Leaders cannot work in a vacuum.  They may take on larger, seemingly more important roles in an organization, but this does not exclude them from asking for and using feedback.  In fact, a leader arguably needs feedback more so than anyone else.  ~Jack Canfield

Sheila Heen, co-author of Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well, says that we are swimming in feedback.  Feedback is the “look” a co-worker gives us when we make a statement, how people respond to us in a meeting, how we’re greeted when we walk in the door, etc.  Feedback is really “my relationship with the world and the world’s relationship with me.”

And we struggle with feedback!  We not only struggle to receive feedback but we struggle to give feedback.  And there’s a reason.  We all have two human needs that many times conflict with one another.  The first is the need to learn and grow.  The second is the need to feel accepted and respected or loved the way we are now.

If leaders want to have a positive feedback culture in their organizations, Heen says the fastest way to change a culture is for leaders to become better receivers of feedback.  Yes, that’s right better receivers, because the best givers of feedback are also the best receivers.

There are three types of feedback.  1) Evaluation, this rates or ranks you, it may be a performance review; it determines where you stand.  2) Coaching, this helps you to get better.  3) Appreciation, this is expressed by “I see you,” “I get you,” “You matter,” this is what motivates us.

Unfortunately, of the three, the one area that gets overlooked far too frequently is appreciation.  Ninety-three percent (93%) of people in the workforce feel underappreciated.  That tells me that the first step to creating a feedback-friendly culture is to significantly up your game on appreciation.  The more we’re appreciated, the more likely we will be to accept the coaching and evaluation feedback.  If you need a ratio, a significant amount of research has been conducted to determine that it takes at least 5 or 6 positive interactions for every 1 negative interaction in order to have an overall positive impact.  Otherwise, we may very well be making the situation and/or relationship worse with our overabundance of evaluation and coaching in comparison to our appreciation.

A second step would be to change how you are asking for feedback (and you should be asking, often).  If you’re simply asking, “Could you give me some feedback”?  You’re making it both difficult and dangerous for the person to be honest with you.  It’s kind of like sending someone off into a minefield; and both you and them hoping they don’t step on any mines.

Instead ask them for one thing.  For example: What’s one thing you appreciate about…?  What’s one thing you see me doing, or failing to do, that’s causing me to be less successful than I could be?  And you could be even more specific like: What’s one thing you see me doing, or failing to do, when I conduct our staff meetings that may be causing those meetings to be less successful than they could be?

So start asking for feedback, because a leader arguably needs feedback more so than anyone else.

I believe we might be on the cusp of a 21^st century shift: from a society of organizations well-managed to a society composed of networks well-led.   ~Jim Collins

“A shift from organizations well-managed to networks well-led,” that statement caught my attention when I recently heard Jim Collins speak at a leadership summit.  Here is a bit more context for the quote from Collins.

 

Peter Drucker made the seminal observation that the 20^th century would be characterized by a fundamental shift to where the cellular structure of free society would be organizations well-managed.  He believed that this was the best and only workable alternative to ternary; and in that he was profoundly right.  I believe we might be on the cusp of a 21^st century shift, from a society of organizations well-managed to a society composed of networks well-led.

What if we were to unpack Collins’ prediction of “networks well-led,” what would that look like?

Let’s start with networks versus organizations.  A network is “a group or system of interconnected people or things.”  An organization is “a body of people with a particular purpose.”  This implies that an organization has boundaries specifically defining what it does and does not do (i.e., particular purpose).  Whereas a network is broader, more expansive (i.e., a system of interconnected…).  This doesn’t mean we should do away with organizations, but organizations should not be isolated.  They must be part of something bigger than their particular purpose.

Now a very brief look at well-managed versus well-led.  Author Dave Osh describes the difference like this, “management provides control, solves problems, monitors results, and takes corrective actions to resolve deviations.  Leadership provides motivation and inspiration.  It keeps people moving in the right direction despite challenges by appealing to their values and emotions.”

What does this mean for you?

On a personal level, if you are a leader and you’re not at least part of a “network” outside of your organization that probably means you’re focused too much on managing and not enough on leading.

Here’s a specific example.  Several years ago I did some research on new academic degree programs for a college.  In the process of doing that research, I learned that what the president really wanted me to do was to identify and hand a “network” to the faculty who would oversee those programs.  Creating those connections (i.e., interconnected people) happens on an individual basis, someone else can point you in the right direction, but it’s up to you, the leader, to be creating those interconnections and building relationships outside of your organization.  Consequently, if you find a college with a highly successful academic program or department, you’ll likely find professors who are interconnected with a network and may even be unofficially leading that network.

Same concept holds true in any organization, of any size, for profit or not for profit.

So, you say you’re a leader; then what’s your network?  Is there a network that’s just waiting for you to step-up and become one of its leaders?

Art isn’t about drawing; it’s about learning to see.  ~Ed Catmull

In the last century, it was frequently stated that management is a science and leadership is an art.  I recently heard Ed Catmull (co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios, President of Walt Disney Animation Studios) speak at a leadership summit.  When Ed made the statement, “Art isn’t about drawing; it’s about learning to see,” I immediately thought of the artistic nature of true leadership.

Ed’s explanation of art as “learning to see” is so much of what leadership is really all about.  Leadership isn’t about what you do it really is about learning to see.  It’s a different paradigm, a different worldview.  For leaders, every challenge, every interaction is an exercise in learning to see.

I’m in the midst of doing a series of training sessions with a very large global company.  The training participants are required to attend, and for the majority of them they are doing a job.  Or as one participant stated last week, “work is a four-letter word.”  Using Ed’s analogy, I’d say that nearly all of these training participants are focused on drawing.  They come to work to complete a task they have been assigned and they count the days (or the hours) until the weekend when they can put down their “drawing utensils” and walk away from their work.   It’s my hope, or dream, that somehow over the course of two days of training I can give them a glimpse of what it’s like to be in a state of learning to see.

Here are five commonalities between art and leadership or what I think learning to see looks like, whether painter or leader.

• It is learned and developed over time
• It requires passion and commitment
• It is born out of creative energy
• Artists make something out of nothing
• The true measure of success for an artist is not how many pieces are sold, but how they made people feel

Borrowing from Ed Catmull one more time:

Craft is what we are expected to know; art is the unexpected use of our craft.

Maybe we could say that “management is what we are expected to know; leadership is the unexpected use of management.”  It’s about continually learning to see.

Emotional intelligence, more than any other factor, more than I.Q. or expertise, accounts for 85% to 90% of success at work.  ~Warren Bennis

I came across a really helpful blog post by Carolyn Sun on Entreupeneur.com regarding interview questions to determine emotional intelligence when hiring.  However, I think the questions are also great for self-reflection for anyone in a leadership position.  Even if you’re not in the midst of a job search, how would you answer the questions?  What’s your emotional intelligence (E.Q.), as a leader?

Who inspires you and why?  Allows you to see who the interviewee models themselves after and highlights the behavioral patterns the interviewee respects.

If you were starting an organization tomorrow, what would be its top three values?  “Insight into a person’s priorities can emerge in the candidate’s answer,” says Robert Alvarez, the CFO of ecommerce platform Bigcommerce.

If the organization’s priorities change, describe how you would help your team understand and carry out the shifted goals?  Shifting priorities happen in any organization, so look for candidates who are flexible and have skills to help carry out change, says Mariah DeLeon, vice-president of people at workplace ratings and review site Glassdoor.   DeLeon advises, “Hire employees who are self-aware, motivated, and display empathy.  These skills will help employees work better in teams.”

Did you build lasting friendships while working at another job?  Being able to do this is a sign of solid emotional intelligence.  Alvarez says, “A lasting friendship tells you that relationships and caring about people are important to the person.”

What skill or expertise do you feel like you’re still missing?  Curiosity and the desire to learn are vital signs that a prospective employee wants to get better at something.  “People who struggle with this question are the people who think they already know it all,” warns Alvarez.  “These are the people you want to steer away from.”

Can you teach me something, as if I’ve never heard of it before?  It can be anything: a skill, a lesson, or a puzzle.  Their answer reveals a number of things: whether they are willing to take the time to think before speaking, if they have the ability to explain something to a person who is less knowledgeable on the subject, and if they ask empathetic questions to the person being taught.

What are the top three factors you would attribute to your success?  This can determine whether a person is selfless or selfish.  When people talk about their own success, listen to whether someone talks about ‘me-me-me’ or whether they talk about the team, ‘we’ or ‘us.’

So, what’s your E.Q.?  Would you hire you?

Managing your time without setting priorities is like shooting randomly and calling whatever you hit the target.  ~Peter Turla

Finding quotes on time management is easy; there are many!  It could be that’s because time is the ultimate equalizer.  We may have differing financial means, differing talents, differing backgrounds, etc.  But we all have the very same amount of time: 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  So why is it that some people seem to manage their time better than others?

This past week I found the simplest time management explanation that I’ve come across, thus far.  Time management is basically the function of two variables:  1) the ability to prioritize, and 2) the ability to stay focused on the task.

For those of you who are thinking that saying everything is a priority is prioritizing, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s not prioritizing.  The definition of prioritize is to determine the order for dealing with a series of items or tasks according to their relative importance.  That means something really does need to be identified as coming before something else.  Everything can’t be the priority.  If you can’t prioritize it’s going to be really hard to stay focused on the task.

The definition of focus is the center of interest or activity, to pay particular attention to.  We may think that multitasking is the key to time management, but that’s not focusing.  According to Dr. Susan Weinschenk, multitasking isn’t even the right word.  She says that what really happens is task-switching, and it takes more time to switch tasks than stick with them until you finish.    In fact, studies have found that multitasking reduces your productivity by 40%!

So, it’s Tuesday.  Have you set your priorities for the week and for today?  In other words, you’ve outlined the series of tasks you need to complete according to their relative importance?  And as you’ve worked your way through those priorities, you’ve stayed focused on the task until it’s completed?  Congratulations!  You’re a time manager.

But it doesn’t stop there!  The very same principles of time management that apply to individuals also apply to organizations.  Have you effectively communicated to your staff your collective organizational priorities?  And, are you helping to keep everyone focused on the task to complete those priorities?

Peter Drucker, father of management theory said, “Until we can manage time, we can manage nothing else.”

Are you managing your time or are you shooting randomly and calling whatever you hit the target?