Tag Archives: Success

Posted on

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt 4)

What we can do (pt 4)

What we can do (pt 4)

“Appreciate everything your associates do for the business. Nothing else can quite substitute for a few well-chosen, well-timed, sincere words of praise. They’re absolutely free and worth a fortune.” – Sam Walton

In the past several blog postings we have explored the failings and impact of the current approach to performance management through the performance review and compensation management practices in place at many companies large and small. We found that many businesses are stuck in the past using an approach that is over 35 years old and repeatedly failing to produce the results that the business needs.

We have cited study after study from leading authorities on performance management such as Harvard Business Review, Deloitte, McKinsey, Gallup and well-known thought leaders including Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Marcus Buckingham and others to clearly conclude that the current approach is not effective. After reviewing all of the evidence we presented and much more that is available through other sources, we can safely conclude that the current process is a waste of time, expensive and counterproductive.

So given that the current system is broken and we have a pretty good idea of how it should work, what do we do? In reality there are basically two approaches, confront the issue head-on and openly push for change or to live within the present system and adopt tactics to minimize the damage.

Head-on Approach

Let’s start with the head-on approach and openly push for change. First of all, let’s be prudent and recognize the current environment and risks. For many reasons it is difficult to challenge the current system while being subject to the impacts of the system. Many business leaders have thrived under this system. If they have usually been on the top end of the curve, they may not really understand the true impact that the system is having on the success of their business. If they have been part of an enterprise that was perceived as successful and the annual review and “stack and rank” process was part of that culture, they my not be inclined to change the “formula for success”.

There may be a perceived risk in changing the status quo; after all business has been doing it this way for years with little blowback and significant litigation (until recently). The current approach is packaged and sold as being fair, identifying high performers as well as those who need to find other opportunities, and staying within a budget. If we change, will that be admitting that the past practices were flawed and open to criticism and litigation? There will be all kinds of reasons that try to defend that the current practice is the best practice. The review process has been this way for over 35 years and it will not change easily.

It is important that we are smart about proposing this change. If we focus on the flaws in the current system those currently in-charge may be concerned that it reflects poorly on their leadership. In a twisted sort of way, if we are not careful it may get turned back on us as a performance issue if we are not careful about proposing a change. Exposing issues around systems and policies that impact compensation, retention, and advancement opportunities needs to be done thoughtfully.

The best way to avoid this dilemma is to take the high road. When discussing the need to change current policies and practices in this area, focus on the future state. After all the future state is a better place to be. Focus on the benefits of the new approach and explain how it will better serve the needs of the business (reduced waste, better feedback, higher engagement, true meritocracy).

When needing to point out the shortcomings of the current position, try not to pin those shortcomings on those currently in charge, but refer them to the work of experts in this area. Point them to the blog post on SkipGilbert.com and other authorities referenced in the previous posts. Let those authorities speak for you. We should help others stay focused on the positive. Remember the Change Formula, a strong vision and practical first steps. It will work well for you in this situation.

Also consider timing in proposing the change. A point in time that may have significant leverage will be just after completing the current review and compensation cycle. It will be fresh in everybody’s mind just how bad the current process is and how unfair their rating was, not to mention how they felt selling the results to their direct reports. At that point most people will agree that something needs to change and there is time to get something new in place before they have to do this again.

Another great time to introduce the subject of change is after the annual engagement survey results are received. Typically, as part of the survey follow-up process teams are asked to review their results and propose solutions to overcome the areas of concern. This is a great opportunity to raise the issue at the grass roots level. If this shows up in enough of the responses, it may prompt a greater awareness of the need to change.

Working Within the System

Most of us are not in a position to change the performance review and compensation management systems, policies and practices. But that does not mean that we are helpless victims of the shortcomings of the current process.

There are things we can do to minimize the damage to the performance of our teams.

Here are four things you can do right now to move in the right direction:

Posted on

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt 3)

Performance Management (pt. 3)

Performance Management (pt. 3)

“Only 29% of employees “strongly agree” that their performance reviews in the workplace are fair, and even fewer — just 14% — say they’re inspired to do better thanks to their feedback” – Gallup 2017

In a previous post, we walked through a typical annual review cycle and proposed a solution that moves us from a reactive, engagement killing process to a proactive business management process. In our new process we meet with each resource on a weekly basis and have a quick conversation to ensure alignment, offer assistance, provide feedback, and then make a short note in our performance management system. In making this change we have moved from an archaic backwards view of past perception to a proactive system of engagement and leadership.

Now that we’ve tackled the annual review process, let’s look at the so-called performance management aspect of the cycle, perhaps more accurately defined as an internal business compensation management process.

The purpose of this process is to allocate rewards to meet retention and succession plans. It has little to do with managing performance. A once per year feedback session provides little opportunity to adjust behaviors and outcomes; it is just a report on past perceptions.

What is the true business need?

Let’s quickly review what the true business need is from the performance management portion of the annual review process. Going forward, let’s refer to this portion as the compensation management process because that is really what it is. (The annual review was a feedback session on performance. We have now repositioned that aspect into our weekly check-in process; we are now left with the annual merit and compensation process).

The business has two primary needs from the compensation management process, retaining its current workforce at market rates and ensuring it can meet succession needs in the future. That is it. All other associate expense and development plans spin off of those two needs.

In meeting these needs and mixed with concepts such as rewarding for greater performance, retaining top talent, attracting new talent at market rates, while staying within budget has resulted in a misguided need to stack rank employees relative to each other. Somewhere along the evolution of this process it became absolute and complicated and, in the end, not achieving its purpose at all.

So, let’s breakdown the compensation management process and look at it in more detail so that we can understand the current shortcomings and understand how to fix the system.

With the old approach the next step would be to stack rank each associate for purposes of distributing merit increases, rewarding exceptional performance, allocating development opportunities and supporting succession planning. In this process the manager would be required to rate all associates in their control from best to worst along an arbitrary scale that must result in a normal distribution performance curve. The curve must be met on a team-by-team basis, leaving no opportunity to recognize relative team performance and putting team members in competition with each other for compensation and development opportunities.  What could possibly be wrong with this approach?!

Why stack ranking is so wrong

Rater bias and lack of metrics are the primary downfall of any attempt to rate and rank employees. Studies have consistently revealed that each manager has a different perception of performance and ratings vary accordingly. One of the most complete studies ever conducted in this area was published in 2000 in the Journal of Applied Psychology. In that study in which 4,492 managers were rated on certain performance dimensions by two bosses, two peers and two subordinates found that 62% of the variances in ratings could be accounted for by individual raters’ peculiarities of perception. Actual performance accounted for only 21% of the variance. According to Marcus Buckingham, “Although it is implicitly assumed that the ratings measure the performance of the ratee, most of what is measured by the ratings is the unique rating tendencies of the rater.”

The lack of key metrics across the team is another shortcoming of this approach. Recall in our opening post about the manager being challenged to rate the performance of an employee against all others in his or her team. The challenge was that, “I do not have a consistent set of metrics that truly reflect your performance in comparison to your peers or the overall goals (assuming that you even perform the same function as they do), and so I am left with my perceptions and intuition.”

So without metrics to truly measure and compare performance, the evaluator is left with their perceptions, intuition and biases. Try as they might to be fair and even in their rating and ranking, personal bias and preferences that the evaluator may not even realize they have will impact the “fairness” of the results. A hidden bias against perceived stereotypes, personalities, physical traits, gender, race and other discriminators are now in play. All of the things listed are the nightmares of HR departments around the world, and we are using this system to allocate raises and opportunities. Yikes!

In fact, considering the inconsistencies that are possible with this approach, many major corporations are discontinuing their “rank and stack” practices given the current litigation environment. In fact, Ford and Goodyear recently settled litigation regarding the “fairness” of their practices. Troubled by possible litigation as well as costs and ethical considerations, even prior advocates for this practice have turned away from the stack ranking approach. In 2013 Microsoft ended their use of this practice. Even long-time proponents such as General Electric, Adobe and Deloitte have abandoned the practice, with Deloitte going so far as to “declare the system dead” in a Wall Street Journal opinion article.

Proper use of a performance curve

Continuing with the current process, having now created a stack ranking comparing the perceived performance of each individual relative to their teammates, it is quite common that the manager is asked to group these ratings into broad categories possibly rated one through five. These ratings are to be fit to a normal distribution curve, sometimes called a bell curve. The idea being that it will identify the top performers for additional merit and development opportunities as well as expose and penalize a group of low performers that require performance improvement or potential release from employment. The policy may dictate that no more than 10% be rated as “high performing” and 10% be rated as “needs improvement”, with everyone else being spread equally across the center of the curve.

Let’s take a look at the impact of this process in more detail:

  • First we limit the number of potential high performers. In a team of 12 – 25 employees, this limits the process to just one or two individuals. What if there are more with high potential and performance in this team? How will they react to not being recognized?
  • Secondly, we force those at the bottom of our imprecise and biased assessment system to become the absolute losers. They will not be considered for merit, advancement or development. They must change the perception of their performance before the next review period or risk loss of their employment. What if we missed it, what if they fell into one of our blind spots or biases, what if they are good performers and we just do not know them well enough?
  • The remaining group is the middle of the pack, which is more or less rated average. The policy requires splitting hairs between individual performances to make sure it fits the curve. Interesting enough, from a financial perspective, this is where the majority of the merit increase budget is spent (not on high performers), but we are splitting pennies between resources for average performance. The difference between a 2.1% and 2.2% increase is insignificant at the individual paycheck level.
  • This practice creates a class system of winners and losers, pitting the team against itself for survival. This is clearly not a cultural characteristic commonly attributed to creating teamwork or high performance organizations. The resources are now focused on internal competition rather than collaborating to focus on external threats and competition.
  • It creates an environment where associates will come to believe that their performance is not the true driver of opportunity and success. They may realize that in spite of their outstanding efforts and results they may not be recognized and possibly even penalized by being part of this group. It can certainly be a cause of higher “churn” within a team or turnover at the company level.

The net result is that this policy and approach do not yield the results the business really wants. It does not properly recognize and reward performance, creates a culture of conflict, lowers engagement and misappropriates corporate funds and opportunities.

A significant problem with the use of the bell curve as a measuring and metering tool is that it is the wrong curve. Research conducted in 2012 across 633,000 people in 198 different categories of work found that performance across 94% of these groups did not follow a normal distribution (bell curve) but rather into a power law distribution. We are more familiar with power law distributions with names like the Pareto Curve or the 80/20 rule, also referred to as “long tail” curves.

The research found that typically there is a small number of “hyper-performers” that are clearly outperforming the rest of the population and the remaining group that are simply “good performers” and that there is very little statistical difference in the performance of the good performers.

These findings are further validated by another study conducted in 2012 that concluded that the top five percent of workers in most companies outperform average ones by 400%.  In an article published in the McKinsey Quarterly in 2016 titled “Ahead of the curve: The future of performance management”draws several key conclusions from these observations:

  • “…bear in mind the bigger news about power-law distributions: what they mean for the great majority of employees. For those who meet expectations but are not exceptional, attempts to determine who is a shade better or worse yield meaningless information for managers and do little to improve performance.”
  • “The point is that such companies now think it’s a fool’s errand to identify and quantify shades of differential performance among the majority of employees, who do a good job but are not among the few stars.“

The net of these finding is that the use of the bell curve or normal distribution curve does not drive a process that meets the needs of the business. Instead a simpler approach using a power curve such as the Pareto curve (80/20) will produce much better results with less effort.  To further simplify, what we want to do is identify the top 20% that are the clear contributors and heap rewards and opportunities on this group. The balance of the group which will be the majority of the population will all receive the same base merit increases based on retaining this group at current market rates. As McKinsey points out, there is little benefit to be had in trying to identify the shades of differential performance among the majority of the employees. To do so risks evoking the unfairness of the stack ranking approach over the broader population with all of the risks that go with that approach. The 20% that are leading the pack are easy to identify and most readily accepted by all of those around them as being high performers.

For the annual merit and compensation cycle we use a performance curve that allows us to reward the clear performers and not penalize everyone else. As managers we all know the people who have made outstanding contributions and we all know those that are not performing. We do not need a complicated and discriminatory process to deal with those situations. We encourage everyone to develop their skills and potential and let their personal drive and performance sort out the achievers.

The use of the power curve approach meets the needs of the business. It achieves the goal of providing a process based on meritocracy, rewarding those producing the greatest results, without the downside of creating internal team strife and competition. It accomplishes this while being able to keep labor expenses manageable by keeping the cost of labor at market rates.

Summary

In summary, many businesses are stuck in the past using an approach that is over 35 years old and repeatedly failing to produce the results the business needs. The process requires that the entire organization becomes distracted from their core business activities to perform the annual review process, often taking months to complete at a huge expense.

The process starts with attempting to recall all of the accomplishments for each associate over the past year and summarize in self-reviews. We are then required to bundle all of this together, combine it with our comments from the performance review and hold an annual review/feedback session with each associate. Based on concepts such a pay-for-performance, meritocracy, and overall fairness, the business would smugly declare that their process effectively ties performance and reward into a tightly managed and effective process, rewarding performers, providing development for future leadership needs, delivering feedback to drive engagement, and manage associate performance.

Here is the net effect of the process according to recognized authorities on performance management:

  • “Today’s widespread ranking- and ratings-based performance management is damaging employee engagement, alienating high performers, and costing managers valuable time.” – Deloitte Insights 2014
  • “In a public survey Deloitte conducted recently, more than half the executives questioned (58%) believe that their current performance management approach drives neither employee engagement nor high performance.” – Marcus Buckingham – HBR 2015
  • “Only 16% of employees feel they benefit from their annual review; 76% don’t feel heard during reviews.”– INC Apr 2016
  • “In 2016, only 33% of employees in the United States were engaged, and employee engagement as a whole increased only 3% from 2012-2016.”– Gallup 2017 Employee Engagement Report
  • “Annual review cost estimates run from $35 Million for a 10,000 employee company ($1.2 Million for a 500 employee company).”– Accenture 2018

So let me sum this up. The typical annual performance management process is a waste of time, it is expensive and is counterproductive. Why do we still do this? If you are in executive leadership, why do you let this happen? For all of the rest of us, when are we going to express our sincere dissatisfaction with this process and push for change? If you need help with this, contact me.

Here is the next question, “so if I am not able to change the current system, how can I best operate within its limitations and do the least damage?” I think this will be a great topic for next time. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts on performance management through the annual review process.

Thanks,

Skip Gilbert

Posted on

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt 2)

Performance reviews (pt. 2)

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt. 2)

“Traditional performance reviews have passed their sell-by date. Big time. There’s research showing that roughly two-thirds of performance appraisals have either no effect – or a negative effect! – on employee performance.” – Dan Pink

In the previous post we laid out an argument that the performance review process currently used by many businesses is a collection of patched together policies and practices that are completely ineffective and backward. It is a big statement in itself, so let’s take a closer look at it logically and in detail.

Does this process seem familiar in some manner? As a manager of a small group of resources that is part of a larger business, I ask you once or twice a year to perform a self-review of your activity and accomplishments against an ambiguous set of annual goals handed down from Corporate. These goals are so broad they actually have little to do with your day-to-day activity. Even when these goals are narrowed to better fit your department, they are largely out of date not really reflecting the current highest priorities.

You do your best to fit your actual activity and accomplishments into these goal categories, but many are really a stretch. It is difficult to fit your activity as a trainer into the goal of improving margins on core products, but you do the best you can with it. You work through your notes and report some significant accomplishments as well as your performance against the routine portions of your position. It is really a challenge as there are so many, and they are difficult to describe in sufficient detail to others that may not understand the details of your responsibilities. Perhaps you even resort to just using bullet points to facilitate a conversation, hoping that your manager will engage in a conversation with you before moving forward with your review and performance rating.

As your manager, I am now faced with trying to recall and respond to the information you have provided and blend it with my perception of your contributions as well as the 12 to 25 other people on my team. I do the best I can to reflect and recall your contributions and find a way to reconcile with my perceptions. Here is part of my challenge, I do not have a consistent set of metrics that truly reflect your performance in comparison to your peers or the overall goals (assuming that you even perform the same function as they do), and so I am left with my perceptions and intuition.

Given the number of people in my communication circle, you and I only get a chance to talk occasionally and when we do, it is usually about a business issue that requires my assistance to resolve. We rarely have time to talk about what you are working on; after all you are a trusted team member and generally make good decisions. I do tend to talk more with those that have developed some sort of personal relationship or are working on more controversial projects, but you and I talk on occasion.

Now I am required by a misguided policy to rank my employees to fit a performance curve considering only the people of my group. Even if I am a fantastic leader and have led my group to be high performing, I must rate my people into the same curve as any other manager that may or may not be performing to the same level. By making this rating I am going to reward some and penalize others, solely based on my perception. The impact of this action may place you in a category to receive special career development opportunities, extra compensation, greater job security and a host of other benefits, all based on my perception. Conversely, this rating may place you at the bottom of the stack, denying development opportunities, lowering compensation and placing your employment at greater risk. (We will go into more discussion on performance management and performance curves in the next posting, but let’s stay focused on performance review for now.)

I make the case to my management that since my team is meeting and exceeding its goals that I do not have a group of low performers to fit the performance-rating curve. I am informed that I have no choice, my ratings must fit the curve which means that I have to penalize members of my team that I believe are truly meeting expectations or better with a lower performance rating. The only reason their rating is below acceptable is that there are too many rated acceptable or above. It has very little to do with their individual performance.

Now how do you feel when you receive your review and performance rating? If you are favored, you probably acknowledge the review and enjoy the benefits of the perceptions. If you ended up in a category that you do not agree with, how do you feel? Motivated to change or upset with a system that does not recognize your accomplishments? Do you know what kept you from being a top performer or what you could have done better? How do you feel about receiving a lower rating when you can see others on other teams are receiving a high rating and producing far less than you do? Does this raise your level of engagement?

Ever have one manager give you great reviews and the next one gives a poor review only to have the next manager go back to great reviews? There you go. This approach is arbitrary, creates inequality of opportunity, perpetuates mediocrity, and is possibly discriminatory and illegal.

Let’s try this. How about if we do away with performance reviews completely? How about if we setup a system of weekly communication where we briefly discuss what we are going to do this week and then measure ourselves against our progress and potential. How about if we set weekly goals based on current needs and require leadership to do their job and ensure work alignment?

To start with, let’s disconnect the annual or semi-annual process of the performance review from the merit compensation cycle. Let’s make the performance review a proactive every week brief conversation. The manager asks the associate, what are you working on this week? Is there anything you need? The associate asks am I meeting your need? Is there anything I could do better? That is it. It is a conversation that takes a few minutes in the week. It happens every week. The manager is ensuring that the work being performed is aligned with business needs and the associate receives guidance and feedback. Everybody knows exactly where he or she stands all of the time.

Note to associate: there will be no excuse for not knowing how you are performing. If you are unsure where you stand, it is your responsibility to ask.

Note to manager: you need to become comfortable with providing direction and direct feedback. If you are unable to do either of these, then you need to find another role. Also, this is not an excuse to micromanage the associate. Notice the question was what are you working on; it was not instructions on how to accomplish a specific task.

For the record we enter a brief summary of our weekly goals and accomplishments into our performance system and with little effort we have a rolling record of our activity and accomplishments. No need to spend days or weeks at the end of the year trying to recall and structure a picture of our accomplishments. It documents itself. The performance review has actually become a proactive management conversation between associate and their manager.

To wrap-up this segment, there is a lot more we can say about the shortcomings of the previous performance review process, such as are the managers truly qualified to evaluate their team? If a manager is rated as low performing by their manager, how does that reflect on how they rate their team? What if you are stuck with a poor performing manager, will they recognize your contribution, what does that mean for your rating? But now we are moving into the performance management aspect of the performance review cycle.

In the next segment, we will discuss performance management concepts and practices and discover that there is a better measure than the normal distribution curve and actually encourage each person to grow and prosper as they choose.  In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the performance review cycle? Is it productive or not? Please be sure to leave your comments below.

Thanks,

 

Skip Gilbert

Posted on

Say No

4 Tips for evaluating alignment with our goals

Say No

“No is a complete sentence” – Anne Lamott

If we are going to achieve our goals, at times we will be saying no to things that might be fun, interesting or rewarding. The reality is that we simply do not have the capacity to do everything. Furthermore, we would not want to take on everything that comes our way since it may not align with our goals. There comes a time when we just have to say no. So how do we decide what to pursue and what to eliminate or postpone?

No is one of the shortest words in the English language yet it seems to be one of the hardest words to say. Ironically, it’s one of the first words we learned to say. So many things come at us at an ever-increasing pace with so many people demanding our attention it is hard to focus on what we should do. Consequently, we try to do it all. Even when attempting to apply a mental matrix of urgent vs. important, everything seems to fall into urgent and important. We find ourselves trying to please everyone and subordinating our priorities to our spare time, which disappears into exhaustion.

The net result is that our energy goes down and our stress goes up. We expend energy on things that in the end may not drive our personal satisfaction and that alone causes stress. We stress about taking on things that we know are not in alignment with our talents and what we want to accomplish. We see work being done and gain satisfaction from its completion, but not the deep-down gratification satisfaction that comes from achieving something that helps to move us forward. This is why we have goals.

Our goals serve as a filter and a compass to sort out the opportunities that align our action with the direction we planned. As we have the opportunity to start a new activity, our goals provide the guidelines that help us make a good decision for the use of our time. If the opportunity is in alignment with the planned work we had identified in our current goals, then we know that it is an opportunity that will make the best use of our time. If we cannot find alignment between the activity and our goal, then it becomes clear that we should take a pass on the proposed opportunity.

In my book “EXCELLENCE: You CAN Get There From Here!”, I lay out a complete process for developing and managing to goals. It contains both a long-term planning process to determine our direction as well as a short-term planning process to set goals and manage our progress.

This brings us full circle on this topic. If the opportunity is not in alignment with our goals, then we use the shortest sentence in the English language and just say no. This may be a hard thing to do and refusing the opportunity will certainly have an impact on the person providing the opportunity. As smart leaders we know to accomplish our goals, we will have to say no to some of the opportunities, activities and demands from our friends, family and colleagues.

Here are 4 tips for evaluating alignment with our goals:

Posted on

One Day at a Time

4 Tips for achieving success one day at a time

One Day at a Time

“Every day, in every way, I’m getting better and better” — Émile Coué

Overnight success is a myth. Almost every overnight success story is really a story of persistence, overcoming doubt, and hard work. It took over two decades for Steve Jobs to be the overnight success that produced the iPhone. J.K. Rowling worked on her first novel, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” for six years and was rejected twelve times by various publishing houses before being published.

In reality, overnight success is a long story of goals and incremental execution. Success is driven by planning and then moving in the direction of the goal with small, persistent, determined activity. Each day we move forward and try to do better than the day before. We move forward in small amounts, making adjustments and keep going, building our accomplishment by combining the progress of the past with the incremental progress of today.

Our goals are important and provide a direction for our efforts; however, we execute our goals one day at a time. When we plan on achieving our goals in small amounts over a long period of time it yields an amazing result. We not only move in the direction of achieving our goal, but we get better at what we are doing with each iteration of the activity. Steve Jobs improved his ability bring consumer electronics products to market with each new idea. J.K. Rowling was a much better writer at the end of her six year journey to publication than she was at the start.

Sometimes our goals are so lofty that they feel unachievable. As an example, looking at a goal to lose 40 pounds in a year seems like an impossible task, though we know it is achievable (or we would not have set it as a SMART goal). When we consider that in order to achieve the goal we only need to lose less than one pound per week, it does not seem as impossible. In addition, as a byproduct we will also learn how to better control our diet and build our self-control.

Writing a book in a year is a reasonable goal, but also a huge undertaking. Looking at the goal in total makes it seem so impossible; it can be hard to even get started. However, when we view the activity through a smaller lens of writing just five pages per week, it becomes a less daunting task. Through repetition, we will also become a more efficient and better writer.

Consider if we focused on achieving just two percent of our total goal every week. In less than a year we would have achieved our goal and through persistent repetition improved our ability to perform that activity as well. By setting smaller repetitive activities around our larger goal we are able to accomplish a much larger goal without being overwhelmed with the immensity of the challenge. By breaking the goal down into a series of repetitive activities with a measured outcome at the end of each task, we incrementally work our way to achieving our goal and improve our efficiency along the way.

As I point out in my book “EXCELLENCE: You CAN Get There From Here!”, our journey to Excellence requires a persistence and drive to keep moving forward to achieve our goals. Our goals are important because they move us toward greater success and satisfaction. Taking an incremental approach to achieving our goals helps the impossible become possible. As the age old expression goes: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Here are 4 tips for achieving success one day at a time:

Posted on

Full Emotion False Alarm

4 Tips for managing full emotion false alarms

Full Emotion False Alarm

Have you ever been in the middle of a response to a crisis that turned out to not be a crisis after all? Have you ever had to go to extraordinary efforts to pull together information or provide a defense for a situation that did not really happen? Did it feel like a full emotion response to a false alarm?

The news is full of stories of people overreacting to events that prove to be false alarms. Recently it was reported that about 50 people scrambled from a terminal at LAX airport when someone yelled at the top of their lungs to run, and they did. Certainly in our current atmosphere of heightened sensitivity to threats and terrible actions from around the world, it is understandable that people, fearing the worst, ran for their lives. It is part of our DNA to instinctively flee from danger. But the kicker? It was a false alarm. It turns out someone screamed “Run!” when they saw that authorities had stopped a person in a Zorro outfit with a plastic sword. There was no real threat, just an emotional reaction to a perceived danger.

Running from danger is a good and reasonable response to a real threat. There is no question of that. When in danger, flee. No questions asked. However, in this case there was no real danger, just an emotional reaction to an unusual situation. Without all of the facts, someone assumed the worst, overreacted and triggered an emotional panic response from all of those around them.

We face these false alarm challenges on a regular basis. We encounter situations that from the first report seem to have dire consequences for our role, department, business, profession or some aspect of our professional lives. The initial reports may be fragmented, inaccurate or even exaggerated. Military commanders in the field often refer to this phenomenon as the “fog of war,” a period of time where the information is incomplete and unreliable.

First and foremost, we need to keep our perspective and realize the improbable is improbable. Things are not likely to be as bad as initially reported. Certainly they will be different than initially reported. We will need to seek additional information from several sources to piece together a more complete view of the situation. In most cases, once we have the complete picture, or at least enough of the picture to gain an informed perspective, the situation will not be as dire as initially reported.

Many times I have received dire reports from the field that if true as reported are seriously troubling. In many of these situations, once the full perspective is understood, the situation is far less troubling than initially reported. It usually stems from a misunderstanding or miscommunication that leads to an impulsive reaction. I was certainly glad I did not overreact in those times and add weight to a single perspective of the situation to only make matters worse.

As leaders people will look to us to react to the situation and will respond according to our actions and instructions. We can either keep our perspective and fully examine the issue and organize a response or react emotionally without sufficient assessment of the situation and cause a panic response. As hard as it may be to keep our emotions in-check, it is essential that we do so. We can very easily end up adding to the confusion or doing additional damage to critical relationships by acting before we have a well-rounded perspective on the issue. Keeping our cool and gathering the facts will always play to our advantage. Once we have the facts, by all means react.

As smart leaders we know that people look to us for our first reaction to see if they are in danger. Our initial reaction and our next steps will determine if everyone keeps their heads and gathers the facts or runs for the doors. Keep the emotions in-check, gather the facts and react accordingly will work for us every time.

Here are 4 tips for managing full emotion false alarms:

Posted on

Make a Difference

4 Tips for making a difference

Make A Difference

“If you aren’t making a difference in other people’s lives, you shouldn’t be in business. It’s that simple.” – Richard Branson

Do you ever wonder if the fruit of your efforts make a difference? Have you ever felt that you were shouting something of great importance, but nobody was listening? Have you ever been discouraged because you know the solution, but nobody seems to recognize you as an authority? I know I have and I still encounter that feeling on a regular basis.

Many years ago, I was exposed to a simple story that to this day helps me put my expectations in perspective and reminds me why I need to keep going. It helps me keep my perspective even when it seems nobody is listening or I question if what I am doing makes a difference.

The Starfish Story

A young man is walking along the ocean and sees a beach on which thousands and thousands of starfish have washed ashore. Further along he sees an old man, walking slowly and stooping often, picking up one starfish after another and tossing each one gently into the ocean.

“Why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?” he asks.

“Because the sun is up and the tide is going out and if I don’t throw them further in they will die.”

“But, old man, don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it! You can’t possibly save them all, you can’t even save one-tenth of them. In fact, even if you work all day, your efforts won’t make any difference at all.”

The old man listened calmly and then bent down to pick up another starfish and threw it into the sea. “It made a difference to that one.” 

Adapted from the story “The Star Thrower” by Loren Eiseley (1907 – 1977)

There is a great lesson available to us from this story. We may not be able to save the world. We may not even have the opportunity to convey our message to a large audience, though we know that others would greatly benefit from the knowledge and experience we could share. Our best opportunity to make a difference is to focus on those that are open to receiving our message and willing to accept our help. These are the people who are ready to listen and internalize our message.

There are many who would benefit from what we have learned through our successes and failures. Whether in our professional or personal lives we have a lot to offer others around us. In many ways as a leader we have a responsibility to develop those around us to allow them to better utilize their skills and ultimately help our team deliver success.

We are most effective when we concentrate on serving each person individually. If we concentrate on serving those who are receptive to our message, we may find that it leads to an opportunity to serve more people in the long run. Just as in the story, while we may not be able to reach the larger population, it may really make a difference to those we are able to reach. Taken one individual at a time over a long period of time, we will find we have made a difference to a large number of people.

I think about this story often. There is an enormous effort that goes into writing books, providing meaningful content in the blog, making videos, maintaining the website and corresponding with our community. There are times when it feels like I am shouting into the wind. Book sales come in one or two books at a time and the number of subscribers increases at a slow steady pace. Large audiences are not formed overnight or even sometimes at all. All of the hard work and long hours that go into writing the books does not automatically put the book in a wide circulation or place it on the Amazon or New York Times best seller list. I am reminded that overnight successes are years in the making.

It is the same when we consider the opportunities to mentor people and change the world around us. There are times when we will feel undervalued and it will be tempting to lose our enthusiasm. As leaders that is just the point where we need to apply our character and drive forward. One person at a time, one project at a time, one obstacle at a time. Over time our success will be measured by the individual successes we have along the way. In the end, we will know we have made a difference.

Here are 4 Tips for making a difference:

Posted on

Keep Thinking: Thoughts for Success

New Book Release!

Now available from Amazon!

Kindle and Paperback

Keep Thinking: Thoughts for Success

 

Thoughts on Change, Leadership and Personal Development for Smart Leaders

 

Keep Thinking: Thoughts for Success provides meaningful reminders and new insight into the core topics of interest for all smart leaders. The topics are short enough for convenient consumption in our busy days, but deep enough to stimulate real learning and reflection. The topics span areas of interest and importance in leveraging change, building our teams, pursuing our goals and achieving success through Excellence.

Change: A simple but effective formula for planning and managing change and reminding ourselves to be an agent of change.

Excellence: Reminder of the key ingredients of pursuing Excellence.

Leadership: Topics include Being Transparent, Focusing on Solutions, Providing Positive Reinforcement and Being a Servant-Leader

Personal Development: Reminds us to Create a Bigger Vision, Embrace Who we Are, Manage our Self-talk, Rise above the Issues and to Stay Positive and other engaging topics

These along with many other important facets to achieving stronger more capable leadership qualities are included in the compendium of thoughts in Keep Thinking: Thoughts for Success.

Posted on

A Healthy Perspective

4 Tips for maintaining a healthy perspective

A Healthy Perspective

When are we at our best, when we are tired, irritable, sluggish or well rested, energized and feeling good about ourselves? The answer is obvious, when we are rested, energized and feeling good about ourselves. So how can we best take care of ourselves to ensure our peak performance?

We are constantly under the stress of trying to solve problems, dealing with conflict and making critical decisions without enough information. The everyday stress in our lives takes a hard toll on our mind and body over time. If we do not protect ourselves from being consumed by this constant attack, it will eventually reduce our efficiency and ability to be effective in our role as leaders. If left unmanaged it will ultimately lead to serious relationship and health issues that will severely undermine our ability to succeed.

Poor nutrition, inadequate sleep, the lack of exercise and constant conflict will inevitably take its toll on our mind and body. Typically it sneaks up on us as part of a busy life with many demands on our time.  It may start with not getting adequate sleep as we pack too much into our limited days. That may lead to having to grab some fast food on our way to our next appointment whether that be the after school soccer game, heading to the next meeting or running through the airport. We rationalize that just this time I will compromise on my rest and nutrition, but tomorrow I will do better.

Of course our busyness encroaches on our time to exercise as well as our time to calm down our thinking and process our thoughts. As a result our body responds by storing the extra calories as fat and our mind stores the unprocessed thoughts and emotions as stress and anxiety. Both of these things serve to reduce our ability to perform at our peak capacity. As we become more out of shape we become tired more easily and without time to process we become less able to deal with our emotions and fully apply our thinking. These things accumulate, reducing our ability to perform, and increasing our stress.

As we can see, these challenges build on each other and if not managed only serve to do us harm. So what are the key ingredients to maintaining our mind and body at peak performance?

Sleep:

More sleep tends to lead to better performance. We are more alert and have more energy when we start with a proper foundation of sleep. Studies consistently suggest that as adults we require seven to nine hours of sleep. Even though this is the most foundational part of our performance and stamina, it is the part most often compromised. A recent Gallup poll suggested that 40 % of us get less than six hours of sleep per night. Other studies have found that not getting a full cycle of sleep for even a single night can reduce the effectiveness of our decision-making by a noticeable percentage over those with a full night’s sleep.

It is important that we plan our sleep, just like we do any other part of our busy day. Without sleep as our foundation, we cannot build the structure that supports our activity and provides our success.

Nutrition:

Food fuels our body and without proper nutrition our body becomes unable to support our activity. There are numerous programs available to us to support adopting a healthy nutritional approach to fueling our body. The most important aspect is to purposely adopt a program that works for us and then give it the proper priority. Our performance is directly impacted by the ability of our body to sustain our activity and provide the stamina we need to maintain our peak efficiency across the entirety of our scheduled day. Providing the proper nutrition in the proper amounts at the proper time needs to be scheduled into our daily routine and should receive a higher priority than any other activity as it serves to support our ability to lead.

Exercise:

Exercise is essential for keeping our body healthy and helping to manage stress. Exercise allows our body to maintain and build our strength and stamina as well as circulate blood to better process food and remove toxins. It allows us to increase our endurance and condition our bodies to deliver a consistent level of energy over a longer period of activity, enhancing our ability to remain fully engaged throughout the long work days. Studies have proven that those who exercise on a daily basis rated significantly higher on overall leadership effectiveness than those who do not exercise. Just like the other aspects of maintaining our physical and mental capabilities, this must be scheduled in our day and set as a priority.

Meditation:

Time to think and process are essential to managing our emotional state. Whether through activities like Yoga or meditations such as quiet time or prayer, time to process our thoughts allows our mind to unload and regain our perspective. Studies of leaders considered top in their area across the corporate world universally find that these leaders set aside time to process. These studies find that the benefits include achieving lower stress levels, improved cognitive functioning, creative thinking, greater productivity and even improved physical health. These are all benefits that serve our ability to lead and as such should be considered as part of our daily routine.

Considering that these are all foundational elements to supporting our ability to operate at peak performance, it only makes sense to give these the highest priority in scheduling our daily activities. Not compromising on these activities will in fact support our ability to operate at peak levels of energy and thinking and provide more effective leadership. Compromising on our foundation only serves to diminish our capability.

Here are 4 tips for maintaining a healthy perspective:

Posted on

Pay Attention

4 Tips for enhancing team engagement:

Pay Attention

“The secret to engaging our people is to pay attention.” — Skip Gilbert

Is our team truly engaged in their work? Do they see their efforts producing success in our organization or are they just putting in their time? Are they contributing with all of their creativity and energy or just doing what they are told? Do they believe we are headed in the right direction? Do they feel appreciated for their contributions? Do they have confidence in their leader? The success of our organization and leadership may be defined by how the members of our teams answer these questions.

In this video I will do a 2 minute summary of the blog post “Pay Attention” on SkipGilbert.com. Join me as we take time to review a few pointers on becoming a more effective leader.