root-cause mind-sets

Mind-sets ingrained by past management practices remain ingrained far beyond the existence of the practices that formed them, even when new management practices have been put in place.

Here are three business examples that underscore the perils of ignoring this lesson. Example one: a bank that identified how its high performers succeeded in cross-selling decided to roll out a change program with support scripts and good profiling questions for the other bankers to use—and was dismayed to find that these moves had a negligible impact on sales. A second example: a telco introduced a dramatically simplified process and rating system for performance reviews only to find that its leaders still avoided delivering tough messages. Finally: a manufacturer invested hundreds of millions in a knowledge-management technology platform meant to discourage hoarding and encourage collaboration—only to declare, several months later, that the system had been a complete failure.

In all these examples, the companies did a good job of recognizing the behavioral change needed to achieve the desired goals. Yet they didn’t take the time, or use the tools available, to understand why smart, hard-working, and well-intentioned employees continued to behave as before.

At the bank, for instance, two seemingly good but ultimately performance-limiting mind-sets accounted for the failure of the new sales-stimulation tools and training. The first was “my job is to give the customers what they want”; the second, “I should follow the Golden Rule and treat my customers as I would like to be treated.” At the telco, employees had a deep-seated, reasonable-sounding belief that “criticism damages relationships.” At the manufacturing company, people had an underlying conviction that “around here, information is power, and good leaders are powerful leaders.”

The upshot? By looking at—and acting on—only observable behavior, company leaders overlooked its underlying root causes. Consequently, the change efforts of all three organizations led to disappointment.

Once the root-cause mind-sets are identified, the next step is to reframe those beliefs and thereby expand the range of reasonable behavioral choices employees make, day in and day out. That creates the caterpillar-to-butterfly effect described earlier. Would different beliefs, for example, have inspired expanded and better-informed behavioral choices for average-performing bankers? If so, which beliefs? Suppose they believed that their job—indeed, the way they add value for others—was to “help customers fully understand their needs” rather than “giving customers what they want.” Also, what if instead of applying the “Golden Rule,” bankers applied the “Platinum Rule”: treating others as they (rather than bankers) want to be treated.

And what if the telco executives, in their performance-management discussions, had believed that “honesty—combined with respect—doesn’t damage relationships; in fact, it is essential to building strong ones”? And what if the manufacturing managers had thought that “sharing information rather than hoarding is the best way to magnify power”? Had they believed that, the company very likely wouldn’t have needed an expensive (and ultimately futile) knowledge-management system to help employees reach out to one another and share best practices.

Beneath each of the reframes described above, it’s important to note, lies a deeper shift in worldview. For example, moving from the giving-customers-what-they-want mind-set to helping them fully understand what they really need reflects a move from subordinate to peer. Recognizing that honesty builds rather than destroys relationships reflects a shift from victimhood to mastery. And choosing to believe that power is expanded by sharing information, not that hoarding information is power, focuses on abundance, not scarcity.

"Getting personal about change," by Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger. McKinsey Quarterly. August 21, 2019. 

ontological humility

Fred Kofman wrote a great chapter called Ontological Humility in his book Conscious Business. Here’s an excerpt:

Ontological humility is the acknowledgement that you do not have a special claim on reality or truth and, that others have equally valid perspectives deserving respect and consideration. This attitude is opposed to ontological arrogance, which is the claim that your truth is the only truth.

Even though it may make sense intellectually that people have different perspectives, most people do not naturally act from this understanding, especially in the midst of disagreement or conflict.

When you remember your criticism may be wrong, you’ll offer it more humbly. You will challenge others in a way that invites a reciprocal challenge, and you’ll be more likely to see things from the other person’s point of view.

Kim Scott

"How to give humble feedback," by Kim Scott. Radical Candor. Accessed August 17, 2022

then by all means paint

I know the soul's struggle of two people: Am I a painter or not? Of Rappard and of myself - a struggle, hard sometimes, a struggle which accurately marks the difference between us and certain other people who take things less seriously; as for us, we feel wretched at times; but each bit of melancholy brings a little light, a little progress; certain other people have less trouble, work more easily perhaps, but then their personal character develops less. You, too, would have that struggle, and I tell you, don't forget that you are in danger of being upset by people who undoubtedly have the very best intentions.

If you hear a voice within you saying, “You are not a painter,” then by all means paint, boy, and that voice will be silenced, but only by working. He who goes to trends and tells his troubles when he feels like that loses part of his manliness, part of the best that's in him; your friends can only be those who themselves struggle against it, who raise your activity by their own example of action. One must undertake it with confidence, with a certain assurance that one is doing a reasonable thing, like the farmer drives his plough, or like our friend in the scratch below, who is harrowing, and even drags the harrow himself. If one hasn't a horse, one is one's own horse - many people do so here.

Vincent Van Gogh

Letter from Vincent van Gogh to Theo van Gogh. Drenthe, 28 October 1883. Van Gogh's Letters: Unabridged & Annotated. As found in 2022 Great Quotes From Great Leaders Boxed Calendar: 365 Inspirational Quotes From Leaders Who Shaped the World.

does your blame help?

"Does your blame help the other person get better?"

..."No, my blame wouldn't help the other person get better."

"In fact," Lou continued, "wouldn't blaming provoke that person to be even worse?"

"Well, yes, I guess it would," I said.

"Well then, is that blame serving some other useful purpose toward helping the company and those in it achieve results? Is there some out-of-the-box purpose that is served by blame?"

I didn't know what to say. The truth was there was no out-of-the-box purpose for my blame...

Bud spoke up. "I know what you're thinking about, Tom. You've had the misfortune of working with someone who was often in the box. And it was a tough experience. But notice, in that kind of a situation, it's quite easy for me to get in the box too because the justification is so easy - the other guy's a jerk! But remember, once I get in the box in response, I actually need the other guy to keep being a jerk so that I'll remain justified in blaming him for being a jerk. And I don't need to do anything more than get in the box toward him to keep inviting him to be that way. My blame keeps inviting the very thing I'm blaming him for. Because in the box, I need problems.

"Isn't it far better,' he continued, "to be able to recognize others' boxes without blaming them for being in the box? After all, I know what it's like to be in the box because I'm there some of the time too. Out of the box I understand what it's like to be in the box. And since when I'm out of the box I neither need nor provoke others to be jerks, I can actually ease, rather than exacerbate, tough situations.

Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute. Berrett-Koehler. 2002. p.153, 154

the newspaper test

 

"I ask the managers to judge every action they take -- not just by legal standards, though obviously, that's the first test -- but also by what I call the 'newspaper test,'" explained Buffett.

Basically, if an article "written by a smart but pretty unfriendly reporter" appeared in a local newspaper about a decision or action you made, and your family, friends, and neighbors read it, how would you feel about it?

"It's pretty simple," says Buffett. "If [your decision or action] passes that test, it's okay. If anything is too close to the lines, it's out."

Buffett's newspaper test, if you pass it, can take you far because in business, if your reputation fails, game over. 

"We have all the money we need," the billionaire said. "We'd like to have more, but we can afford to lose money. But we can't afford to lose reputation."

Buffett's reputation line was not a fleeting one-time remark to pass off to a student. It's a life lesson he's lived by as the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that you'll do things differently."

Marcel Schwantes

"20 Years Ago, Warren Buffett Shared a Brutal Truth That Most People Have Yet to Learn," Inc. May 5, 2021. 

harder to bear than criticism

Even harder to bear than criticism, oftentimes, is no word from our leader on the work to which we have been assigned. Little comments or notes, which are sincere and specific, are great boosters along the way.

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Ezra Taft Benson by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2014. Chapter 19: Leadership. 371.

a good leader expects loyalty

A good leader expects loyalty. He in turn gives his loyalty. He backs up those to whom he has given a job. The loyalty extends to matters beyond the call of duty. He is loyal when honors come to those with whom he serves. He takes pride in their successes. He does not overrule unless he first confers with him whose decision he overrules. He does not embarrass an associate before others. He is frank and open with him.

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Ezra Taft Benson by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2014. Chapter 19: Leadership. 371.

people resist in response to something

Organizational change expert Rick Maurer explains, “There [aren’t] ‘resisters’ out there just waiting to ruin our otherwise perfect intervention. People resist in response to something. The people resisting probably don’t see it as resistance; they see it as survival.” Critical voices are important and ultimately essential in breaking through superficiality and developing the thinking needed to wrestle with trade-offs successfully. Many times, in side conversations, people have told us stories about speaking up out of a sense of accountability, realism, or integrity.

Maya Townsend and Elizabeth Doty

"The road to successful change is lined with trade-offs," strategy+business. November 2, 2020.

speak, but don’t listen

[W]hen leaders assume their answer is the answer, they tend to approach change as they would a political campaign — heavy on slogans and focused on numerical targets akin to contributions and votes. The process can feel forced; people are engaged solely to be converted to the leader’s “side,” rather than to participate in a dialogue about the potential implications of the plan. Leaders speak, but don’t listen. Or they assume that a lack of feedback reflects agreement and acceptance among their constituents.

Success under this approach is typically measured by increases in compliance (“40 percent of staff have logged on to the new ERP system”) and decreases in resistance (“the number of employees indicating the new ERP system will help make their work more effective has increased by 30 percent since last quarter”). Leaders reward those who quickly conform, not realizing that these conversions often represent superficial commitments, not true allegiance or even an accurate understanding of the new way. And because hard questions are minimized, teams may comply with a change that won’t work once it gets underway.

For employees, the pressure to change without truly understanding or committing to the initiative is an unfortunate fact of organizational life. People become used to the expectation that they will limit independent thinking and suspend disbelief, regardless of the lessons of their prior experience. If employees have a few questions, that is usually acceptable, but more can invite censure or ridicule, or, in the worst cases, can be career damaging, even if such questions represent legitimate critiques or sound ideas for improvement.

Maya Townsend and Elizabeth Doty

"The road to successful change is lined with trade-offs," strategy+business. November 2, 2020.

response-ability

Accountability breeds response-ability. Commitment and involvement produce change. In training executives, we use a step-by-step, natural, progressive, sequential approach to change. In fact, we encourage executives to set goals and make commitments up front; teach and apply the material regularly; and report their progress to each other. 

If you want to overcome the pull of the past - those powerful restraining forces of habit, custom, and culture - to bring about desired change, count the costs and rally the necessary resources. In the space program, we see that tremendous thrust is needed to clear the powerful pull of the earth's gravity. So it is with breaking old habits.

Breaking deeply embedded habits - such as procrastinating, criticizing, overeating, or oversleeping - involves more than a little wishing and willpower. Often our own resolve is not enough. We need reinforcing relationships - people and programs that hold us accountable and responsible. 

Remember: Response-ability is the ability to choose our response to any circumstance or condition. When we are response-able, our commitment becomes more powerful than our moods or circumstances, and we keep the promises and resolutions we make. 

Stephen R. Covey

Principle-Centered Leadership. 2009/ RosettaBooks. 

the frogs and the jackdaws

Thank goodness we don't understand the language of ravens, jackdaws, crickets, frogs, and pigs. Otherwise we'd probably worry about what they think too. Yet how many people seem more brainless than the frogs and the jackdaws? Does that make any difference to us? No. We let what they say upset us and render our lives utterly miserable.

Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40–ca. 120) 

His Meditations, ~200 BC

make your self-worth independent of other's opinions

If your self-worth depends on others holding you in high regard, you'll likely become a people-pleaser. Not everyone needs to like you, nor do they have to agree with your lifestyle. Evaluate the merit of criticism you receive, but never allow one person's opinion determine your self-worth.

Amy Morin

"9 Ways to Avoid Giving Away Your Personal Power" Inc.com. Dec. 21, 2015

what other decisions can they handle?

[GM CEO Mary Barra said,] “A lot gets set aside when you’re going through a restructuring process, so it was an opportunity to really define our culture. So, brainstorming with the HR department, I said let’s change the dress code. Let’s make it ‘dress appropriately.’

But the HR department ironically posed my first hurdle. They started arguing with me, saying, it can be ‘dress appropriately’ on the surface, but in the employee manual it needs to be a lot more detailed. They put in specifics, like, ‘Don’t wear T-shirts that say inappropriate things, or statements that could be misinterpreted.'” 

“What does inappropriate, in the context of a T-shirt, even mean,” she asked the audience, half-jokingly. ”So I finally had to say, ‘No, it’s two words, that’s what I want.’ What followed was really a window into the company for me.”

After replacing GM’s 10-page dress code treatise with a two-word appeal, Barra received a scathing email from a senior-level director. ”He said, ‘You need to put out a better dress policy, this is not enough.’ So I called him—and of course that shook him a little bit. And I asked him to help me understand why the policy was inept.”

The director explained that occasionally, some people on his team had to deal with government officials on short notice, and had to be dressed appropriately for that. 

“Okay, why don’t you talk to your team,” Barra replied. ”He was an established leader at GM, responsible for a pretty important part of the company, with a multimillion-dollar budget. He called me back a few minutes later, saying, ‘I talked to the team, we brainstormed, and we agreed that the four people who occasionally need to meet with government officials will keep a pair of dress pants in their locker. Problem solved.'”

“What I realized is that you really need to make sure your managers are empowered—because if they cannot handle ‘dress appropriately,’ what other decisions can they handle? And I realized that often, if you have a lot of overly prescriptive policies and procedures, people will live down to them,” she said.

“But if you let people own policies themselves—especially at the first level of people supervision—it helps develop them. It was an eye-opening experience, but I now know that these small little things changed our culture powerfully. They weren’t the only factor, but they contributed significantly.”

Leah Fessler

"GM’s dress code is only two words" by Leah Fessler. Quartz. April 3, 2018.

it is not the critic who counts

It is not the critic who counts; nor the person who points out how the strong person stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the person who is actually marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, someone who knows great enthusiasm and great devotions.

Theodore Roosevelt

"Roosevelt's "The Man in the Arena"" by Erin McCarthy.  MentalFloss.  April 23, 2015.  As quoted by Kelly Strong, Vice President of USA Operations, Nyrstar. July 26, 2018

make suggestions

Good listeners tended to make suggestions. Good listening invariably included some feedback provided in a way others would accept and that opened up alternative paths to consider. This finding somewhat surprised us, since it’s not uncommon to hear complaints that “So-and-so didn’t listen, he just jumped in and tried to solve the problem.” Perhaps what the data is telling us is that making suggestions is not itself the problem; it may be the skill with which those suggestions are made. Another possibility is that we’re more likely to accept suggestions from people we already think are good listeners. (Someone who is silent for the whole conversation and then jumps in with a suggestion may not be seen as credible. Someone who seems combative or critical and then tries to give advice may not be seen as trustworthy.)

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

a cooperative conversation.

Good listening was seen as a cooperative conversation. In these interactions, feedback flowed smoothly in both directions with neither party becoming defensive about comments the other made. By contrast, poor listeners were seen as competitive — as listening only to identify errors in reasoning or logic, using their silence as a chance to prepare their next response. That might make you an excellent debater, but it doesn’t make you a good listener. Good listeners may challenge assumptions and disagree, but the person being listened to feels the listener is trying to help, not wanting to win an argument.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

feel supported

Good listening included interactions that build a person’s self-esteem. The best listeners made the conversation a positive experience for the other party, which doesn’t happen when the listener is passive (or, for that matter, critical!). Good listeners made the other person feel supported and conveyed confidence in them. Good listening was characterized by the creation of a safe environment in which issues and differences could be discussed openly.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

accept coaching

There’s an interesting duality to Suns rookie forward Josh Jackson.

He has a confidence in him that is unshakeable... Yet within that belief system, there’s also a willingness on Jackson’s part to listen, learn and admit his mistakes. It’s why, before the Suns played the Atlanta Hawks last Tuesday, Triano was comfortable in delivering a blunt message to Jackson.

“I said, ‘I’m losing confidence in keeping you on the floor,’ ” Triano told Jackson.

Triano followed up by benching Jackson for the entire game against Atlanta, the first time in Jackson’s career that he had been a DNP-CD.

“It was kind of hard to take in,” Jackson said. “I kind of really didn’t understand what he was saying.”

Then Jackson was given the raw numbers showing that the Suns were a better team when he wasn’t on the floor. Heading into the Atlanta game, Phoenix’s offensive rating was 97.4 with Jackson on the court and 106.7 without him. The defensive rating was 111.3 with Jackson and 106.6 without him.

“That definitely surprised me,” Jackson said.

Triano knew Jackson could handle the criticism – “I think all our guys can take it. That’s one of the things I like about our guys. They accept coaching,” he said – but just to make sure, he also moved the conversation forward, asking Jackson how the coaching staff could rebuild its confidence in him.

Jackson suggested he and Triano watch video together.

“Just to see what he sees,” Jackson said. “Sometimes, two people look at the same play and see two totally different things. He has a basketball mind and he’s really smart, so just trying to see what he sees and trying to pick his brain a little bit.”

Jackson said he wanted to approach Triano earlier in the season about spending quality time watching video, but, “I didn’t really think I could just go up to him and have that type of conversation with him.”

“Now we kind of have a schedule where, every week, I’ll come in and we’ll watch film or just talk about things that happened in the previous games and practices just for me to get better,” Jackson said.

The payoff has been immediate. In the three games since his benching, Jackson is averaging 14 points, 5.7 rebounds and three assists per game while shooting 48.6 percent from the field and 55.6 percent from 3-point range. He had his best game of the season in Phoenix’s victory over Oklahoma City on Sunday, finishing with 17 points, 10 rebounds, five assists and no turnovers.

“I feel like things are getting better for me,” Jackson said.

All because Triano had something he needed to say – “It eats me up if I don’t get it off my chest,” he said – and Jackson was willing to listen.

“It was just a conversation about where I thought he was in his rookie season and how we can work together better, me utilizing him and him fitting into what we’re trying to do,” Triano said. “His suggestion was that we watch more film and more tape, and we’ve done that on a consistent basis since then, and I think it’s helped him and I think it’s helped me understand him a little bit more.”


Scott Bordow
"Phoenix Suns rookie Josh Jackson responds well to Jay Triano's harsh criticism". azcentral.com. January 10, 2018.

respond with reasoned arguments

When you’re under fire, people are going to watch how you respond, says John Holcomb, business ethics and legal studies professor at the University of Denver in Colorado. When GOP candidates like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush were criticized by Trump, they tended to make light of it and ridicule him instead of responding with substantive arguments about why he was wrong, Holcomb says. When someone is critical of your ideas and positions, it's more effective to respond with reasoned arguments rather than trade insults or ignore the attack, he adds.

Gwen Moran

"6 Leadership Lessons From The Presidential Primaries" FastCompany. 4/25/2016

sing in your own voice

Picasso was a terrible colorist. Turner couldn't paint human beings worth a damn. Saul Steinberg's formal drafting skills were appalling. TS Eliot had a full-time day job. Henry Miller was a wildly uneven writer. Bob Dylan can't sing or play guitar.

But that didn't stop them, right?

So I guess the next question is, "Why not?"

I have no idea. Why should it?

Hugh MacLeod 

"How to be Creative" Gapingvoid.com 7/25/2004