three nonnegotiable criteria

In November 2001 I was having lunch with the head of a consumer products company and his vice chairman. The company had been losing market share, and the discussion at the table identified the source of the problem: weak marketing leadership at the top. The company clearly needed to hire a chief marketing person - it would be a make-or-break job for 2002. The CEO had someone in mind. She had been recommended by Mark, the vice chairman, and the CEO sang her praises, saying, "She's great, fantastic." "In what ways?" I asked. When he answered in glittering generalities, I pressed and again asked why he thought she was so wonderful. Remarkably, he couldn't be specific, and his face turned crimson.

I asked the CEO and vice chairman what the three nonnegotiable criteria for the job were. After some discussion, they named the following: be extremely good in selecting the right mix of promotion, advertising, and merchandising; have a proven sense of what advertising is effective and how to best place this advertising in TV, radio, and print; have the ability to execute the marketing program in the right timing and sequence so that it is coordinated with the launch of new products; and be able to select the right people to rebuild the marketing department. 

After they articulated these criteria for the job, I asked whether the candidate met them. There was a long silence. Finally, the leader answered honestly: "You know, now I realize that I don't really know her." 

Neither the CRO, the vice chairman, nor anyone else in the organization had asked the right questions. To consistently improve its leadership gene pool, every business needs a discipline that is embedded in the people process, with candid dialogues about the matches between people and jobs, and follow-through that ensures people take the appropriate actions.

Ram Charan 

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan with Charles Burck. 2002. Crown Business, NY, NY. p. 113, 114

quality of the dialogue

The reason most companies don't face reality very well is that their dialogues are ineffective. And it shows in their results. Think about the meetings you've attended - those that were a hopeless waste of time and those that produced energy and great results. What was the difference? It was not the agenda, not whether the meeting started on time or how disciplined it was, and certainly not the formal presentations. No, the difference was in the quality of the dialogue.

Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan 

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan with Charles Burck. 2002. Crown Business, NY, NY. p. 103, 104

only the leader can make execution happen

An organization can execute only if the leader's heart and soul are immersed in the company. Leading is more than thinking big, or schmoozing with investors and lawmakers, although those are part of the job. The leader has to be engaged personally and deeply in the business. Execution requires a comprehensive understanding of a business, its people, and its environment. The leader is the only person in a position to achieve that understanding. And only the leader can make execution happen, through his or her deep personal involvement in the substance and even the details of execution.

The leader must be in charge of getting things done by running the three core processes - picking other leaders, setting the strategic direction, and conducting operations. These actions are the substance of execution, and leaders cannot delegate them regardless of the size of the organization.

How good would a sports team be if the coach spent all of his time in his office making deals for new players, while delegating actual coaching to an assistant? A coach is effective because he's constantly observing players individually and collectively on the field and in the locker room. That's how he gets to know his players and their capabilities, and how they get firsthand the benefit of his experience, wisdom, and expert feedback.

It's no different for a business leader. Only a leader can ask the tough questions that everyone needs to answer, then manage the process of debating the information and making the right trade-offs. And only the leader who's intimately engaged in the business can know enough to have the comprehensive view and ask the tough incisive questions. 

Only the leader can set the tone of the dialogue in the organization. Dialogue is the core of culture and the basic unit of work. How people talk to each other absolutely determines how well the organization will function. Is the dialogue stilted, politicized, fragmented, and butt-covering? Or is it candid and reality-based, raising the right questions, debating them, and finding realistic solutions? If it's the former - as it is in all too many companies - reality will never come to the surface. If it is to be the latter, the leader has to be on the playing field with his management team, practicing it consistently and forcefully. 

Specifically, the leader has to run the three core processes and has to run them with intensity and rigor. 

Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan 

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan with Charles Burck. 2002. Crown Business, NY, NY. p. 24, 25

two preferred senders of change messages

Based on Prosci's change management research report with 650 participants, employees prefer two primary senders of change messages. Not surprisingly, they also prefer specific message content from each of these senders. Immediate supervisors are the preferred senders of messages related to personal impact including:

• How does this impact me? 
• How does this impact our group?
• How will this change my day-to-day responsibilities?

When it comes to personal issues, receivers want to hear from someone they know and work with regularly, namely their supervisor. 

CROs or executive leaders are the preferred senders of messages related to business issues and opportunities including: 

• What are the business reasons for this change?
• How does this change align with our vision and strategy? 
• What are the risks if we do not change?

When it comes to business issues and why the change is needed, receivers want to hear from the person in charge. 

Jeffrey M. Hiatt & Timothy J. Creasey

Change Management: The People Side of Change, by Jeffrey M. Hiatt & Timothy J. Creasey Prosci Inc. 2012. P.18, 19

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.

seeing only part of the picture

The most enduring change initiatives — those that drive real results — are based on leaders’ assumption that they are seeing only part of the picture and thus need to learn more. These leaders ask hard questions and engage in trade-offs as early as possible, talking with those who raise concerns not to gain their compliance, but to improve, refine, and pressure test the proposed change.

Maya Townsend and Elizabeth Doty

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

having better arguments

THE BETTER ARGUMENTS PROJECT—a civic initiative founded by Allstate, The Aspen Institute, Facing History and Ourselves, and the Bezos Family Foundation to help bridge divides—was built on the belief that arguments are fundamental to healthy civic life. To effectively address divisions in our society, it proposes we have better arguments, not fewer.

The project characterizes better arguments as emotionally intelligent, rooted in history, and honest about power imbalances. Using five principles for engagement—taking winning off the table, prioritizing relationships, paying attention to context, embracing vulnerability, and making room to transform—the project provides a framework for people to engage with each other on divisive issues.

"How Do We Build a Better Society? Have Better Arguments" The Atlantic (sponsored by Allstate)

See also: https://betterarguments.org/

the hallmarks of great listening

We hope all will see that the highest and best form of listening comes in playing the same role for the other person that a trampoline plays for a child. It gives energy, acceleration, height and amplification. These are the hallmarks of great listening.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

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

the best conversations were active

Good listening is much more than being silent while the other person talks. To the contrary, people perceive the best listeners to be those who periodically ask questions that promote discovery and insight. These questions gently challenge old assumptions, but do so in a constructive way. Sitting there silently nodding does not provide sure evidence that a person is listening, but asking a good question tells the speaker the listener has not only heard what was said, but that they comprehended it well enough to  want additional information. Good listening was consistently seen as a two-way dialog, rather than a one-way “speaker versus hearer” interaction. The best conversations were active.

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.

unleash ideas

Global team leaders who unleash idea... are those who: 1)ask questions, and listen carefully; 2) facilitate constructive argument; 3) give actionable feedback; 4) take advice from the team and act on it; 5) share credit for team success; and 6) maintain regular contact with team members. Members of global teams whose leaders exhibit at least three of these behaviors are more likely than global team members whose leaders exhibit none of these behaviors to say they feel free to express their views and opinions (89% vs 19%) and that their ideas are heard and recognized (76% vs 20%).

Sylvia Ann Hewlett

"Creating a Culture Where Employees Speak Up" Harvard Business Review. 1/8/2016

psychologically unsafe to speak up

Despite saying things like, “I have an open door policy,” where employees can express even controversial issues, some leadership actions may dissuade the courage needed to raise ethical concerns . Creating a culture in which people freely speak up is vital to ensuring people don’t collude with, or incite misconduct. Elizabeth Morrison, Professor in Creative Management at New York University, says in Encouraging a Speak Up Culture, “You have to confront the two fundamental challenges preventing employees from speaking up. The first is the natural feeling of futility – feeling like speaking up isn’t worth the effort or that on one wants to hear it. The second is the natural fear that speaking up will lead to retribution or harsh reactions.” A manager’s reactions to an employee’s concerns sets the tone for whether or not people will raise future issues. If a leader reacts with even the slightest bit of annoyance, they are signaling they don’t really want to hear concerns. Says Morrison, “Leaders that are open and genuinely approachable and seen as wanting input, who demonstrate regard for the opinions of others, and model ethical behavior, are far likelier to have employees speak up when circumstances require it.”

Ron Carucci

"Four Ways Your Leadership May Be Encouraging Unethical Behavior" Forbes. 6/14/2016

let you talk about it

Quora user Rajesh Setty says it's important to allow your conversation partner to reveal what interests them.

"You will be tempted to interrupt and share what you care about every now and then," he says. "The trick is to hold off and focus on the other person first. You will get your chance."

In fact, recent research suggests that talking about yourself is inherently pleasurable; it stimulates the same reward centers in the brain that are lit up by sex, cocaine, and good food. So it makes sense that people would feel positively about a conversation in which they held the spotlight.

Shana Lebowitz

"7 behaviors of people who are easy to talk to." Business Insider. 6/2/2016

it so appears to me at present

I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself agreeable to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported [implied] a fixed opinion, such as "certainly," "undoubtedly," etc.; and I adopted instead of them, "I conceive," "I apprehend," or "I imagine" a thing to be so or so, or "It so appears to me at present." 

When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but that in the present case there "appeared" or "seemed to me" some difference, etc. 

I soon found the advantage of this change in my manners: The conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly; the modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right. And this mode, which I at first put on with some violence to natural inclination, became at length so easy and so habitual to me that perhaps for these fifty years past no one has ever heard a dogmatical expression escape me. And to this habit (after my character of integrity) I think it principally owing that I had early so much weight with my fellow citizens when I proposed new institutions or alterations in the old, and so much influence in public councils when I became a member.

Benjamin Franklin

Autobiography and Other Writings by Benjamin Franklin, edited by Russel B. Nye. 1949. p.84

the conversation is the relationship

The conversation is not about the relationship; the conversation is the relationship.

Susan Scott

Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work & in Life, One Conversation at a Time. 2004. Page xvi. 

On page 6, Scott relates the following: "During a keynote speech at TEC International's annual conference..., [poet and author] David [Whyte] suggested that in the typical marriage, the young man, newly married, is often frustrated that this person with whom he intends to enjoy the rest of his life seemingly needs to talk, yet again, about the same thing they talked about last weekend. And it often has something to do with their relationship. He wonders, Why are we talking about this again? I thought we settled this.... Eventually, if he is paying attention, it occurs to him, Whyte suggests, that "this ongoing, robust conversation he has been having with his wife is not about the relationship. The conversation is the relationship."

As quoted by Mariann Pike, 1/25/09, 12O2 Ward, Tempe South Stake. Chandler, AZ

so that dialogue flows more freely

Not long ago I spoke at a company meeting about the challenges of complexity in organizations. At one point, I asked the audience members to identify and discuss simplification opportunities in their areas. During the report-outs, one woman described how she and her co-workers spent hours each week on the cosmetics of a particular report to make sure that it looked good when it went to senior management. She went on to say that this focus on style rather than substance was a waste of time. When I asked why she continued to do this, she quickly said that her boss expected it. Her boss was also in the room, and when asked about the report said, “I don’t care what it looks like, as long as it has the right information.”

This kind of disconnect is not unusual. One of the main reasons that employees knowingly continue valueless activities is the lack of candid dialogue between people at different organizational levels. For example, many times I’ve heard people say that their manager is “unapproachable” or “too busy” to talk about changing the way things are done. And while that observation is certainly true in many cases, it’s also often code for: “I’m afraid of my manager’s reaction.” On the other hand, many senior leaders wonder why their people don’t raise issues more proactively. As one senior person said to me, out of frustration, “I don’t know how many more times I can tell them that they are empowered!”

So what does it take to break this logjam so that dialogue flows more freely and spontaneously? Let me suggest two steps:

Take responsibility for the truncated dialogue[, and then] do something about it. 

Ron Ashkenas

"Speaking Up Takes Confidence, Candor, and Courage." Harvard Business Review. 8/23/2011

a huge bowl of candy

One former Fortune 100 CEO was known for keeping a huge bowl of candy and chocolates on his desk for employees. They were told to come in as often as they wanted to grab as much candy as they wanted. That proved to be a very effective way to get people to stop by his office so he could simply ask, “How are things going?” That often led to far lengthier conversations that helped both the CEO and the employee to learn things neither knew before – and helped the leader engage the employee in a meaningful dialogue.

Jeffrey A. Krames

Lead with Humility: 12 Leadership Lessons from Pope Francis. 2014

resume the path of dialogue

[Thomas Merton is] a man of dialogue, a promoter of peace between peoples and religions.
From this perspective of dialogue, I would like to recognize the efforts made in recent months to help overcome historic differences linked to painful episodes of the past. It is my duty to build bridges and to help all men and women, in any way possible, to do the same. When countries which have been at odds resume the path of dialogue – a dialogue which may have been interrupted for the most legitimate of reasons – new opportunities open up for all. This has required, and requires, courage and daring, which is not the same as irresponsibility. A good political leader is one who, with the interests of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism. A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing spaces (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 222-223).

Pope Francis (Jorge Mario Bergoglio)

Speech given to Congress. Time Magazine. Washington D.C. 9/24/2015

one-on-one

Several years ago my wife, Margie, was working with a fast-food chain and learned its turnover rate was substantially lower than the national average. She asked the manager what he was doing to keep the rate so low. At first, he said he didn’t think he was doing anything special, but further discussion revealed the answer: This manager made sure to take at least 10 minutes every week to talk to each employee. These conversations weren’t necessarily about job performance; they were just a conversation to check in with each employee to see how things were going.

After learning this, Margie talked to some of the staff. When she asked why they stayed, they all mentioned their manager and said they liked working for someone who cared about them... He made time for them, which in turn made them feel they were a respected part of the team.

Margie was so enthusiastic about this concept that she shared it with our leadership team and went on to develop a “one-on-one meetings” process. This process requires managers to meet one-on-one with each of their direct reports for 15 to 30 minutes at least every two weeks. These meetings are not to talk about performance or report on progress — they are meant to enhance the relationship between the manager and the employee.

The leader schedules the meeting, but the employee sets the agenda. It’s a chance to talk about anything: goals, share personal information, learn more about the company or ask for help to solve a problem. These kinds of conversations allow managers and employees to get to know each other as human beings.

We’ve found that when employees are not only allowed but also encouraged to talk with managers about their everyday lives — the good and the bad — relationships flourish and reach a new level of trust. Trusted working relationships improve performance at all levels.

As a leader, you might think you don’t have time to add more meetings, but you can’t afford not to take time for your people. If you have 10 direct reports and can’t find an additional few hours to mentor and develop them, leadership might not be the right role for you. One-on-one meetings are a significant way for leaders to demonstrate they care. Time in team meetings doesn’t count. Only one-on-one interactions deepen relationships, create loyalty and build partnerships.

Spending dedicated time lets employees know their work is important and that they are valued members of the team. These conversations are the foundation for strong, productive relationships that align people with each other and with the work of the organization in a satisfying, meaningful way. 

Ken Blanchard

"We Need to Talk." Chief Learning Officer. March 2014

building an effective team

Building an effective team begins with a brutally honest process of self-evaluation and reflection. The leader must be open to a humble assessment of his or her own strengths and weaknesses mapped against the qualities, knowledge and experience necessary to succeed. There are numerous consultants and assessment tools available to assist in this process, but the most effective leaders I have known grasp this aspect of team building intuitively, naturally gravitating to partners and advisers who “make them whole” and who make the team-leader appear almost super-human by placing a vast array of talents and information at their fingertips.

Leadership teams should be comprised of the most talented people you can attract; they are not merely there to row, but also to help you steer. The sincere respect that the leader shows for each team member is critical to maintaining equilibrium within the group. In general, members of the this kind of team are less prone to competition and have superior cohesion because each member is explicitly recognized for bringing a unique and essential skill to the table. A team comprised of people with distinct talents and perspectives is also less likely to succumb to ‘group think’ and will engage in honest and open dialogue with the team leader. Over time, this frank give-and-take builds an atmosphere of trust within the team, which increases the members’ willingness to surface uncomfortable concerns in a timely manner.

Kerry Healey

"The difference between a great leader and a good one." Fortune. 8/4/2015