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.