Some Perspectives on Success and Failure

The context in which any given outcome is considered to be a success or a failure is some prior agreed on set of values, operating principles, commitments or goals (“intentions”). Conversations for success and failure are only likely to occur, are only valid and useful, in the context of “intentions”. The corollary is that if there is no conversation for success and failure then it follows that there is no particular intention being prosecuted.

1. When the allotted time for a particular "project" has elapsed, or the allocated resources are used up, we either realized our “intention(s)”, or we did not realize them. When the “intention” is unequivocally articulated there is no ambiguity about whether to declare the outcome consistent with “intentions” (a success) or inconsistent with “intentions” (a failure).
2. The fuzziness that often exists around “intentions” makes it is possible to avoid acknowledging and confronting failure. We have been trained to see failure as bad, wrong, career limiting and to be avoided. We have not been trained to see failure as an access to learning, discovery, growth and development. Or, as Charles F. Kettering put it, "Failures, repeated failures, are finger posts on the road to achievement. One fails forward toward success." (Ex GM and founder of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research)
3. Mostly our relationship with success is weak. We have not been trained to acknowledge and celebrate success. We speak about the power of learning organizations yet we do not dissect successes for the insights they contain. As a consequence we do not make the design of success readily available to all – in effect miss the learning opportunities.
4. It is useful to have the view that an organization is “a set of promises to a set of constituencies”: shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers and so on. Some of these promises are explicit – in value statements, contracts, budgets, accountability statements and so on. Some of the promises (most) are implicit – given by precedent, the nature of the business, stakeholder expectations and so on. Keeping promises, or delivering more than promised, is success; failing to keep promises (or delivering less than promised) is failure. Stakeholders are thrilled with performance when promises are kept, and upset when in their view promises (explicit or implicit) are broken.
   
5. It is essential to acknowledge success, and in doing so, distinguish “what worked”, so that behaviors and practices can be shared and reliably replicated.
   
6. It is equally essential that failure be acknowledged. Example: we said we would do X in Y time with Z resources - we did not do that, we failed. In an “after action review” we can learn from the failure, (see separate notes on this practice). Learnings from these reviews need to be shared so as to alter behaviors and initiate new practices.
   

Some Useful Practices

1. At regular intervals - at least once a month - review performance against key milestones: a) What were our intentions: review metrics and milestones (KPI's)? b) What happened: - the facts only, "we said we would do X; we did X+, we succeeded; or, we said we would do X, we did X-, we failed." c) Do an after action review, d) Acknowledge and appreciate individuals and teams for the outcomes they have produced and their ways of being that are consistent with intentions.
2. From what is learned doing after action performance reviews, check: a) what existing practices must not be dropped - they are critical to success? b) Do any existing practices need to be changed? c) Do new practices need to be established? d) Are any practices either redundant or even thwart intentions and need to be removed? e) Decide who is going to do what, by when, to improve practices.

Some Elements of a Senior Executives Multi-Facetted Role

In a recent conversation with a senior executive he started to outline some of the things his Board expected of him. In the course of the conversation he started to list the things he in turn expected of various members of his leadership team. Over several conversations, which included his team, here is some of the list. Keeping the list in the forefront, with specific measurable outcomes to be produced in specific time periods, was a structure this team chose to help keep themselves focused – and sane. Here are a few highlights:

1. Produce specific measurable results, equal to or better than budget - and learn how to keep doing that
2. Enroll customers and prospects in new possibilities so that business relationship are strengthened and continue to grow
3. Have all our reports with clear accountabilities, development programs and continually improving their performance and sharing with all who can benefit from insights about what works and does not work
4. Surface and deal with conflict quickly – there will always be conflict: because of competing priorities, demands on finite resources – learn to use them to forward the team's objectives
5. Leave people in better shape than you found them – relationships are critical for performance, a result at the expense of a relationship is temporary and costly
6. Keep speculating about likely futures and keep inventing and creating desired futures, the tension between the two is the place to bring innovation and creativity to bear
7. Constantly watch out for waste – and don't forget wasted effort, unproductive work
8. Make decisions – even when facts are uncertain and circumstances are changing. If the decision turns out to be wrong, correct, learn and move on – and don't play the blame game
9. Know stakeholders expectations and be explicit about whether or not they will be met
10. Being in control is an illusion – organizations are complex, adaptive, intelligent human systems. Learn to live with complexity and deal with what is actually occurring not what "should be".

This team has started to make explicit, for everyone in their business, their organizing principles, their business model, the practices they have created to keep themselves on track and the behaviors that work and those that don't work in contributing to realizing the future they want for their business. 

Committed to Results? Then Create an Equal or Greater Commitment to Relationships

In 1973 Mark Granovetter wrote one of the most widely circulated, and most frequently referenced, papers in the social sciences, The Strength of Weak Ties. To grossly oversimplify, he makes a compelling case for us to rethink our perspectives about relationship and relating. In the process he dispels some myths with compelling research findings.

Originally he was studying how people find jobs. The myth was close friends are your best bet. Not so! Weak ties - friend-of-friends, or even friend-of-friends-of-friends - that's what he discovered about how people actually found their new jobs.

The implications of his insights go way beyond job hunting to discovering everything and anything we want - new insights, great places to vacation, great new customers or vendors... The bottom line, it becomes even clearer to us the importance of relationship and relating. Even more, the possible limitations and opportunities in the different kinds of relationships we have. For example, we are less likely to get new breakthrough insights from our familiars, those close ties, our community, family and close colleagues, those who see the world pretty much as we do. On the other hand, those people we have weak ties with, acquaintances, some employees, customers, vendors, external advisers, casual encounters, and so on, are much more likely to have very different views and insights and are therefore more likely, if given the opportunity, to be the catalysts for breakthrough thinking, new opportunities, and consequent innovative outcomes.

Most executives - this is an accusation I really want you to consider and not casually dismiss - are not very competent and relationship building and day-in-and-day-out relating. Let's be honest we have been trained to be transactional. Most of us did not even know such a phenomenon as EQ existed. Some still don't! My evidence for this assertion, the horrible way people are dealt with in corporations all over the country every day. As a coach and consultant to senior execs I have horror stories you would not believe.

The world is changing - no news flash there. Speed of change is increasing - yea, yea!

What we have not yet grasped, especially in the CSuite, is the importance of relationship and relating - and I don't mean the "so as to" transactional stuff we all do, and are good at, that happens to have people in the mix.

I mean the practice of connecting with people, discovering who they are, what makes them tick, their passions, concerns, commitments. Herb Kelleher was a great businesman and airline exec. But what he is most known for by the people who worked at Soutwest and the who he interacted with is his extraordinary capacity to get to the inards of people - he cared, he was interested, he understood the importance of relationship and relating. My perspective is that Southwest's success has less to do with all their process brilliance and fuel oil futures savvy, and so on, the technical stuff, and more to do with their brilliance and relationship and relating.

How many conversations do you have with your people that have no other agenda but to relate, to get to know them better, to find out what turns them on? In a head to head with the guru of relationship building Keith Ferrazzi would you have your own insights and stories of your prowess in this area? If not, I recommend an urgent crash course in the importance of a rich and diverse network of relationships. Read Never Eat Alone, create some practices and disciplines to build out your network - and remember, because we do forget, everything we accomplish is accomplished through and with other people - our network of relationships - which means the weak ties as much as, if not more so than the strong ties.

What are the questions you don't have an answer for right now?

Summer is over. The holidays are over.

And if we did not get sufficient R&R during our vacations then too bad, because with the ever worsening economy, and the pressures to survive, let alone grow and prosper, mounting, we are being confronted with more and more questions we simply do not have answers for.

The other evening I was talking with an executive who is accountable for the Americas for his global corporation. Here are just a few themes from the conversation: acquisitions and mergers have left us with fewer larger customers who are putting us under huge price and performance pressures; competitors have also merged so we have one big competitor in most markets; and suppliers have merged so we have fewer sources for raw materials and, in any case raw materials have sky rocketed. We have never had these conditions to deal with before. What are we to do to retain customers and win new ones? My people and I have never experienced a business environment like this before. We are struggling trying to work out what to do.

Well one first step is to come clean, give up the pretense we do know what to do, or "should" know what to do. I know, most of us did not get into our leadership positions by announcing we don't know how to deal with the demands of our jobs, or the competitive conditions at hand. Yet the truth is we can't engage everyone in the major challenges confronting most of us today - whether the challenges are inside our organization or outside - if we cannot acknowledge we don't have all the solutions, and we need help.

Here is just one recent example from a pair of executives who were willing to acknowledge they were stumped and needed help. First, a component vendor who needed a price increase to survive, and second his customer who needed a cost reduction for the same reason. Neither knew how to come up with a win-win answer. Their story is standard fare in the best run companies - they identified the problem to solve, with all the conditions that a satisfactory solution needed to have. Then they included a slew of people with different perspectives to help invent a solution - which they did.

I frequently ask leaders to show me the list of their "problems to solve". Problems that they don't have the answers for. Too often I discover they don't have such a list - except scattered around the organization in individual's heads. And those that do have a list don't have it on visible display for all to see. And, they don't have a set of practices or processes to continually engage people in addressing the list and solving their problems.

So here is a simple process:

1. Gather every problem to be solved that needs more than two people to solve it into a master list: a) What's the problem? b) What conditions does a solution need to meet? c) By when to we need the solution?
2. Display the master list, and categorized sub-lists, in an "ops room" - a physical and virtual room - so that everyone can see them
3. Designate a person to be accountable to solve the problem
4. Train the problem-solving accountability holders in networking, ideation, conversation management - real-time and virtual, surfacing and dealing with conflict, ...
5. Create a virtual work space - a wiki or other community board and communication practices and disciplines
6. Build in problem solving space into peoples schedules - inviolate time that nothing will displace
7. Nurture organizational energy, mood and morale - and celebrate wins
8. And remember problems are not to be avoided, they are THE access to innovation and breakthrough, satisfaction and accomplishment.

Being an Executive = Clear Thinking, Rational Decision Maker, Right?

Executives are clear thinking, rational and logical decision makers, yes? They see what needs to be done, what needs to be accomplished and, as if triggered by some internal starter's gun, are off into immediate and full-out focused action to the finish line and the win they wanted.

Yea! And there are fairies at the bottom of my garden too.

Notwithstanding the mythology, executives – even highly accomplished ones, as anyone who saw Jamie Dimon  being interviewed  by Charlie Rose at Aspen will attest, have things on their to-do lists that they know they need to get on with yet they procrastinate, postpone, review, gather more data – everything but decide and get into action. None of these delaying tactics will produce results in the real world. We all know that and yet…   

So how is your, “reviewing my options” going? If I can borrow a tag line from CapitalOne, “what’s in your wallet – on your ‘to be decided (I am procrastinating really) list’?”

What ever it is, I hope the process of reviewing also comes with some reflecting. Reflecting that, in itself, is useful in giving you insights into your commitments and concerns, and insights into the areas where you are in action and producing results, and where you are hesitant and/or stuck.

Here is a little additional decision making test. Ask yourself, item by item on your list, to decide as you toss a coin – heads yes, tails no, and pay attention to your reaction; thoughts, body sensations, relief/tension..., as you see which way the coin has come down.

1. Shall I … fill in the blank? – heads yes, tails no. If the coin toss is a no, observe your reaction, relief or disappointment; you agree that’s the decision or you disagree... If you are clear your “real” decision is no just say so and move on.

If yes, get into action – stop procrastinating, get on with it. You can’t score sitting it out on the bleachers. And, please, no stories about your decision making process…

Here are some questions for you to mull on – this is you talking to you in the privacy of your own head. You know you do that, right? OK, the questions:

1. When I am “reviewing my options” what are the key things I think about to help me choose? Are there consistent factors no matter what the choice is about?
   
2. When I am making decisions what criteria do I always automatically consider?
3. When I postpone decision making, what’s the most frequent reason I use? Is there a consistent “issue(s)” I am reluctant to confront? (Example: I don’t want my decisions to upset people)
4. Do I really want (as in committed to having) the outcome a decision will give me?
1. What is the upside I see – what vision or commitment is forwarded, or what concern handled?
2. What is the downside I see – some possible risk/discomfort I want to avoid, something underneath/reason for my hesitancy?

These Q’s are just to give you an additional insight into your own thinking/values/priorities/questions/concerns.  

New Technologies as a Medium for Feedback and for Inventing New Futures

Earlier this year Business Week had a very interesting article with the provocative title, Social Media Will Change Your Business. Most of us are beginning to get the extent to which information is much more available and from so many sources - sources many in the c-suite are either unaware of, or are not using to the extent they could, to get feedback from customers, employees, users, opinion formers - in fact any number of sources.

One reaction is overwhelm as we deal with, or try to control, what I have hear called infotensity. Well get over it, the days of control are over. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back in. So we have to master how we manage, and lead, and change, and create new futures in a world where access to information, and the means of distributing it, is in the hands of just about everyone - and we cannot control them.

We are becoming familiar with the notion of citizen journalists and the extent to which their journalism and accompanying You Tube videos change attitudes and outcomes very quickly - just ask George Allen about is macaca moment. Yet how many c-suite execs have used the notion of citizen journalists - the access to information and the means to distribute it - as a way of getting feedback and generating ideas for improvements, or even another input to chart new directions?

I wrote yesterday about 360 feedback instruments. Are we keeping up with new technologies, with things like wikis, blogs, IM, Twitter and so on as ways of getting real time feedback?

Or the possibility of using Second Life as a medium to create an ideal culture, or a new strategy for the future, or to role play how to surface and deal with conflict, or how to coach a colleague?

One possibility for c-suite execs to consider is having a board of advisers on emerging technologies. No, not the tech industry gray beards but pre-teen and early teenagers. The "kids" who are following, or being sucked into, the latest developments like location based games using GPS phones. Who knows, they may even propose that execs use games and fun to get key ideas communicated and/or to shape new behaviors.

OK, I know, I got it, I've gone too far - games and fun, and kids, in business! What was I thinking?

What's Missing with Most 360 Feedback Processes?

I should put my perspective about 360's, and feedback processes, on the line to start off with.

I don't use them. I don't recommend them. And, for the most part, in my view, they are an insufficiently useful tool to support executives in validating or changing their behavior...

Most people read feedback results through a pre-existing filter that I label "our self-protection mechanisms". They include background conversations like: I agree/disagree; I like/don't like; that's right/that's wrong... (You will even notice that mechanism at work as you read my post).

Mostly, when we are presented with "facts" that support our point of view we love them and think the person who brings them to us is a savvy person. However, when confronted with "facts" contrary to our own point of view, or our reality, we operate from one of a range of responses - firstly, denial, resistance, justification and explanations - some variant of: I am right and you/they are wrong and I can prove it; I know how things are, and you/they just got it wrong. They just don't get it - me, my situation, what I am dealing with, ...

In this self-protection condition there is no other available response but argument and counter-argument… There is no possibility of an altered state, a transformation of reality or behavior in this paradigm. Worse, the prevailing paradigm is strengthened and reinforced by the exchanges of opinions and perceptions.

If? If the person getting feedback gets to acceptance - and I don't mean submission - a significant step up, then a secondary problem with most 360 feedback processes is that they provide no, or insufficient, pathway or support for the changes that the originators of the feedback surveys want. Especially true in instances where the feedback tells more about an executive's behavior problems than contributions.

I have a recent instance where a CEO got feedback about his "behavior problems" and he defaulted to two typical reactions: 1) who said that? - clearly so as to invalidate the "unreliable" source 2) to get a "PR" campaign going - corporate communications is not getting their job done explaining me. Understandable responses when we default to victim vs. being responsible - I am right and they are wrong.

Such negative feedback that executives do acknowledge as valid, for the most part, makes no difference. Sure they have others' opinions, but that "information" does not, in most cases, give them any access to alter their behavior. ... very few peoples' actions are changed as a result of this kind of "knowing". And, if the organization also has psychological profiling as part of their repertoire of tools and techniques we will likely hear, "I am not a bully, I don't dominate people, I just have a type A personality, I am an E, we shouldn't hire so many of these timid I's. That's the problem."

My principle objections to 360's are:

• They are anonymous
• They are not specific, what happened, when did it happen, who was involved or observed or can validate - because that usually blows the anonymity
• People opine, but with no shared context to make the opinions mean anything beyond their personal point of view. For example, they are not assessments about how well, or not, someone is performing or behaving against some pre-agreed set of values, principles or standards
• Such information that is useful is put into the hands of the very person who is least able to do anything useful with it - the person with either some set of problem behaviors and/or some set of qualities and attributes that others would benefit from emulating. By "useful" I mean, transform themselves. We can't. That is why a coach is so indispensable. We can't see ourselves as others see us - there's the rub!
  

Here are my recommendations about soliciting feedback and giving feedback. The first level is the easiest to implement. The third level requires more maturity and a supportive environment.

The first level:

1. The person about whom (for whom) feedback is being sought asks for it from a defined group of people. And says in the request for information how come they want it - as in what set of values, commitments and objectives they are working to forward that would be helped by some honest, straight, feedback. Feedback about what to stop because it thwarts the stated intentions. What to keep doing because it is consistent with intentions. What to start doing that would accelerate or enhance intentions. And, what to do differently so as to be more effective.
   
2. That person says they want frank direct feedback, with specifics: what happened? When? How did you feel? What was your experience? Again in the context of #1.
3. The requester asks that the feedback not be anonymous. Recognizing that that might be perceived as risky he/she asks that it be sent to a trusted third party - trusted because that person can be relied on to keep confidences and protect the source of the feedback. Equally, they can be counted on not dilute the delivery of key messages in passing feedback on.
4. The trusted third party may seek amplification and clarification from those providing feedback, then distills the messages ready to present to the requester. The trusted third party then works with the requester in two key areas: a) Make sure they "get" the communications without argument or resistance - these are messages from people intent on making a contribution, don't argue with or discount what is being offered, and, b) Make sure there is some coaching with the messages - what to do - as in what structure of support to put in place, how to do it, how to change ones behavior and the perceptions of colleagues.
   

The second level:

In addition to the first level the "trusted third party" engage those providing feedback in an inquiry to uncover how come they have been/are unwilling/reluctant to give the feedback directly to the executive who is seeking it. For leaders committed to transforming the culture to one of open, direct, honest, supportive, real-time feedback, there is a mine of useful insight about current barriers to open communication uncovered in this inquiry

The "trusted third party" gently probes with those giving feedback to see if they are willing to repeat their observations directly to the executive seeking feedback. If they are, request (lightly) that they do, with a by when. If not, ask if they would be willing to share how come? What the reticence is?

The third level:

At this level feedback is given in real-time, all the time. It is as natural as saying, "the picnic was great, and here's how come" or, "... and here's how we can improve it for next time..." In this model, half-year and year-end reviews are, for the most part, memorializations of highlights from feedback given throughout the year: acknowledging changes, identifying work in progress, and raising the bar for even more learning, growth and development.

In my view, we have designed our current anonymous 360 feedback process so as to avoid the more difficult challenge of creating a culture of openness, trust, mutual support, contribution, learning, growth and sharing. A culture in which teamwork, collaboration, win-win is lived and breathed.

Maybe, our current model of 360's were designed to be the first step - an acclimatization if you will - to giving feedback on the way to real-time-all-the-time direct feedback. The problem is, in most organizations, we have not taken any further steps. Worse, the 360 process, as usually administered, has devolved in to a perfunctory, time-consuming, check-off-the-box thing to do that frustrates most and adds value to very few.

Some useful questions - for inquiry and reflection

One of the challenges of executive life is the huge demands made on finite time, energy and resources. Many executives have shared their anxiety about balance, keeping pace, staying healthy and keeping on top of things.

In this fast paced world there will be no time for reflection, for noodling on open-ended questions, for speculation about other possibilities for organizing work and life unless the time is allocated for that purpose. The "found time" can be in the car, the shower, on a plane, wherever - the important thing is to engage with questions, not for THE answer, but for the insights the question provides. These are the kinds of questions that can be revisited for new insights and new perspectives - that's the value of inquiry and reflection.

For example, considering a coaching relationship? Here are some questions to noodle on:

1. Why would I want to engage in a coaching relationship - what value would I want to get from being coached?
2. Is it my choice to engage in a coaching relationship - is anyone "encouraging" me that I "should" have a coach?
3. If I did get a coach and the coaching relationship works our well, what would I want to accomplish – both qualitatively and quantitavely?
4. What do I want to accomplish in my career and in my relationships at work that is not currently predictable – like I could not promise that outcome any time soon – and I want it?
5. What am I dealing with – that is on my plate right now – that isn’t moving as fast as I want – where my intentions are being stopped blocked or interrupted?
6. What have I been told about my results, my ways of being, my ways of dealing with people, that does not work?
7. Where do I find myself constrained, thwarted, resigned or stopped?
8. What have I been told – or just know about me – that works?
9. When I am backed into a corner, or when I am under pressure, what technique do I use to get what I want and get out of difficulty - my winning play-book?
10. What kind of people, or situations, do I have difficulty dealing with, or avoid altogether - that if I could deal with I would be more effective in my work, life?
    

Conditions for a Successful coaching relationship

Every successful relationship has, as part of its foundation, a set of agreements, or understanding, which are understood, shared and shape the day-to-day interactions. The same is true for the relationship between and executive and his or her coach. The best executive coaching relationships are partnerships. They are collaborations with a level of authenticity, mutual respect, and shared commitments that is rare in corporate life.

Mostly in our relationships understandings and agreements are implicit - we have just come to know the other person over time, and they know us - it just works.

Before a coaching relationship starts there needs to be some explicit understandings. Here are a few:

1. The executive being coached is committed to an outcome, which appears to be beyond his or her grasp, given historical performance.
   
2. The executive considering a coaching relationship is authentically open to being coached, and not because it is the ‘thing to do’ or because someone else thinks it is needed or a good idea.
3. The executive to be coached has a choice of coach such that they can say to a coach, “I am open to be coached, and coached by you”.
4. The coach is committed to the executive he or she is coaching and can relate to their commitments like they are his or her own.
5. The coach is competent in the area where coaching is requested.
6. The coach wants to coach this particular executive.
   

When the executive and coach are clear they want to work with each other - when they are clear there are the conditions in place for a successful working relationship, the next step is to develop a set of operating agreements.

Executive Coaching - NOT for every executive!

Every executive coach should have some non-negotiable conditions that need to be in place before a coaching relationship starts so that it has the greatest likelihood of realizing its intended outcome. Here are some that my colleagues and I share:

1. The executive wants to be coached – wants to be coached because there is a result (a future) the executive is committed to that is a risk – it cannot be authentically promised and delivered drawing on past-based knowledge and experience. Or, current events or circumstances are stopping, blocking and thwarting the executive’s efforts in realizing of that future.
2. The executive is willing to “try on” the coaches’ perspective – and think and act from that perspective and see what transpires – even (especially) when the coach’s perspective seems illogical, unreasonable, infeasible – or just plain wrong from the executive’s point of view.
3. The executive needs to be grounded in the realities of his/her world. Which means a finely tuned sense of whether he and his organization is exceeding stakeholders’ expectations, meeting expectations or failing to do so.
4. The executive being coached needs to demonstrate being in, and committed to, his/her own game. He/she knows the key registers of performance (KPI’s), and is responsive when there are variances. The executive is engaged with all the key elements of the business (accountabilities, project, assignment) that he/she is working with – as in hands on.
5. Being accountable is essential. Operating from, “I am accountable”. Holding him/herself and others to account. Being willing to look at what is present, and in the way, and what is missing, that needs to be provided. Being his/her word – keeping promises and holding others to account for their promises.
6. The willingness to make “unreasonable” promises is critical – with the authentic intention of acting consistently with the promise. And when time has elapsed review “what happened” so that what works can be distinguished and built on, what does not work can be distinguished and eliminated, and what is missing can be identified and put in place.
   
7. Executives who are unwilling to “interrupt the flow” of business as usual and, by doing so, put themselves at risk of failure – by making unreasonable promises and requests – are not candidates for coaching.
   

Manage the conversations, not people or things

I have the view that the folks we have been calling "leaders", whether designated as such with that role and title or not, are in fact "conversation generators and managers". That’s what they do, they bring new conversations into existence, nurture and manage them till they are sustainable, and displace, or take out of existence, existing conversations that are inconsistent with or thwart the conversations they generate.

Before I go on, a bit more of the framework my colleagues and I work with: Context (the sum of our conversations internal and external) shapes the way we see the world; the way we see the world shapes the actions that are available for us to take; the actions we take shapes the outcomes/results we produce.

Which means, if we want different outcomes we need to change the context – which means put a new conversation into existence and/or take an existing conversation out of existence.

It is not hard to see the impact of new conversations on behavior and outcomes. Some politicians and marketing folks are brilliant at what we call “conversation management”. Look at the impact of Google and uTube, to say nothing of the Internet - powerful examples of new conversations - and new behaviors and outcomes from those who engage with these conversations.

What we, as leaders (conversation generators and managers) have available to us now is a technology, that is getting more sophisticated as we speak, to disseminate conversations – virally multiply them – till they are “the way people see the world, which shapes their actions…” We are now able to troll the Internet for particular conversations – to give them more mass, and therefore power to shape behavior - or to delete them, with the same intent in mind.

Part of what some people complain about in this emerging real/cyber world is their sense of dislocation as the form and content of “conversations” they were familiar with are changing or don’t mean anything any more. So-called leaders complain that what used to work for them in getting people to do what they want doesn’t anymore. They don’t appreciate how come a conversation in a private meeting is all over their organization, or even the Internet, in minutes because someone sent an instant message – a what? Or how come an off-hand remark can have such devastating results. In the US we even have a new way to speak about the phenomenon – a macaca moment - thanks to a former US Senator, George Allen, who was recorded on video making an off-hand derogatory remark, which got lots of play on TV and uTube.

We only have to look around us to see the power of conversations on the collective behavior of a group, organization or society. For example, I suspect there are few in the world who are unaware that the US has a presidential campaign under way. Here are some implicit/explicit conversations in the US about what a candidate must believe to be fit for the role:

1. You have to believe in god – with a capital G, (a Christian God). If you are an atheist or agnostic, or believe in some other god don’t apply – or, be very good about faking being a believer
2. Guns are like children, they’re ours – don’t even think about taking them away. And you better show you are for them – guns and children that is.
   

Staying with the US for a moment. Much of the world may have been perplexed that a second or two of Janet Jackson’s breast being exposed – which most people did not see until the instant replays – could have ended in senate hearings, the Federal Communications Commission issuing new broadcast regulations and fines. And broadcasters instituting new practices the insert time delays in their broadcasts so they can edit out “indecencies”.

Anyone who doubts the power of conversations in shaping actions and outcomes only needs to reflect on some examples like these that are all around us. Any anyone who is unsure of the power of technology to amplify and disseminate “transformational” conversations is not paying attention.

You Just Don’t Listen!

One executive I have recently started working with has a constant complaint about the members of his team that, "they just don't listen!". His evidence for that assertion is that things he (thinks) he has communicated clearly are just not understood or acted on by people.

When he started to examine who listened to him and who didn't, he was not sure. What he was sure about is that his messages were not getting through - most of the time. "You see, the problem is, they just don't listen. You need to help them listen better".

Putting aside for the moment the "externalizing the source of the issue", what is accurate about the accusation? Is it accurate that, "they just don't listen"?

It is a familiar accusation for sure, familiar perhaps because we often make it of others – “the problem with John is that he just doesn’t listen”. How is it that so many of us can claim to be good listeners and yet, at the same time there is this general and pervasive accusation that people don’t listen?

The truth is however, we do listen. We are listening all the time. In every conversation, in every interaction, we are listening. The big question that is worth serious inquiry is, “to what are we listening?”

The easiest answer and the one that most people give is, “well I am listening to what is being said of course”. That is accurate for sure. However, if we press the inquiry we will soon discover that the “what is being said of course” that we are listening to is being said by us, to ourselves, in what I call our background conversations – the conversations that go on in our own heads.

As far as I can tell these conversations are going on non-stop, sometimes more loudly than others, but non-stop nonetheless. If that the notion of background conversations is not something you are familiar with, at this point stop reading, and for about 30 seconds and just listen.

It won’t take long for the internal commentary to start up: “What am I supposed to be listening for?” , “I don’t hear anything!”. Whatever the content was, what you were listening to was your background conversation - the constant commentator.

What we will begin to discern, when we start listening to our background conversations, is that we have an opinion about everything. We are constantly commenting on everything that is going on around us. We will even notice that frequently we are commenting on our own comments. We are constantly expressing our likes and dislikes, our judgments and evaluations, our preferences and prejudices; this is why we get accused of not listening. Because in fact, we seldom actually hear what is being said to us – the "just what is being said to us" - because we are also listening to our own commentary about what is being said, it as if we are trying to listen through a filter of interference that keeps interrupting what is being said to us that we are trying to listen to.

Often, and more often that we know, this filter of interference, is our own internal commentary. And often it is louder and more insistent than was is being said to us by those who are trying to get a message through to us.

We even have a whole repetoire of techniques to cover up the fact we were listening to ourselves and not the person speaking to us, for example, "can you just say that more more time, I want to be sure I heard you accurately?"

So it is really important for leaders to pay more attention to what is being listened, than what is being spoken. Too many "leaders" broadcast rather than communicate.

"What's the difference?" my man asks.

"Well, that's your first inquiry - Oh, and start from the perspective that you are the problem, not your people. A useful starting perspective, don't you think? Given there are ten people on your team not listening (they are the problem) and one person on the team not being listened to, who thinks he's not the problem".

Can executive coaching really make a difference?

For the most part business executives are a pretty pragmatic lot; results, ROI, being competitive are just a few elements of their lexicon. Accountants, lawyers, marketing people, strategists, technologists are just a few of the people that make up an executive team. Rarely though, do you see the team coach as part of the line up - as you would if we were talking about football, basketball, or baseball.

How come that just about every sport, and all the performing arts, have the notion of coaching, and being coached, as a normal part of the structure and disciplines of their profession - but not for most executive teams?

Is there a huge opportunity for enhanced performance being missed here? One would think so.

The image of a particular coaching scene sticks in my mind when I think of what would be possible if executives were coached the same way sports professionals or performing artists are.

Some years ago I saw the Kirov Ballet in rehearsal in front of an audience of about 2500 people in the London Coliseum. I don't remember the ballet being rehearsed, or who the prima ballerina was. What has stayed with me is a series of exchanges between the ballet master and the prima ballerina:

• The stage is empty but for the ballet master, who signals to the orchestra to play, at which point the prima ballerina makes a dramatic entrance from back stage right and traverses the stage to front stage left, dancing in a way I cannot describe, except to say it was breathtaking
• When she came to a stop the audience, mostly mothers and daughters, and clearly ballet enthusiasts, broke into thunderous applause
• At which point the ballet master pounded the stage with a long staff, like a broom handle, silencing the applause. He wagged his index finger like a high speed windshield wiper and, in Russian rapid fired a series of, "niet, niet, niet's", issued some instructions and at then pointed to the back right of the stage. It was not difficult to deduce that some powerful coaching had just been given
• The prima ballerina walked to the back of the stage, the orchestra was instructed to play again, and the prima ballerina repeated her performance
• When she finished this time the audiences response was still enthusiastic though a little less thunderous
• The ballet master repeated his pounding, his wagging, his niet's and his pointing to the back of the stage. The tension in the audience was palpable
• As before, the prima ballerina walked to the back of the stage, the orchestra was instructed to play again, and the prima ballerina repeated her performance
• When she finished this time, the audience was silent, the atmosphere was tense
• After a brief theatrical pause, the ballet master turned to the audience and said in a loud strong, accented voice, "Now!" and the audience exploded in applause, as much to relieve tension no doubt as to show appreciation. He then turned his attention to the prima ballerina and was clearly showering her with praise and appreciation as her delight was obvious.
  

I have often thought, "what would be possible for organizational performance, for work satisfaction, for relationships, and so on, if that kind of rigor and discipline was a regular part of work? If that commitment to each others' best performance was what characterized relationships at work?"

For me, that is the possibility of coaching.