The Leadership Questions (For those who have at least one person reporting to you at work)

Posted on August 29, 2013 by crosbyod

By Chris Crosby

Do you own all that happens in your work area?
• Do you even own problems caused in part by supporting resources working in your area but whom you have no legitimate authority over? (I.e. you are not their boss and do not do their performance review)
• If a supporting resource is not servicing your group as well as they should do you blame them instead of working with them until you get the results you need?
• If inputs that your group needs (materials, information, money, or people) are not being delivered on time or with quality do you blame the people responsible or work with them until you get what you need?
• Can you catch your blame and turn it into constructive problem solving aimed at getting results?

How is your ability to self-differentiate as a leader?
• How would you rate your ability to take a clear stand and stay connected?
• Is your focus mainly on connection?
• Is your focus mainly on taking stands?

Are you so used to the problems that you just live with them? Has your advocacy backbone died?
• Do you have a problem solving frame that begins with analysis to get to the facts of the issue or do you just throw solutions after things without real analysis?

How is your work place emotional intelligence?
• Are you aware of the connection between thoughts and feelings?
• Are you aware of the process of venting and how to tune into the people that are doing it versus reacting against or avoiding them? Or when people vent do you create a never ending cycle of venting about their vent and cause greater rifts and problems?
• Do you know the difference between a judgment of someone, such as any adjective used to describe people, and a behavioral description which is an attempt to get at the facts of what a person did, and the actual words used by that person? (Words are observable behavior. However, memory cannot be 100% trusted so when one shares the words they thought they heard they must understand that they most likely are a little off.)
• Are you aware of the dynamics of triangles in the workplace and do you know how to help people deal effectively with each other versus stay stuck in dysfunctional triangles?

Can you engage? Or are you disconnected as a leader?
• When you are in front of your group at a meeting is it clear you are the leader or do you look like another member perhaps even more passive than most in the group?
• Do you stop conversations as soon as obvious solutions are surfaced or that are about things already decided and redirect the group towards working through the next issues?
• Do you confront behavior that is counterproductive to effective workplaces like not paying attention or texting during meetings instead of listening and participating?
• When employees raise issues, can you engage with them by getting to the specifics or do you avoid the topic or complain as if you are an employee also rather than their leader?
• Do you confront people who are working outside of expectations and help them gain clarity of actually behaviors needed while occasionally using appropriate reprimands for those who truly are actually being deliberately insubordinate?
• Do you catch people doing things right and let them know by giving them positive reinforcement that is specific. Do you do this way more than sharing negative criticism (at least 3 to 1)?

Where is your tendency to focus as a leader, on the forest or in the trees? The forest represents overall functioning of the group as well as strategy. The trees represent tasks without taking a look at the group as a whole.
• Are you stuck in one way or the other or are you flexible? If you are in the trees can you focus sufficiently on the forest and create strategies that impact positively the overall functioning of the group? If you look only at the forest can you focus sufficiently on the trees and hold people accountable for individual task?
• No matter where your tendency is can you engage your employees when they bring issues? Or do you either try various means to get them to stop talking, not say anything yourself, or act as if you are one of them by joining in the complaining while not leading them beyond the issue to a solution?

When you start new initiatives do you stick to them and follow through until they are working well?
• Or are you in the never ending cycle of starting things without really following through good enough for success?

Do you listen to the people who are actually doing the work, such as floor personnel, and make sure they have all the necessary inputs and resources to do their job?
• Or do you try getting them to stop complaining and get to work?

Do you keep your focus on business results achieved and keep working on items in the way of success?
• Or do you focus mainly on keeping the peace and helping each other get along?

Do you see dissenters as trouble makers?
• Or do you attempt to understand each complaint to its actual facts then put in place solutions to solve the issues as deemed necessary?

How is your balance between backbone (the ability to show up be decisive, confront appropriately, make decisions, and hold people accountable), heart (the ability to tune in, express empathy, listen deeply in tense moments, and convey that you care), head (the ability to provide vision, to think through difficult problems, to help people understand role and expectations, and connect to the current situation), and guts (The ability to trust your instincts, and to show up in difficult moments)?
• Where are you stuck and deficient in these dimensions?

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Navigating Tuckman’s Stages: Leading Your Group from Forming to High Performing

Posted on August 22, 2013 by crosbyod

I just wrote this with the help of my father and brother (Chris). It’s rather long so I’m going to post it as a series of blog entries. Tell me what you think! – Gil Crosby

Tuckman’s model of group development has endured for decades as a simple way to understand group dynamics. His catchy and often quoted sequence is Form, Storm, Norm, and Perform. He later added Adjourn. One reason for the popularity of his model is that it is easy to remember, i.e., it rhymes. Unfortunately, the word he chose for that very reason to describe conflict, “storm,” is misunderstood by many to mean that an ugly fighting phase is necessary for a healthy group to develop. Another problem is that the model offers no guidelines on how to create a healthy (by which we mean high performing) group. Our approach, tested over decades of work with intact groups (i.e., boss and subordinates) and project teams, offers proven methods for actively guiding your group to high performance.

Like any good theory, Tuckman’s model clarifies what we already know: it is predictable that in the beginning of any new group there will be a period akin to a honeymoon stage, where members are focused on fitting in (forming), that eventually this need will be superseded by the surfacing of differences (the dramatic sounding storming), that how differences are managed will evolve into norms (do we admit and explore differences? Do we fight about differences? Do we pretend as best we can that we don’t have any differences?), and that these norms will impact group performance. In this light, Tuckman’s stages are a useful predictor of group dynamics. Unfortunately, they have been misunderstood by many as if they are to be simply endured. Most are unaware that research on Tuckman in 1975 by Johnson and Johnson noted, “Virtually all the studies that Tuckman reviewed, however, involved group leaders who were passive and nondirective and who made no attempt to intervene in group process.” We advocate a much more active approach. While Tuckman’s sequence raises awareness of the process that is unfolding, it’s important to go beyond passive awareness. An effective leader must guide the group towards constructive ends rather than leaving group development to chance. Whether or not they are the formal leader, if even one group member knows the following methods, that group has a much stronger chance of achieving high performance.

Based on our experience with 100s of groups over the past 60 years, we propose that the active leadership stages of an effective group are:

Stage One – Inclusive Forming/Dispersed Participation
Stage Two – Constructive Storming/Managing Differences
Stage Three – Active Norming/Organizing the Work
Stage Four – High Performing/Self Renewing Activities

It’s important to note that even with a passive approach to Tuckman, the stages don’t unfold in an entirely linear manner nor in any set amount of time (for example, one is establishing norms from the very beginning, and conflict can and will emerge at any time). Rather these are general guidelines and activities with an end goal of high performance.

To set the context of how this works, imagine yourself in a meeting. The meeting could be formal (a project team with members from every department) or informal (on the floor with 2 or 3 others). You may be a member or the person in charge. Regardless of your role or the circumstances of the meeting, Tuckman’s stages are unfolding!

To be continued…

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Emotional Intelligence – Keeping Your Car on the Track

Posted on August 15, 2013 by crosbyod

Aristotle said “Anyone can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person at the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way – that is not within everyone’s power and that is not easy.” When emotions surge, it is often tense, uncertain and fearful ground we tread. Irrational thoughts and behaviours can overtake us.

At the core of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is the ability to be aware of your emotion as you experience it, and the capacity to remain aware and responsible in moments of intensity. “Responsible” is a compound word made of “response” + “able”, meaning the ability to choose our response as opposed to being reactive, or not in control. Other traits of EQ are: Self-motivation, persistence, optimism, delayed gratification, regulation of our moods, and recognizing and understanding emotions in others – empathy.

Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence and pioneer in the field, says “emotions are an impulse to act.” They are the engines of human behaviour. Given this, it would seem most everyone would want a better understanding of the forces that drive us. But adults looking inward at their emotions is like kids taking medicine. Neither wants to do it, but neither will get better until they do.

The last decade saw an unparalleled study of emotion and the mind. Science tells us that Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, is relatively fixed while EQ can be increased. Our deepest feelings, passions, and longings are guides that help our species thrive but can get out of control. The typical view of minimizing emotions in our lives, especially at work, is short-sighted since they play such a huge role. Ignoring emotion, trying to push it out of your awareness, simply blinds you to it’s influence. Understanding the impact of emotion on decisions and communication is essential when navigating the complex system of authority and interdependence in any workplace.

Science asserts that the emotional part of our brain is much older in our species than the intellectual part of our brain. Automatic reactions have always been the difference between survival and death, and each emotion plays a unique part in those reactions. Unfortunately we often confront ordinary, modern dilemmas with reactions from this “primitive brain.” Irregardless of your beliefs about evolution, it’s critical to your EQ that you understand the physiological portion of the “primitive” brain, and the role it plays in your work relationships.

We have an emotional mind and a rational mind, one that thinks and one that feels. Both have their roles. Usually the two minds are balanced and coordinated, but in a rush of emotional intensity the scales can tip, and the emotional mind captures the upper hand. Goleman describes this phenomenon as a Neuro-Hijacking. The emotional brain (limbic) declares an emergency and recruits the rest of the brain to its urgent agenda. The hijack happens in an instant before the rational brain (neocortex) knows fully what’s going on, let alone if it is a good idea. Think about the last time you “lost it.” When looking back, it later seems unnecessary. There is good reason why this happens.

The amygdala, located between the brain stem and the limbic portion of the brain, plays a special role in emotional matters. It works like an alarm system that sends messages to every part of the brain. When you hear a noise in the dark, the sudden movement of an unknown shape causes you to jump before you know what it is. This is useful and helps to insure our survival. Unfortunately this same mechanism often kicks into gear when our survival is not threatened. In social situations when we feel criticized, or threatened in any way, being led by the emotional brain alone can be disastrous. Like an Indy car careening around the track with the throttle stuck and the steering wheel gone. This is not useful.

How do we fix it? One way to understand and “fix” this problem is to look at it as simple physiology. Why does the amygdala jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in? It happens because the emotional brain is far less complicated than the thinking brain. The emotional brain senses danger, decides immediately, and sounds the alarm. New research shows that there are many more neurons carrying messages from the amygdala to the neocortex than there are in the reverse direction. Once the alarm goes out the thinking brain, hijacked in the intensity of the moment, becomes a full partner in the primitive activities of fight or flight. It’s like there’s an eight lane freeway going one direction, and a Jamaican back road going the other. Regaining control isn’t easy.

Primitive brain reactions are prevalent in the workplace, but they are much more subtle than they sound. People fight by quietly debating, by talking behind each other’s backs, or through the varied forms of office politics. They freeze and flee by keeping their mouths shut, playing it safe, and not engaging. Indeed, many workplaces are mostly run by the primitive brain.

The old sayings of “count to ten” or “take a deep breath” take on new significance as scientifically-based antidotes to the human condition of “temporary insanity.” All actions are motivated by feelings. Emotions put us in motion. We can always choose how we respond to an emotion. Taking a deep breath calms the system and gives the rational brain a moment to catch up. Just to realize in the moment that you have been hijacked by your amygdala is a huge leap in self-awareness and a huge help in your relationships.

The mission, should you choose to accept it, is to develop your Emotional Intelligence. Awareness of your feelings is the key to self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the key to self-management and improvement. Emotional Intelligence is not the much feared “touchy feely” openness wherein people are pushed to share their personal lives and inner emotional states in every interaction. Emotional Intelligence is an intentional increase in one’s capacity to recognize one’s emotions, and to use that information to make intentional, productive choices in our personal and work lives.

By Associate Mark Horswood – From Human Factors 8.2, Winter, 2008

Posted in Emotional Intelligence | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Leadership and Culture by Robert P. Crosby

Posted on August 8, 2013 by crosbyod

The use of too much authority or the absence of authority are equally disastrous. The culture created by authoritarianism is well known. The culture encouraged by a vacuum of leadership is one of confusion, delay, and unproductive anxiety leading to increases in safety incidents, lower morale, higher turnover, and absenteeism.

Historically, the idea of the business owner as an authoritarian figure, dominating the lives and minds of his employees, ushered in the 20th Century. Later, the other extreme, popularly conceived as an authority-free style where all participants make decisions, was manifest in a variety of ways under names like consensus or participative management, servant leadership, 9/9 leadership, autonomous or self-managed teams. Both extremes fail. A management strategy which integrates these extremes is needed. The story that begins in Chapter 1 of my latest book illustrates how any organization can find that elusive blend. The final chapter explains the role that authenticity—being who you are— and productivity—achieving the organization’s goals—play in that intertwining.
‘
The positive intent of authority, of course, is to get things done. The negative intent and frequent consequence is to run roughshod over people. The positive intent of consensus is to significantly involve people in decision-making. The negative intent and frequent consequence is to stifle action and give power to the most stubborn. The intertwining of the positives is a major theme of my book which you can ordeer from our website at http://www.crosbyod.com.

Excerpted from: Robert P. Crosby. “Cultural Change in Organizations” Vivo! Publishing Co., Inc., 2011

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Assessment Centers

Posted on August 1, 2013 by crosbyod

Assessment Centers have become a widely accepted method for assisting in employee development and career path decisions. In choosing a vendor, it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology. The jury is still out on the validity of the results delivered by standard assessment centers. Crosby & Associates brings a rigor to the assessment process that many providers lack. We also provide significant leadership development during the assessment. As a result, your personnel graduate from the process more capable of leading, regardless of whether they are at the top or bottom of the bell curve within your organization. For the time and cost invested, you move the organization forward and gain practical information to assist in your development, career path, and performance management decisions.

Crosby & Associates has provided leadership development and assessment, especially in the form of a master’s level corporate leadership program, since the early 1970’s. Our development methods are reliable, create a dramatic improvement in a critical mass of attendees, and have been tested time and again. A recent group of management participants rated the practical application of their learning to their work as an average score of 9.0 on a ten point scale. An average score ranging from eight to nine has been consistently reproduced through our history.

A review of the literature reveals that claims of traditional Assessment Center validity, on the other hand, are dubious. The study most frequently cited, by Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson (1985), documents a validity coefficient of .37 (0 = no relationship, 1.0 = strong relationship), comparing Assessment Center methods with other forms of assessment. Most of the literature, especially from Assessment Center vendors, claims that this proves the centers are effective.

This is a leap. For example, the most frequently cited studies claim that Assessment Center predictions, as measured by the subsequent career path advancement of the graduates, tightly match assessment by management personnel. If that’s the case, why not save time and expense and just evaluate your subordinates yourself! The Assessment Center industry’s own research indicates that management is just as good at it as they are! Furthermore, .37 is less than halfway up the cited validity scale. It is a statistically significant, but weak, correlation. Yet it is cited as proof of validity in much of the industry’s literature. The industry also cites studies indicating that people who received favorable assessments tend to advance in their careers. They claim that as proof that Assessment Centers make valid predictions. What they don’t address is that they are influencing the outcome. That is, people who get favorable assessments gain improved opportunity for advancement, whereas those who receive less favorable assessments may be handicapped when advancement decisions are made. This might be acceptable if there was no variation in the quality of assessments. If there is variability, than careers are being determined to some extent by the luck of the draw.

The industry’s own studies go on to provide evidence that the quality of the assessments does vary from assessor to assessor (Impact of Common Rater Variance on Construct Validity of Assessment Center Dimension Judgments, Kolk, Born & Flier, 2002). Furthermore, we have coached many individuals coping with and trying to interpret the meaning of negative assessments. These assessments, provided to a nuclear operating company, did not stand up to rigorous assessment of the assessments, and provided very little in the way of useful coaching. Sadly, that particular organization believed they were valid, and weighed them heavily into their career advancement decision-making.

In sum, while widely accepted in corporate circles, there is a lack of research critiquing Assessment Center validity, and numerous shortcomings in the data and methods used by the industry. A reasonable executive may be asking themselves at this point, why bother? We are surfacing these problems with the Assessment Center industry because A) nobody else seems to be, and this industry is thriving despite it’s flaws, B) because surfacing problems is part of our value system, and part of the behavior we work to instill in others, so that decisions can be made with eyes wide open, and C) because we offer a high quality, highly reliable alternative.

The Crosby & Associates Leadership Development and Assessment Center Approach:

First and foremost, we are going to develop your present and future leaders while we assess them, so that you are improving the performance of your organization while also receiving practical development information. Our experiential learning methods encourage leaders to give clear direction, take a stand for what they believe in, foster communication up and down the hierarchy, and connect with emotional intelligence to all levels of the organization. This type of leadership has fostered success in many of our clients, such as PECO Nuclear following the NRC’s shutdown of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, is critical to fostering productivity, quality, and safety culture, and can be reliably replicated in your organization, as it has in many others over the past 35 years.

Our assessments are behaviorally specific. No judgments are offered that can’t be tied back to a description of what we heard or saw the individual do. The person being assessed will know exactly how the assessment judgment was formed. They will have the data for forming their own interpretation of their behavior, so they are able to work on improvement in a practical manner, or challenge the interpretation. Our personnel are not afraid to be challenged, and to have follow-up conversations with the people they have assessed (unlike most of the industry, which refuses to engage once the assessment is delivered). Behavioral specificity is also a core skill in the giving and receiving of feedback, and each of the participants will carefully hone that skill during the process, so they can apply it within the organization.

Crosby & Associates assessors calibrate their ratings before finalizing them, to make sure they are being as consistent as humanly possible in their interpretations of the participants.

In addition, unlike many of our competitors, Crosby & Associates absolutely advises our customers to respect management judgment in career advancement and development decision making regarding your own personnel. Management has years of data that no Assessment Center can reproduce. We will accelerate the development of a critical mass of your leaders, and provide the organization with valuable feedback, but making career progression and development decisions about your subordinate’s remains in your hands, where it belongs. On the other hand, the standards, skills, and process in your organization for how to make those decisions will be enhanced through our leadership development activities.

Posted in Assessment Centers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

T-Groups – “…the most significant social invention of the (20th) century.”

Posted on December 6, 2012 by crosbyod

T-Groups are a unique learning methodology invented in 1946 by Kurt Lewin, who many consider the founder of organizational development. Carl Rogers, a renowned psychotherapist, reportedly described the T-Group as “…the most significant social invention of the century.” We strongly agree. If effectively led, T-Groups are one of the most powerful tools to increase one’s Emotional Intelligence (EQ), which is directly related to work effectiveness. Indeed, a 1975 article co-authored by Daniel Goleman, the man who has popularized EQ, concludes that “Students who had participated in a T-Group showed significantly more change toward their selected goal than those who had not.”

In 1953, Robert P. Crosby, our father and founder, attended his first T-Group at Boston University. Soon after, at NTL, he met one of Kurt Lewin’s protégés, Ron Lippitt, who mentored him for the next 30 years. Lippitt’s guidance and father’s own vision resulted in a clarity about T-Groups that has served him well ever since.

The essential purpose of our T-Group process is to help people interact as effectively as possible in order to get work done. A nice side-benefit is direct transfer of learning to personal life. The need for effective communication is universal, and by the end of the session makes sense to the vast majority of participants no matter what their role is in their organization. It’s the same goal we bring to working with intact work teams, to “whole systems” interventions with a cross-section of an organization, to individual coaching, etc. That is, how to do the best job of being understood, and of understanding others, especially in moments of emotional intensity. With that focus, it is not “touchy-feely.” It is immensely practical.

Participants agree. At the end of each workshop, dating back to the 1950’s, we have had the participants rate the learning. During the past few decades we have used the same 1 to 10 scale, rating “application to work” and “application to life (outside of work).” Literally thousands (mostly from industrial settings) have given a consistent average rating around 9.0. Testimonials amassed during father’s 60 plus years of experience confirm the numbers. Stories, such as the following quote from a nuclear power VP, are not unusual. “I went through this almost 20 years ago at PECO Nuclear and it is the only training that has ever stuck with me. I use the skills and concepts every day.”

We point out all of this because T-Groups are a foundation of our business culture change methodology, which leads to consistent performance improvement as measured by business metrics. With that in mind, let us go into more detail, including distinctive features of our T-Group methodology (not all T-Group methods are the same).

The vast majority of our workshops are done within an organization, hence our T-Group based “Tough Stuffs” are carefully designed to increase EQ as applied to work. The leader sponsoring the workshop kicks things off by articulating, as best they can, how the skills learned will help reach their business goals, including any specific needs they see, such as better management of conflicts.

Once under way we conduct our initial “theory session” (mini-lectures which are interwoven throughout the workshop). We begin with a simple example of one of the many things the participants could be more aware of, the reptilian brain reactions (fight, flight, freeze), so as not to be stuck in reactive behavior. We also explore the concept of experiential learning – learning by doing and then carefully reflecting on one’s experience – through a simple activity where they quickly have an experience and then reflect on it in specific ways. With this framework, we shift from theory to the first T-Group of the workshop.

Whereas some begin T-Groups with intentional ambiguity (where, for example, the facilitator doesn’t say anything), we offer as much clarity and transparency about the T-Group task as possible. The essential T-Group task is to verbalize what you want, think and feel (by “feel” we mean to name your immediate emotion…”mad, sad, glad, afraid, etc”) in the immediate moment in relation to the other participants. We are fairly active about intervening around this task, and living it ourselves. It’s a tight focus that we maintain around immediate reactions, experience and behavior. Although a task that most participants are not accustomed to (to say the least), it’s not ambiguous, even though it takes some getting used to. What is ambiguous is changes/reactions in self and in others from moment to moment. That is not unique to T-Groups though. That is life, which is why T-Group learning is so practical.

A critical distinction of our T-Group method is the type of “openness” we are encouraging. The participants are working on being effectively open about their immediate interactions. They are NOT working on being “open” about their personal lives. Some people think of openness only in terms of telling troubling stories about one’s past. This distinction is the difference between T-Groups and individual therapy. Such confessions are a big reason the “T-Group movement” virtually died out. T-Groups became so popular in the 60s and 70s that the demand outgrew the availability of skilled facilitators, and many T-Groups essentially became pseudo-therapy sessions. Our focus on immediate interactions and not on personal story telling is a big reason why we have been able to continue using T-Groups in business settings over the past 6 decades.

Another distinction of our approach is to have an inner circle and an outer circle. Participants in the outer circle are each assigned to a participant in the inner circle. Both spend equal time in the inside and outside positions. The inner circle is doing the T-Group task, as described above. The outer circle silently observes and takes detailed notes on their “partner,” which they then debrief privately with their partner prior to the next round of T-Group. These notes are very specific: observable behavior only…body language, tone of voice, quotes…plus the observer’s hunch about their partner’s emotions (“mad, sad, glad, afraid, etc.”). The discipline of documenting these behavioral observations is an important means for us to teach and reinforce the distinction between the judgments participants are forming, and the behavior that led them to their judgments.

Increased objectivity about one’s judgments of others is one of the many gems to be mined from John Wallen’s Interpersonal Gap theory, which we view as a cornerstone of EQ and present early in each workshop. Wallen’s model also highlights how our judgments trigger our own emotional responses, how misunderstanding is likely in tense moments, and how behavioral skills such as paraphrasing what you think the other meant (not parroting their words) can help decrease misunderstanding. The behavior description in the observer’s task is also from Wallen, and is directly transferable to coaching and mentoring employees. One cannot drive behavioral changes unless they can be specific about behavior.

Those are the kinds of skills we are working on in the T-Groups, skills best learned by trying them on in live unscripted interactions, reflecting on the experience, making adjustments and trying again. There’s more, but that should provide a feel for the method a la Crosby. It is safe to say we are very active in our facilitation, and indeed an important moment in most workshops is when a participant is honest with a facilitator about being irritated with the facilitator’s interventions. We think how people manage their differences with authority figures is a vital factor in organizational performance, so we welcome such moments while responding to them as genuinely as we can. We are far from perfect, don’t have to be (thank heavens), and don’t claim to be. We simply apply the same standards to ourselves that we are asking of the participants. That first confrontation with the facilitator tends to be a breakthrough for the group, in that they then begin to be more honest with each other about differences, whereas initially they tend to avoid their differences out of fear of what might happen.

And that is the beauty of T-Groups…what is real in work relationships (such as fear, blame, etc.) shows up in T-Groups, but with a chance to learn how to better manage oneself during difficult moments. Increased honesty about differences of opinion…skill at really listening to understand even during tension…these are the practical outcomes.

Anyone who is interdependent on anyone else in order to get their work done (and that is most people) must communicate about work issues. That is where increased effectiveness pays off. It’s not a choice. It’s either done well or done in such a way (including complete avoidance of necessary conversations) that it is harder to get the work done.

The same is true of emotions. They are already a constant in the workplace. We want people to be more aware of emotion so that they can make more thoughtful choices about their own behavior and not let emotion prevent them from understanding others.

In other words, the goal of this type of learning as we deliver it is that work information flows between layers, departments, and functions, and is not being needlessly bogged down by conflict, avoidance, blame, fear, etc. It’s not “soft skills” for the sake of soft skills…its behavior change for the sake of performance. Hence the name “Tough Stuff,” coined by a participant.

As mentioned, T-Groups are only part of the puzzle of culture change. All teams, for example, need to self-assess…are they getting what they need from each other in order to get the work done? Are they getting what they need from other groups? Cross-sections of the organization need to come together to overcome barriers to crossfunctional work…and so on. T-Group learning is just one possible intervention…an intervention that reinforces the behavioral maturity needed in any challenging work situation.

Finally, while the leader is looking for certain work culture outcomes (such as people handling difficult conversations in a manner that leads to the most productive results), each individual is reflecting on their own behavior and on their own work/national/ethnic culture regarding what is working and what is not working, and how they want it to be. They are truly in charge of their own learning. That is one reason our T-Group process has been effective wherever we have had the privilege of taking it thus far, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Russia, Egypt, Australia, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, and Costa Rico.

In sum, T-Groups, when facilitated properly, are a great tool for building high performance culture!

Read more or sign up for our next T-Group based workshop at www.crosbyod.com.

Posted in T-Groups | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Leadership – the first chapter from my new yet to be published book

Posted on July 18, 2012 by crosbyod

Excerpted from “Leadership can be Learned”

Chapter One: Leadership

Take clear stands and stay connected – the essence of leadership. The task of being an effective authority figure remains the same, whether your role impacts many (President, VP, CEO, etc.) or a few (parent, Front Line Supervisor, etc.). It is your personal hero’s or heroine’s quest…a true combination of art and science. This guide, based on the combined experience of my father Robert P. Crosby, beginning in the 1950s, and my own (an Organization Development Professional since 1984), along with many other sources both ancient and modern, conveys a practical and thoroughly tested model of leadership. Applied with humility and sincerity, you and the people you lead can move mountains.

The hero’s quest has been traveled since the dawn of time (a wonderful source for further exploration of that theme are the writings of Joseph Campbell). The path, while illuminated by this and other teachings, is always uniquely your own. It was forged in your earliest moments, before you understood language, in the cauldron of your earliest authority relationships. You learned then about trust and mistrust, about dependency and independence. You don’t need therapy to understand your current reactions to being an authority figure and to relating to authority figures (although therapy can be a path to learning). You need only to be a clear eyed observer of your own emotional and behavioral reactions. From there you can create your own clarity about how to be the most effective leader you can be.

To walk the path, one must balance taking clear concise stands (focusing on and trusting self) and staying connected to the people you depend on (focusing on and trusting others). Either extreme: only taking stands (leading autocratically) or only staying connected (leading by consensus) will pull you off the path. People respond to clarity, and people respond to mutual respect. A transformational leader knows how to foster both. This book is about that journey. Take clear stands and stay connected and you will create your Camelot moments of results and camaraderie.

So what’s so tough about taking clear stands and staying connected? That’s where the flaming swords of fear and desire rear their ugly heads and block your path. Many leaders desire so much to be “one of the gang” or “just a regular guy” that they undermine their ability to lead. Many also seem to underestimate the deep psychological importance of their role. All humans start their lives completely dependent on the adult authority figures in their lives. The emotions that are experienced in those early relationships stay with us throughout life. We project them onto authority figures and live them out in our own roles of authority. To lead and/or follow effectively we must come to peace with our own reactions to the role, and we must empathize with the reactions of others. This is true whether we are a front line supervisor, a CEO, or a parent. If we let our desire “not to be the boss” keep us from taking clear stands…if we let our fear of our own subordinates reactions keep us from connecting…we cannot lead. To truly lead one must provide direction or the organization will flounder, and one must sincerely relate or the organization will not follow.

Take clear stands and stay connected. This book explores both the art and the science of this simple yet powerful model of leadership, including how to understand yourself and develop your skills.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vision is Not Enough! Leadership Lessons from Military History

Posted on May 16, 2012 by crosbyod

I wrote this for the most recent issue of the organizational development newsletter I edit: “Oh those men, those men over there! I cannot get them out of my mind.” Such was the lament of General Ambrose E. Burnside, after he sent 12,653 men to be killed or wounded charging unprotected up a hill into withering fire from General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate army at Fredericksburg, Virginia. Burnside never wavered from his vision, despite the pleadings of capable subordinates, who could see with perfect clarity that attacking Lee’s men, who were behind a stone wall at the top of a hill, was folly. He ordered the attack and then sat back in his headquarters awaiting the execution of his commands. It was strategy (bordering on wishful thinking) without tactics. As if to punctuate this point, when the Union army early in the day punched a hole through the Confederate line through some woods to the left of the hill, Burnside choose not to send reinforcements. Instead he allowed this promising attack to falter, and rigidly stuck to his doomed vision of taking the hill. Interestingly, despite this and other follies (he may have singlehandedly lost the battle of Antietam, amongst other things), Burnside remained a popular leader, twice being elected to the US Senate from Rhode Island. And the word “sideburns” literally traces back to this man and his bold style of facial hair.

History is full of the contrast between leaders who set direction and then make adjustments, and those who are too detached to know what is really going on. Two leaders, Napoleon Bonaparte and Robert E. Lee, make this contrast evident by succeeding when they made adjustments and failing when they did not. In his prime, Napoleon was a master of battlefield tactics, such as marching secretly behind the Austrian army, striking their flank, and defeating them soundly at Ulm, Germany. While his subordinates capably executed his tactical decisions, he was clearly the master of the situation, keeping a close eye on the ever changing conditions, and adjusting his plans accordingly.

We can only speculate why (although illness may have played a role), but in key battles late in his career, notably at Borodino and Waterloo, Napoleon hung back, leaving execution of his plan and tactical adjustments in the hands of his immediate subordinates. Unfortunately for him, they weren’t up to the task. Their blunders were many, culminating with Field Marshall Ney’s ill-advised decision to send the entire French cavalry, 12,000 men, into an unsupported charge against the center of the Duke of Wellington’s line at Waterloo. Napoleon’s normal discipline of coordinating his artillery, infantry and cavalry attacks neglected in the heat of the moment, the gallant French cavalry was cut down along with any hope of victory.

Robert E. Lee’s tale is similar, although not due to over-relying on his subordinates, but rather to abandoning his own past practice at a critical moment that turned the course of the Civil War. As mentioned, at Fredericksburg Lee chose a strong defensive position (top of a hill, behind a wall), and then was rewarded as Burnside sent the Union army forward like lambs to the slaughter. Following Burnside’s dismissal by Lincoln, Lee again outwitted his replacement, General “Fighting Joe” Hooker, at the battle of Chancellorsville, this time with audacious offensive tactics.

Hooker’s strategy was reasonable enough. Move a sizeable force upstream and strike the confederates, still entrenched at Fredericksburg, in the rear. Unfortunately for Fighting Joe, Lee anticipated this move, and made his own bold counter move, splitting his forces and sending Stonewall Jackson around Hooker’s rear where he launched an attack at nightfall that sent the Union forces into a panic. As Lee attacked from one side and Jackson from the other, Hooker became first indecisive, and then literally knocked senseless when a cannonball shattered a post he was leaning on. The only decisive action he took was to stubbornly refuse to relinquish command, even as he simultaneously failed to give desperately needed direction. The battle became a route, with the Union losing 4139 more men than they had in the folly at Fredericksburg. They South paid dearly though when Jackson, a brilliant tactician, was accidentally cut down by his own men in the falling darkness, the occupational hazard of literally leading in the front.

Lee’s quick tactical adjustment, from strong defensive position, to hitting the enemy with surprise and in their weakest point, paid off at Chancellorsville, as his tactics often did throughout the war. At the battle of Gettysburg, rather than outwitting his opponent, Lee tried to overpower them, launching a frontal assault on a heavily defended position. The cream of his still strong army marched across open fields and up a hill into the teeth of Union artillery and rifle fire (as at Fredericksburg entrenched behind a stone wall) in the now infamous “Pickett’s charge.” Only 250 or so out of 15,000 reached the top, only to be overwhelmed as their reward for doing so. Half of the 15,000 were cut down, with the other half retreating in defeat. The Confederacy never again mounted a serious offensive into the North, and the war became an inevitable battle of bloody attrition as the Union essentially wore down the South with superior numbers. Uncharacteristically, Lee had abandoned his clever tactics for a charge into an excellent defensive position. As with Napoleon’s shift to a “hands off” approach, why will forever be a mystery, but it’s a clear and tragic example of when “vision is not enough.”

In sum, Burnside stuck rigidly to his vision, ignoring the pleas of his subordinates that could have averted disaster. Napoleon was a superb tactician when he was hands on, but failed to instill the same tactical discipline in his subordinates, leading to disaster when they were abruptly required to think on their own. Hooker’s vision was better than his ability to adjust…and when he needed to delegate authority he failed to do so. Finally, Lee abandoned past practice of patient tactics to gamble on a “quick fix” that was almost certainly doomed to fail.

While there are many lessons to be learned from these stories, the emphasis here is that strategy rarely unfolds the way one envisions it. A wise leader stays abreast of conditions in the field by actively listening to people at all levels of the organization, and then helps the organization adjust. In contrast, some leaders are out of touch with their subordinates and others seem so determined to work through them that they lose touch with the situations and the people below. In the latter case, some worry (due to past experience) that if they “think out loud” employees will take the conversation as an order, resulting in wasted activity and confusion about the chain of command. Prevent that by being as clear as you can (“I’m just thinking out loud…I’m not asking you to do anything!”) not by restricting your interactions. Furthermore, at every level one must work to prevent misunderstanding by sharpening the quality of conversations. Don’t settle for generalizations such as “it’s going good” or “this place is falling apart.” Inquire what specifically is working, and what specifically isn’t working. Clarify your intentions with your direct reports as well. Staying in touch below them doesn’t mean that you don’t trust them, that you want to undermine their authority, or that you aren’t going to rely on them for information and advice. It does mean that you don’t want to over-rely on them for information because you want to prevent their blind spots from becoming your own. No matter how well intentioned, it is easy for people to be too attached to their own positions and departments and miss the way in which their own groups are contributing to problems. Your job is to help ensure all think across the entire system.

To lead you must stay in touch with a critical mass, one way or another. Too much distance erodes one’s ability to rally people to action. Staying connected is both an art and a science. Don’t take over decision-making authority that belongs below you, but do keep in direct contact with as much of the organization as you can. Incorporate what you see and hear into strategy and tactics at your own level. If you are implementing lean manufacturing, for example, and your organization has over-adjusted by starving the plant of spare parts, do what it takes to get the right amount of spare parts! If you have de-centralized any function such as engineering (by moving the engineers into the field), keep an eye on whether plant wide projects are now being neglected. Conversely, if you have centralized a function such as engineering so that they can concentrate on systemic improvements, make sure there are still engineering resources available for problem-solving emergent production issues. No vision is perfect without adjustments! Set your strategy, stay in touch, and be prepared to adjust.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Leadership Quotes

Posted on January 5, 2012 by crosbyod

A colleague was recently looking for leadership quotes to pass on to her clients. Her example was, “You have to have a vision to make it come to fruition.” Here are my two cents (two quotes for leaders, and everyone really, to live by, with explanations of why):

“Be the change you want to see in the world” – Mahatma Gandhi

This is a great quote for leaders. If you want an engaged organization, you must lead by engaging. Easier said than done…if you overfunction you will dis-empower the layers below you, but if you underfunction you will do the same. One must lead, but listen and be open to influence…empower but monitor performance. If the leader can’t do this art, only exceptional individuals below will be able to.

And if you try to “fix” portions of the system without continuously working on your own role in the system, forget about it.

I once wrote an article on the similarities between Patton and Gandhi. Similar to the above, the following rings true, and guides me every day.

“You cannot be disciplined in great things and indisciplined in small things” – General George Patton Jr.

I also tend to think in terms of anti-slogans. For example:

“Vision isn’t enough. Custer had it, and look where it got him!”

I just made that one up, but there are countless examples of leaders who focus mostly on vision and statements of values, but don’t trust or know how to access the information coming from their own people, and consequently lead their organizations (or troops) over a cliff that was clearly perceived by many down below. Moving forward soley on the basis of your own vision is tempting because if you wait for everyone to say you are heading the right direction, you’ll never get anywhere. On the other hand, if you don’t invite and explore information from below you are operating in a vacuum of your own creation and almost certainly demoralizing the people you need.

Leadership takes a combination of guts (leaping forward!) (occasionally retreating or adjusting course!) and work (engaging and empowering)!

Gil

Posted in Leadership | Tagged | Leave a comment

Aging Management

Posted on July 7, 2011 by crosbyod

A colleague in Malaysia, a nation where 65% of the population is under 35, asked for my thoughts on how to deal with an “aging management” population and such a wide generation gap. The US Nuclear Industry faces a similar crises, with a key difference that they have difficulty recruiting young people into what is considered a dying industry. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a 2004 study suggested focusing on the following to prepare the next generation of leaders:

Retention – This is a challenge for Malaysia and the US Nuclear Industry alike. Both have a history of primarily autocratic leadership, yet the primary variable in study after study on retention is the relationship between the boss and their direct reports. If the subordinate doesn’t believe they are respected by their immediate supervisor, they are much more likely to leave, even at risk of a loss of income. If they feel respected by their boss, they are much more likely to be loyal.

This need for a mutually respectful relationship in an autocratic top down environment is a paradox that must be solved not only for retention, but for performance, knowledge transfer, succession coaching and planning, morale, and the like. As Kurt Lewin demonstrated in his famous studies of group leadership, it is far easier to be autocratic or, as he put it, laissez-faire (passive or hands off leadership), yet less effective, than it is to be democratic (be in charge yet allow appropriate autonomy and influence). According to Lewin whereas anyone can be authoritarian or passive, every generation has to learn how to do democracy. In his own words, “Autocracy is imposed upon the individual.  Democracy he has to learn.”

Developing Emotionally Intelligent (EQ) leaders who understand how to tune into their subordinates while still fulfilling their role of being in charge is critical for both the US Nuclear Industry and Malaysia. This is an investment that pays off whether or not the individual remains an individual contributor or moves into higher levels of positional authority (although the odds that they will “move up” increases significantly if they improve their EQ). As Daniel Goleman notes in one of numerous studies on the subject: “EQ accounted for 67% of the abilities deemed necessary for superior performance,” and “EQ mattered TWICE as much as technical expertise or IQ.” Emotionally Intelligent Leadership is critical to performance, yet is generally treated as a training option rather than as a strategic necessity.

This is partially because you can’t learn EQ through a passive classroom learning process, and so much EQ training is bunk. Genuine experiential training where one learns from their immediate real interactions and reactions, and then learns how to learn continuously from such key moments, is  rare.

Knowledge Transfer and Succession Planning were the other two strategies recommended by the IAEA. The US Nuclear Industry is strong in taking such recommendations and turning them into organized and highly bureaucratic processes, where specific types of knowledge, for example, are documented, and training, often involving current subject matter experts internal and external to the organization, is provided. This addresses one aspect (admittedly important) of knowledge transfer. Equally important…yes, this is a theme…is daily ongoing relationship management throughout the organization. The quality of informal knowledge transfer, and of the depth of the dialogue in formal knowledge transfer scenarios, depends on it. The difference upon quality of learning between tolerating “the expert” and engaging with them in active exploration of the topic is huge.

The same is even more true of succession planning, a highly emotional process (even in nuclear plants run by engineers). Organizing a succession planning process is not so tough and there are several ways to skin that cat. Generally the lead team, and the subsequent layers assess talent one and/or two layers down in the organization and have debate over who might step up into future leadership positions, and where there is a significant gap in skill, training, experience, etc. (if they are really advanced they weigh in EQ). This then guides coaching/mentorship, training, development, recruitment, etc. However, most organizations, even if they get this organized (which is wise!), are weak in the very skills necessary for objective assessment of individuals (which is difficult!) and coaching. Then essential skills include how to recognize one’s own subjectivity in one’s judgements of others (so one can be more objective and even influenced in their opinions rather than getting their ego attached to their opinions), and how to recognize and describe behaviors (such as “missed several deadlines without notifying me in advance”) rather than tearing people down with labels (such as “not a team player”). Behavior description is not only critical to performance and talent assessment, but it is also essential in effective coaching.

Perhaps even more valuable, a high EQ leader that can effectively focus on behavior, can then ask themselves, and their subordinate, “ok, you missed several deadlines, which isn’t good, and you didn’t inform me up front…is their something about my own behavior/reactions that makes you reluctant to bring me bad news? Is there something about the nature of the task or the way we set deadlines (passive acceptance of top down deadlines, for example) that makes it unlikely they will be achieved?” An EQ leader asks such questions not to relieve the subordinate of responsibility, but to make sure they aren’t missing other root causes, including their own behavior, and to seize opportunities for their own continuous learning.

That covers the IAEA recommendations. The other variable here is the generation gap. As I wrote in an earlier entry (“Managing the Wired Generation”), each generation in our electronic age tends to have an increasing degree of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder behaviors. They have been brought up with so much competing stimulus that slow tedious processes are likely to drive them crazy. On top of that, is low tolerance for leaders that even appear to be authoritarian. And I mean “appear,” because many leaders who intend to be inclusive and mutually respectful need only make one “wrong move” in the eyes of wary subordinates to lose trust. This is why subordinates as well as leaders need to understand their emotional reactions to authority, and “learn democracy anew.”

It’s a two-way street. The elders of every generation are likely to lament that the next generation doesn’t have the values, work ethic, etc. that they had “at their age,” and the next generation is likely to view the current elders as judgemental and stuck in their ways. It is the elders who are best positioned to have some wisdom about this age old gap between the generations, and lead the way out. “Aging Managers” must focus on connecting, not blaming. They must figure out how to listen and meet as best as possible “Generation Y’s” yearning for action, innovation, respect, etc. Create processes for innovation and dialogue or you will stifle the young in any culture. The younger generation can also be taught democracy anew, and learn how to work with and learn as much as possible from their elders. Believe it or not, they actually have a deep yearning for elders they respect. It’s just rare for the young to have the emotional maturity and intellectual perspective to realize that they are creating their own drama if they tend towards blame and negative judgements of their leadership. Much, for both generations, is in the eye of the beholder, and this can be taught.

Mutual alienation or mutual respect. The choice is actually yours.

Posted in Aging Workforce | Tagged , , | 2 Comments