Leaders Communicate, and skim-listening is not the same thing...

After 20+ years of marriage, you would think my wife and I would be pretty good at communicating.

You would think.

Alas, I was recently reminded that communicating and being present or apparently listening are not all synonymous. Bummer.

My lovely spouse said I was only listening for key words -- sort of like skimming through a book that lacked real page-turning quality.

She said I was skim-listening. And you know, she may be right (our secret, OK?)

We all lead hectic lives; lots of "stuff" going on, lots of moving parts. We convince ourselves that time is at such a critical supply, we simply must multi-task if we are to succeed in life.

The problem, of course, is that it's more important for a leader to listen than it is for him or her to multi-task. Leading is less about personally doing than it is about facilitating the success of others who look to us for guidance. And we cannot do that effectively -- hell, at all -- without listening. And I mean full-on, no-kidding, honest-to-goodness listening.

We don't do that well. We "listen" while we check our crackberry. We "listen" while we mentally formulate our response. We "listen" while we check the caller I.D. on our cell phone. We "listen" while we text someone (familiar, AF? -- inside joke). These aren't merely insulting mannerisms (and no mistake, they are those), they simply provide proof positive that we aren't listening.

Listening, from a leadership perspective, takes serious effort. It's hard work, every bit as hard as decision-making and other leadership tasks. And it's not simply hearing, and -- apparently -- it's not skim-listening, either... Effective listening requires us to:

1. Tune it out. Turn off the email "ding." Put cell phone on "quiet" (note that I didn't say "vibrate;" it's not about not disturbing others -- it's about not disturbing you). Ignore caller-I.D. In short, really, really pay attention.
2. Demonstrate attentiveness. Now that you are attentive, make sure they realize it. Lean forward; make eye contact; nod when appropriate; show empathy... you know, act like you're there.
3. Confirm understanding. Read it back to 'em, Dann-o. Paraphrase their comments; check for understanding; ask pertinent questions. Determine that what you heard is what they said. It's harder than you think...

Now, communications between my wife and I may not be as simple as a three-step process, but leadership communications are that simple -- provided we exert the effort necessary to accomplish this essential behavior. And it is an essential leadership behavior.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Employee Layoffs -- Cause and Effect... and Results

From a recent email press release I received:

WASHINGTON, DC, September 21, 2009 — The cost-cutting actions that employers have been making to deal with the economic crisis have contributed to a sharp decline in the morale and commitment of their workers, especially top performers, according to… Watson Wyatt and …WorldatWork.

Really. This is similar to those “duh” surveys funded by taxpayers like, “Scientists now claim that eating fat makes you gain weight.”

That this recession has left employees (and managers, executives, and board members) less confident about their status with their firm is no shocker. That’s not exactly “whouldathunkit” material.

No, there are two big deals in this press release that bear mention:

1. Your top performers may be more disillusioned than the others. This is important, so pay attention. Even – especially – in times of uncertainty and change, our top performers need to know how we feel about them. They need to know that we recognize them as such, and that we will do all we can – even if mitigated by recessionary economics – to develop them and help them grow.

2. Confidence in managers is lower than pre-recession. Now, part of this is to be expected – managers, after all, are the walking representation of the company, and confidence in those companies is waning. Bigger than that, however, is an artificial groundswell that managers handled cost-cutting poorly this year.

I say “artificial,” because I believe it’s untrue. Executives, managers, and HR professionals have been falsely demonized as being intentional hatchet-people, dealing “ham-handedly” and without care or skill in implementing some of the layoffs that many have faced.

John Hollon from Workforce Magazine believes this to be an accurate assessment. I believe he’s wrong.

I know of no one — including the greatest management minds of our time — who had the perfect contingency plan in place for executing abrupt cost-cutting in a nearly-unprecedented worldwide recession.

Harvard, Stanford, Yale, all bastions of leadership thought and insight, have had to lay off hundreds of staff. The vast majority of layoffs go as well as can be expected; people are, after all, losing their jobs.

To be sure, layoffs are painful, in the best of circumstances and with the highest of care. In my world, though, before hanging the albatross of shame around the neck of managers, I’d want specific (vs. anecdotal) evidence that they have somehow intentionally maligned their departing workforce en masse around the country. I don't believe we have.

I believe managers, HR and otherwise, have struggled during this recession between the pull of keeping the doors open and maintaining some degree of employee engagement; it’s not been a simple effort, and frankly, I doubt there exists any way to lay off as many as have been required this past year and NOT have ill-feelings from departed and remaining employees. The numbers are just too great.

We charted new territory this past year — I believe the substantial majority of managers and organizations did as well as could be expected given the hand dealt.

Undoubtedly, some wish they could have a ‘do-over’ here and there. Hindsight, however, is the purview of academics and the media; it’s always 20-20, but is never at the disposal of managers — HR and other — in the field.

If only academics and media “experts” would share with us the precise way to rapidly reduce costs substantially in a “more-than-skillful” manner, we would all listen intently and then, hopefully, could reduce our apparently cavalier reliance on “ham-handedness.”

But that’s just me…

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

All Senior Leaders Need a Shirt

That's right, a shirt.

And no, I'm not changing careers now to sell clothing...

When I was active duty Air Force, my last position was that of a First Sergeant. In the USAF, unlike the Army, this title is a position, not a specific rank. I was a Senior NCO, acting functionally (among other things) as the Commander's #2 -- his chief liaison to the enlisted force.

Translation: I did whatever needed to be done, whenever it needed to be done, and did so without much fanfare. I took care of business, and a good portion of that business was making sure that the troops -- the ones actually doing all the work that got us promoted -- were operating smoothly.

First Sergeants are typically known as "First Shirts." "Shirt" for short. The name originated nearly a century ago from work details, where someone would ask for "The Shirt;" the only person wearing a shirt in a hot, laborious work detail, obviously, was in charge.

If only people realized how well that definition fit... but I digress.

So, anytime the "Old Man" (aka Commander) wanted something, he would yell out "Shirt!" or send someone to get me, depending on proximity. I "handled" whatever needed "handling," and did so quickly, effectively, and -- equally as important -- quietly.

Multiple commanders have commented to me how their success hinged on the actions of their Shirt. This level of behind-the-scenes, "git-r-done" sort of execution was instrumental in many a commander's -- and organization's -- success.

Hence my title above: Senior leaders need a Shirt. You need someone to take care of things, to fix things (including, yes, your screw-ups from time to time). A go-to sort of person who understands your vision, your direction, your objectives, and is able -- and willing -- to help you in whatever manner possible.

Having a Shirt will quite literally multiply your executive footprint.

Get one today, if you don't already have one around. Buy him (or her), grow him, or steal him, but you need one to really be successful around the top of the food chain.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Leadership is Harder Than it Looks, eh Stanford??

First Harvard laid off a bunch.

Now Stanford, another stalwart in business education, plans to lay off almost 500 employees, and freeze hiring for another 50 faculty.

I'm thinking Physician heal thyself... again.

Now, I'm not ragging on these ivy-league bastions for doing what they feel necessary; no, quite the opposite. I laud them for making these difficult business decisions. I just wish they would remember these when their professors and authors trivialize and belittle corporate leaders for doing these same things.

It ain't easy being in charge. If it were, everyone would do it, and the pay would suck.

Stanford's announcement also included some additional measures, quite familiar to all of us in the real world, though less so to those behind the academic walls, such as halting or reducing construction, freezing salaries, and cutting expenses for travel, computers, and conferences.

I gotta say, that sounds a lot like regular business 101.

So Stanford, Harvard, Wharton... guess you're discovering that it's not quite as easy to do, as to teach.

Welcome to the club, boys.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/