increase employee engagement

1. Hire for traits and behaviors: Usually, hiring managers look at experience and education when choosing new applicants. But, once on the job, it's attitude and actions that count. When you recruit, go through networking channels to find employees who are the most highly recommended by their prior coworkers and managers. By recruiting people who are highly engaged, you can keep the vibe in your office positive and productive.

2. Be visible and available: When employees feel abandoned by supervisors and management, they aren't as actively engaged in the workplace. Take time out of your day to be available for questions, work with the door open and be seen throughout the day. 

3. Seek employee feedback: Sometimes, your employees will have better ideas for how things should go than you do. Ask employees for feedback and you will find that they can come up with more efficient processes, new ways to engage prospects and ideas for making a happier, more exciting workplace.

4. Be flexible: Rigid policies can make people feel like their in detention instead in a job that they enjoy. If feasible, allow employees to have flexibility in their schedules or work from home. Open up social media policies or allow workers to interact with one another with an online chat to promote team cohesion. Allow a relaxed dress code for people who do not have direct customer contact, or allow a dress down day one or more day a week.

5. Recognize and reward accomplishments: When people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated, they are more likely to give it their all. Regularly recognize achievements like high sales or innovating ways of solving customer concerns. The recognition can come in the form of announcements in the company newsletter or small perks like tickets for half-days at work or a small gift certificate. 

6. Provide opportunities for employees to grow: When we do the same thing day in and day out, we get bored. Give employees new tasks that require learning and using new skills. Take time to work with employees one on one in a mentor position. And, when feasible, give employees the chance to go to conferences, classes and workshops that expand their list of skills.


Eric Roach

"6 Unexpected Ways to Boost Employee Engagement" everyonesocial.com blog. 7/22/2015

most effective leadership development

According to a Boston Consulting Group survey... "improving leadership development" and "managing talent" are top priorities for the companies surveyed, yet the respondents--more than 4,000 senior business leaders from around the world--also ranked these two areas as their greatest weaknesses.

Debbie Lovich, the leader of BCG's Leadership and Talent Enablement Center, says the trouble is that training become separated from companies' objectives.

"Senior executives often think that they must focus on the business and delegate talent development--which they see as 'training'--to HR or someone else without continued involvement," Lovich said in a press release. "With that approach, leadership development instantly becomes disconnected from the business priorities. The training that employees receive does not develop the skills that will enable them to have a meaningful impact on colleagues, customers, and business results."

The main reasons leadership development seminars, events, or workshops do not produce results is the same reason cramming for a skills-based test doesn't result in you mastering a skill.

BCG found three main reasons leadership and talent development programs do not produce results:

1. Many companies have one-off events and workshops, but "true capability is developed over time and regularly reinforced."
2. Programs that are aimed at "broad, generic themes" like success or leadership do not help to develop specific skills. Instead, programs should focus on two or three areas that your employees can work on.
3. The success of most programs is measured by attendance and attendee satisfaction. The best way to see if a workshop was successful, however, is to assess the skills attendees developed.

"People don't develop skills from simply reading a book or going to a one-off workshop," Lovich said. "They build skills by having to do something, failing, and trying again and again."

The most effective leadership development involves daily in-the-field experience with opportunities to practice and reinforce new skills, Lovich said. Regularly practicing new skills while working helps to make training relevant to the company's business.

"A few simple things done consistently well across daily routines can drive cultural change," she said. "By teaching through practical daily routines and providing simple tools to practice and observe leadership at work, organizations can give their people a practical way to improve every day."

Will Yakowicz

"3 Reasons Leadership Training Is a Huge Waste" Inc. 10/20/2015

toxic leadership

[Tony] Fadell’s reputation for being intense, very animated, and prone to raise his voice (not necessarily in anger) spilled over to push the Nest team. Carr wrote, "A meme is floating around the office comparing Fadell's style to that of the Mountain in Game of Thrones, the towering brawler known for beating his opponents to a pulp. But surviving as a startup consumer electronic brand requires just that sort of attitude." Another anecdote reveals: "When one employee failed to live up to his standards, Fadell ordered a manager to fire the employee, saying, "You gotta Glock Glock that dude," as he mimed shooting off a handgun. He was joking, but unapologetic."

All of that fist-banging and hard driving for perfection is supposed to bring out the best in his employees, according to his cofounder Matt Rogers. "But at the same time, he is incredibly caring and passionate about their development," Rogers said.

You can’t develop much of anything under such circumstances, according to workplace experts. As psychologist Paul White notes, toxic leadership may appear successful for a while. "Over the long term, their attitudes and actions catch up with them," he says, "Trust and teamwork deteriorate in their areas; they have a high turnover rate in their department, and they will eventually destroy the health of the organization."

Lindsay McGregor and Neel Doshi, co-authors of Primed to Perform, underscore the importance of total motivation and how it erodes or boosts bottom line results. "In one company we surveyed, salespeople with positive "total motivation" produced 28% more revenue than their more negatively motivated counterparts."

Lydia Dishman

"What's Going On At Nest?" FastCompany. 2/17/2016

can anyone be a leader?

Leadership is a skill, and I believe like all skills, can be mastered with practice and coaching. That does not mean that there aren’t individual differences, but that people can improve on their current capabilities.

One of the reasons why leadership training so often fails—Bill Gentry of the Center for Creative Leadership estimates that about half of all leaders are ineffective in their roles—is that leadership education insufficiently focuses on building the influence skills and acumen in managing organizational dynamics—organizational politics, if you will—that are so essential to getting things done on the one hand and surviving and succeeding in workplaces on the other.

Jeffrey Pfeffer

"Jeffrey Pfeffer: What Most People Don't Know About Leadership." Forbes. 9/15/2015

the true test of a servant leader

The true test of a servant leader is this: Do those around the servant leader become wiser, freer, more autonomous, healthier, and better able themselves to become servant leaders?


Robert Greenleaf
As quoted in Ken Blanchard. Leading at a Higher Level. 2010

self-serving leaders

Self-serving leaders give themselves away in two ways. The first is how they receive feedback. Have you ever tried to give feedback to someone up the hierarchy, and that person killed the messenger? If that has ever occurred, you were dealing with a self-serving leader. They hate feedback. Why? Because if you give them any negative feedback, they think you don’t want them to lead anymore. And that’s their worst nightmare, because they are their position. The second giveaway for self-serving leaders is their unwillingness to develop other leaders around them. They fear the potential competition for their leadership position.

Ken Blanchard

Leading at a Higher Level. 2010

Photo by rafa espada

good leaders motivate

Good leaders motivate people in a variety of ways. First, they always articulate the organization's vision in a manner that stresses the values of the audience they are addressing. This makes the work important to those individuals. Leaders also regularly involve people in deciding how to achieve the organization's vision (or the part most relevant to a particular individual). This gives people a sense of control. Another important motivational technique is to support employee efforts to realize the vision by providing coaching, feedback, and role modeling, thereby helping people grow professionally and enhancing their self-esteem. Finally, good leaders recognize and reward success, which not only gives people a sense of accomplishment but also makes them feel like they belong to an organization that cares about them. When all this is done, the work itself becomes intrinsically motivating.

John P. Kotter

"What Leaders Really Do.” Harvard Business Review. 1990.

the better you were

Some bandleaders I’ve known and worked for, when you had a solo and you got a real big hand, you didn’t get another solo. I worked with one: I won’t call names, but he played clarinet. Everybody in the All Stars got a chance, your spot where you went out and did your thing, your solo spot. He wanted you to go out there and get a standing ovation if you could, stand on your eyelashes and get a standing ovation – he loved that. Because he knew that all he had to do was walk right up behind you, smile, unfurl that handkerchief and look at the audience and he’d wash you away! And it wasn’t an ego thing, it was just the way it was. Because he realized the better you were the better it made his band.

Arvell Shaw

As quoted in Armstrong by David Bradbury. Haus Publishing. 2003. p. 92

when buffett fires people

Warren famously invests in management, specifically to avoid firing people. He does not enter companies where a management change is part of the plan.

“One thing I don’t like is when I have to make a change in management, when I have to tell somebody I think somebody else can do a better job.”

That’s an interesting way to phrase it — that someone else could do a better job. Not that the manager is bad or incompetent or doing anything wrong — simply that there is room for improvement and he has a duty to make that improvement. That doesn’t make it easy for him though:

“It’s pure agony, and I usually postpone it and suck my thumb and do all kinds of other things before I finally carry it out.”

It seems like most people are the same way — firing may be the most-procrastinated task in the business world. No one wants to pull the trigger.

When the firing decision is not based on performance, but on infractions of ethical or moral grounds, things are much more clear cut. Here’s Buffett:

“Lose money for my firm and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm and I will be ruthless.”

 Eric Jorgenson

"How to Fire Someone: How to Decide, When to do it, and How to be Guilt-free" Medium. 5/17/2015

talented people are restless at their core

Q: You’re in an odd position, because the better your employees perform, the more likely you are to lose them. How do you handle that tension?

A: Talented people are restless at their core. It’s the nature of the beast. The more talented move on sooner or later, and quite often the least talented are the most loyal. When I advise people about leaving the show, I always use the same metaphor: I tell them to build a bridge to the next thing and, when it’s solid, walk across. Don’t leave a national platform, where everybody in the industry can see you reinvent yourself each week, too early. I know there’s a lot of pressure and the hours are awful. It’s the hardest job in show business. But the real world of show business is much rougher than ours. I think Kristen handled it well. After Bridesmaids, which really established her, it was time to move on. But until her last day, nothing was a priority but the show.

Lorne Michaels

Interview with Lorne Michaels. Harvard Business Review. September 2013

how we invest our time

[H]ow we invest our time ultimately determines our level of effectiveness and impact....

Does your calendar reflect your stated priorities? Certainly, it reflects your real priorities. However, a gap between the two erodes your moral authority to lead. Regardless of how well we do what we do, we get no credit for doing the wrong things well.

Are you investing your time with the right people? If we are not careful, we can drift, or be pulled, to spend time with the wrong people. Who are your future leaders? How much of your time do they get verses your problem people? Who can help you carry the load?

How much time do you invest on self-leadership? Many leaders, myself included, can falsely assume our role is to serve at our own expense. This strategy is shortsighted. We must put on our own oxygen mask first if we hope to serve over the long haul. This includes rest, recreation, personal growth and more. What we do in private has a huge impact on our public effectiveness.

How much time do you devote to the future? Many leaders are ineffective because they have succumbed to the management of today rather than the creation of tomorrow. The future demands time on your calendar. Don’t let today push out tomorrow. If you do, you’ve given away more than your time – you’ve given away your leadership.

Does your use of time increase others’ confidence in you as a leader? Do you use your time like a leader should? Are you seen mostly in reactionary mode or proactive role? Are you purposeful? Are you strategic with your time? Do people associate your decisions regarding your time with what a leader should do?

Are you investing your time on your biggest problems? One of my favorite moments in any consulting engagement involves two questions: 1) What is your biggest problem? 2) How much time did you invest on that issue last week? Leaders invest their time strategically.

A leader’s time is his or her greatest asset. Only when we steward it well, can we reach our full potential.

Mark Miller

"The Key to a Greater Impact." Great Leaders Serve. 8/3/2015

hire people more talented than you

It's an oft-quoted refrain from hiring textbooks, and one equally often ignored in practice. How often do egos get in the way in traditional business and startups, let alone in narcissistic Hollywood? How tempting it can be -- for all of us -- to go for the self-image boost of engineering teams so that we are always the sharpest tool in the shed rather than collecting the absolute best talent possible? 

Stewart successfully and consistently hired correspondents more talented than he is. From Steve Carrell who has gone on to become an international movie star to Stephen Colbert who's notoriety has arguably eclipsed Stewart's in moving on to the CBS Late Show, to John Oliver who now hosts his own show on HBO, The Daily Show boasts an incredible alumni network. And it doesn't stop with these big names -- he's surrounded himself with comics with sharper wit -- Lewis Black -- and better acting chops -- Samantha Bee -- as well.

This talent was made abundantly clear when every former correspondent returned to his final show, filling the stage with unbelievable star power. Stewart has identified talent and The Daily Show has served as a 'rocket ship' for dozens of careers.

Alex Budak

"3 Leadership Lessons Learned From Jon Stewart." Huffington Post. 8/10/2015

suffer by comparison

To no one was Marshall’s presence more reassuring, or inspiriting, than to Truman. “The more I see and talk to him the more certain I am he’s the great one of the age,” Truman wrote not long after Marshall’s swearing in. Marshall is a tower of strength and common sense,” he noted privately another time. It was admiration such as Truman felt for no other public figure, no one he had ever known, not Roosevelt, not Churchill, not anyone. Nor was he at all hesitant or concerned over having such a strong-minded man as his Secretary of State – Marshall, Harriman, Patterson, Forrestal, Lilienthal, Eisenhower, they were all strong-minded. Conceivably, Truman could have worried that someone of such immense reputation as Marshall in so prominent a role would diminish his own standing with the country, that he might suffer by comparison, and Marshall be perceived as more the sort of man who ought to be President. But Truman was neither jealous nor intimidated. He was not so constructed. “I am surely lucky to have his friendship and support,” he wrote, and that was that.

David McCullough
Truman - Simon and Schuster. 2003. p.637,638

the garden as a metaphor

In some ways, I saw the garden as a metaphor for certain aspects of my life. A leader must also tend his garden; he, too, plants seeds and then watches, cultivates, and harvests the result. Like the gardener, a leader must take responsibility for what he cultivates, he must mind his work, try to repel enemies, preserve what can be preserved, and eliminate what cannot succeed. 

I wrote Winnie two letters about a particularly beautiful tomato plant, how I coaxed it from a tender seedling to a robust plant that produced deep red fruit. But, then, either through some mistake or lack of care, the plant began to wither and decline, and nothing I did would bring it back to health. When it finally died, I removed the roots from the soil, washed them, and buried them in a corner of the garden. 

I narrated this small story at great length. I do not know what she read into that letter, but when I wrote it I had a mixture of feelings: I did not want our relationship to go the way of that plant, and yet I felt that I had been unable to nourish many of the most important relationships in my life. Sometimes there is nothing one can do to save something that must die.

Nelson Mandela

Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Back Bay Books. 1995. p.490

leading at a higher level... is a process

Leading at a higher level… is a process. We define it as the process of achieving worthwhile results while acting with respect, care, and fairness for the well-being of all involved. When that occurs, self-serving leadership is not possible.


Ken Blanchard
Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations (Revised and Expanded Edition). FT Press, 2009. p.xvii, xviii

leadership is a high calling

What is leadership? For years we defined leadership as an influence process. We believed that anytime you tried to influence the thoughts and actions of others toward goal accomplishment in either your personal or professional life, you were engaging in leadership. In recent years, we have taken the emphasis away from goal accomplishment and have defined leadership as the capacity to influence others by unleashing their power and potential to impact the greater good. Why did we do that? Because when the definition of leadership focuses on goal accomplishment, one can think that leadership is only about results. Yet when we talk about leading at a higher level, just focusing on goal accomplishment is not enough. The key phrase in our new definition is “the greater good” – what is best for all involved. We think leadership is a high calling.

Ken Blanchard

Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations (Revised and Expanded Edition) FT Press, 2009. p.xvi, xvii

reasons why change efforts typically fail

1. People leading the change think that announcing the change is the same as implementing it.

2. People’s concerns with change are not surfaced or addressed.

3. Those being asked to change are not involved in planning the change.

4. There is no compelling reason to change. The business case is not communicated.

5. A compelling vision that excites people about the future has not been developed and communicated.

6. The change leadership team does not include early adopters, resisters, or informal leaders.

7. The change is not piloted, so the organization does not learn what is needed to support the change.

8. Organizational systems and other initiatives are not aligned with the change.

9. Leaders lose focus or fail to prioritize, causing “death by 1,000 initiatives.”

10. People are not enabled or encouraged to build new skills.

11. Those leading the change are not credible. They undercommunicate, give mixed messages, and do not model the behaviors the change requires.

12. Progress is not measured, and/or no one recognizes the changes that people have worked hard to make.

13. People are not held accountable for implementing the change.

14. People leading the change fail to respect the power of the culture to kill the change.

15. Possibilities and options are not explored before a specific change is chose.

When most people see this list, their reaction depends on whether they have usually been the target of change or the change agent. Targets of change frequently feel as though we have been studying their organization for years, because they have seen these reasons why change fails in action, up close and personal. The reality is that while every organization is unique in some ways, they often struggle with change for the same reasons.

When change agents look at this list, they get discouraged, because they realize how complicated implementing change can be and how many different things can go wrong. Where should they start? Which of the fifteen reasons why change fails should they concentrate on?

Over the years it has been our experience that if leaders can understand and overcome the first three reasons why change typically fails, they are on the road to being effective leaders of change.

Ken Blanchard

Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations. FT Press. 2010.

gratitude v. personalized feedback

"Sara, I am proud of you for getting this report done ahead of time. It makes my life so much easier. I hope you can continue to be this timely with deadlines in the future...."

"Sara, I'd like to express my gratitude for the effort you made on these reports. Getting them in earlier than the deadline gave me the ability to focus on something else that was creating a lot of stress. Thank you."

What is the difference between expressing gratitude and giving personalized feedback? Intention. Your expression of gratitude is not intended to change or reinforce people's future behavior. Your statement of thanks is not an attempt to develop their competence or sense of responsibility--nor are you looking for a guarantee they will keep up their efforts in the future. When you express gratitude, it is based on your need, not theirs.

Your gratitude, delivered candidly and authentically, without ulterior motives or expectations of future behavior, gives people the choice to continue acting wisely, deepens their sense of contribution and connection, and validates their competence.

Susan Fowler

"Is My Feedback Motivating? Part 1." Huffington Post. 8/12/2015

building other leaders

At the end of your leadership career, what will have made the challenge of leadership all worthwhile? By far the most frequent answer goes something like this: “I will have built other leaders who themselves are building other leaders.”

When you are privileged to be lead others, your influence can impact the trajectories of people’s entire careers, potentially helping them become more courageous, just and humane. When done right, the best of you may bring out the best in others. In the process, they may become inspired to lead too. The pain associated with enduring the hardships of leading others is offset by the satisfaction of making a positive difference for the people and organization you serve.

Bill Treasurer

"Leadership Is Freakin' Hard." Huffington Post. 8/18/2015

hiring the right people

The best employee development practices start with hiring the right people in the first place – the people who share the firm’s values. Along the way, you’ll find people who don’t meet that standard: let them go sooner rather than later.

While that may sound harsh – maybe even the opposite of taking care of your people – careful hiring and disciplined termination are vital to building an organization where trust is highly valued. You're not showing respect to your employees if, through your inaction, they're forced to put up with co-workers who don't carry their own load or share the company’s values.

Joel Peterson, Professor of Management at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

In A Great Business, People Trump Things. Forbes Magazine. 10/17/2012