some of the things “destined for the dumpster” include:

• Inability to say “no”
• Lack of direction
• A pervasive need for others’ approval 
• Inability to make decisions
• Aversion to conflict 
• Cynicism
• Egocentrism
• Perfectionism
• Abuse of power

Think about your own wardrobe - what do you need to add to it?  Get rid of?  Take out of storage and spruce up? 

It was the first day of school for my girls yesterday . . . new teachers, new classroom, new lockers, new routine.  I was struck by how differently the girls approached their first day. My youngest (1^st grade) was filled with excitement to see old friends, make new friends and to learn math (in that order). On the other hand, my oldest (3^rd grade) was filled with fear and worry.  She decided she doesn’t like school anymore and informed us that she will no longer be going to school.

Their responses reminded me of the differences in how we view change in our workplaces. Just the thought of change initiates a variety of emotions. Some are filled with excitement welcoming the transition with open arms.  While for many, the first reaction is to brace for the worst.

This is intensified for leaders who are often tasked with challenging the status quo, which means we are likely the ones creating change.  We are asking others to do something new, unfamiliar and possibly uncomfortable. Yet, the process of accepting change is different for each employee . . . not good, not bad, just different. 

My approach in preparing my girls for their first day of school needed to be different.  In the same way, effective leaders must utilize a variety of interacting skills to fit the individual and the situation.  This versatility in leadership style is a critical component to helping employees accept and embrace change.  

Although they reacted differently, both girls had a fabulous first day at school. I have come to learn that change may be uncomfortable but it doesn’t have to be painful.  As leaders we play a vital role in facilitating transitions for our employees that can lead to successful and sustainable changes in our organization.

We all experience change at work or at home.  How do you typically respond to changes in your life? What is your experience with leading others through change?

What are the traits an effective Human Resources (HR) leader?

I have been pondering this question for some time and would like your help. When I ask people about the effectiveness of their HR leaders, the responses are filled with strong emotions. What is interesting is that the feelings are so polarized. Some view the HR leaders as a life-saver who they consult often. Unfortunately, more view them as a thorn in the side who are best avoid.

My personal HR philosophy was shaped by one of my initial leadership roles. On my first day as a new HR Director, I was told by a top executive that he detested HR and would do everything in his power to get around dealing with the department. Not knowing any better, I took this on as a challenge! I did everything my power to show him how HR could help him achieve his business objectives. It took six months but this executive finally saw the value HR could provide and he became one of our department’s strongest supporters.

This experience taught me the importance of aligning the goals of the HR department with the business functions. As my career progressed, I was often told that I didn’t fit the typical HR profile (and I took this as a compliment!) I was surprised to learn that being a business partner was viewed as unique. When I moved from HR into a field executive role, I depended on the HR team to help me meet the challenges of growing the business. I couldn’t imagine it any other way.

I now partner with HR executives to help them build and develop strong leadership teams. The most respected and effective HR leaders I know have positioned themselves as strategic business partners. They understand the business, they drive initiatives to achieve the key objectives, they are passionate about the organization’s success and they are able to sell their vision to their peers on the executive team. They are a delight and an inspiration to work with. Are they the exception?

Is being an effective HR Leader a reality or a myth? Please share your thoughts! I would love to hear from both those who work in HR and those who are internal customers of HR.

One of my goals is to eliminate victim thinking.

Victim thinking sounds something like this….“Why did they make us change? ” “When will they hire more people?” “Who will fix this problem? ” “Who is blame for this mix up?” It fascinates me how quickly we can slip into this victim thinking. We all do it and sometimes without even realizing. At a restaurant recently, I caught myself thinking, “When will my server bring my bill?”

An antidote for victim thinking is personal accountability. This means taking on the responsibility for creating ways to make things better. We cannot control all the events in our lives but we can chose to be accountable for our response to situations. So at the restaurant rather than letting my frustration build, I chose to find another waiter to pay my bill.

The funny thing about personal accountability is it really is personal. As a leader, I cannot control the behavior of my employees. If I want to eliminate the victim thinking around me, it starts with me. A tool that I have used is a book called QBQ The Question Behind the Question by John Miller. What I have learned is personal accountability takes practice and is well worth it.

As I said, one of my goals is to eliminate victim thinking so I am choosing personal accountability. How about you? Please share stories where personal accountability shows up in your life!

I had an experience recently that crystallized one of my core beliefs. A customer of mine (a marketing firm) hired multiple coaches to work with members of the executive team. The CEO of the firm brought the coaches together for a meeting to discuss results of the coaching. In the meeting, I had a “blinding flash of the obvious”. I observed that there are three “categories” of coaches and that I have a bias that only one of the three best serves executives.

The first category is coaches with psychological training but no business background. The second category is coaches who are experienced in business but have no training in psychology (the “I’ve been there and can tell you how to do it” types). The third category includes coaches with both training in psychology and business experience (what I call “versatile coaches”).

I acknowledge that I am a committed “versatile coach”. I hold a Master’s degree in Human Development (with a Psychology emphasis) and also have a background in Economics and Mathematics and am a business owner so I am extremely motivated to build my knowledge in both business and psychology. One of the things that make Bailey Consulting Group coaches unique is that we are all versatile coaches in our own way.

The limitations of having either business or psychology training but not both seemed very obvious in the meeting. The psychologists tended to focus on personal development issues (e.g. life balance) and were uncomfortable with the idea that the organization was evaluating coaching effectiveness based on business objectives. They also had a difficult time translating their knowledge and experience into language that was clear and understandable for business leaders.

The “I’ve been there” types with no training in psychology tended to want to tell people how to do things but lacked skill at key interpersonal skills such as listening, empathy, patience and adaptability. These coaches act more like mentors (sharing their experience and expertise) than coaches, and lack the knowledge of how to facilitate lasting behavior change in their clients.

Coaches who are trained in psychology and counseling skills as well as business knowledge and skills (”versatile coaches”) are best prepared to help businesses accomplish the outcomes they are striving for by hiring coaches. As a result of their psychology background, versatile coaches are successful in helping executives change deeply entrenched habits that limit the executive’s effectiveness. Also, because of their business training and experience, versatile coaches are able to make their coaching practical and immediately applicable to challenges faced by their executive clients.

My experience is backed up by research. The top 3 criteria executives use for picking coaches is: a) graduate training in psychology (82%), b) experience in business (78%) and c) reputation (25%).

So what do you think about my premise that great coaches need to be passionate about both psychology and business? What is your growing edge?

Welcome to the Grown-Up Leadership Blog. All of us at The Bailey Consulting Group are excited to have this new forum to share our thoughts and insights about leadership, talent management, employee engagement and other workplace issues. We invite you to keep coming back, and always welcome your feedback.

On our part, we pledge to update this space regularly with perspectives on current events, recommended readings, real world issues that come up in our work, and information you can use in your own workplace.

I’ll start with a few thoughts on a highly visible legislative issue here in Minnesota—just last week, our legislature voted to override our governor’s veto of the Transportation bill, which included a gas tax to raise funds for road and bridge construction. (Those of you who are non-Minnesotans no doubt remember last summer’s bridge collapse, which provided much of the urgency for this bill.) By way of background, the override required six Republican legislators to cross the aisle in support for the bill that our Republican Governor Pawlenty opposed.

The aftermath of this veto override has become messy, and runs counter to leadership trends in business. According to the Star Tribune the six “Republicans who voted for the override February 25 were scolded and stripped of leadership jobs in the House of Representatives by their caucus, and are now facing varying degrees of resistance in efforts to get party endorsement for reelection.”

When we address effective leadership development in business, we help our clients create environments that encourage leaders to be themselves, take risks, challenge authority, and articulate their values in order to be creative and solve problems. While everyone must recognize and respect a decision-making process, the command/control approach in the political world is, in this sense, dramatically out of step with the business community.

I read that one dissenting Republican legislator, in clarifying his vote, said “I’m not down here to represent a party. I’m here to represent my people.” Of course he is. Any system that punishes—a strong yet accurate word in this instance—people for sticking to their principles is going to discourage the kind of leadership that makes organizations successful.

- LHB