Some Questions for Leaders to Mull On

Some questions are design to give a specific answer. For example: what's the cost of distribution as a percentage of sales? The answer needs to be precise and accurate. And, the answer closes the question.

Other questions are open - there is no precise or accurate answer, and the interim answer may well be different at different points in time, or under different circumstances. 

Here are some useful open questions to mull on:

1) If there were the ghost of a dead idea haunting the organization, what would it be?

2) What does the gap look like between what you are currently accomplishing (and settling for) and what you want?

3) In what way do you show your openness to conversations that highlight the gap?

4) To what extent are you willing to deal with the disturbance that addressing the gap will cause? 

5) What results can't you get around here?

6) What mechanism do you have for opposing views to be expressed, and in what way does that allow for better decisions?

7) What are the good things you do today that you would resist changing? 

8) About what topics is your speaking and actions misaligned - where you don't walk the talk?

9) What are you afraid others might find out about you?

Where to Look to Determine the Value You Provide as a Leader

My assumption is that every leader wants to improve his or her effectiveness in causing specific measurable desired results in his or her organization as part of a commitment to profitably grow their business.

So where to look to get evidence that your leadership is effective, and where not to look:

1) Look for the insights that get generated and acted on by the people you lead - not in what you say, no matter how brilliant you think it is

2) In having your people discover the belief systems that are not valid - not in the ideas you generate or the advice you give

3) In seeing your own actions that are inconsistent with espoused commitments and values and correcting, because people pay more attention to what you do than what you say - not in pointing out the inconsistencies and inauthenticities of others

4) In the specific measurable results that are being produced and in the behaviors of your people - not in your opinions, your story, your feelings or thoughts

5) In your capacity to forward a possibility you have committed to - not in your ability to get agreement (or lip service)

6) Your ability to identify and resolve problems, conflicts and breakdowns - not in your ability to diplomatically smooth things out

7) Your ability to enroll others, to gain alignment and cause coordinated action to build high performing teams - not in you power to command and control

8) Your ability to acknowledge, praise, validate and appreciate actions, outcomes and ways of behaving that are consistent with your intentions - not in focusing on complaining, correcting and chastising.

THE most effective leaders see their organization's performance as directly correlated to their own leadership effectiveness. If the organization is underperforming then so are you.

Establishing the ROI of an Executive Coaching Engagement

If engaging an executive coach is considered by an organization's leadership to be an investment in particular executives, or an executive team, rather that an expense, then how is  the return on that investment to be measured and tracked? And how is the payoff of the investment to be assessed and validated? 

Some executives will admit to being skeptical that arriving at a measurable ROI for executive coaching is doable. A legitimate concern expressed is, "how do we distinguish the impact of coaching from the myriad of other factors that can and do impact change in an executive or team's performance, and therefore the ROI of a coaching engagement?"

My speculation is that because this question not asked, and answered, is the principal reason that every executive does not have a coach as a matter of course. Every executive who has a P&L accountability, or who leads a team, or who is accountable for innovation, for..., in fact any specific desired outcome - is without a coach is because the question of the return on investment is not clear. 

Short of not being able to afford an investment in executive coaching - not the case for most large organizations - the only other reasons to not have executives coached are:

1) A belief that a particular executive, or the executive team, is  not coachable - which begs the question, "And you retain people who are not coachable because...?

2) An assertion that our executives will not discover anything they don't know already from being coached. Our executive know it all already

3) The question of return has not been asked and answered, leaving the sense that coaching is an avoidable expense with unquantifiable benefit rather than an investment with a return.

So how do we go about measuring ROI? Here are some key steps:

1) Establish the executive's accountabilities - expressed as what specific measurable desired results (not activities), are to be delivered to whom, and by when?

2) Establish the resources the executive will have at his/her disposal

3) Forecast the likely results the executive is likely to produce: given history, and plans and projects in place, expressed as the most likely case and best case predictable outcomes

4) Create (by declaration) a set of outcomes, beyond the most likely case, as the context for coaching. And outcomes, that if/when achieved would show an ROI of ... - complete that sentence

5) These outcomes that will be expressed as a coaching plan: with milestones, tracking and reporting mechanisms.

In effect the outcome to be achieved, that when achieved, will produce a return on investment that makes the investment worth while, is established at the outset of the coaching relationship. With the ROI criteria established it is a relatively easy monitoring and tracking process to determine that the anticipate returns are being met. 

How to work in this declarative, future first, context is part of the content of the LPR coaching program. 

It's the Culture Stupid!

"It's the economy stupid!" focused everyone's attention on what was THE key issues in the 2000 general election.

Leaders who are committed to causing a transformation in their organization would be smart to get THE key area where they need to focus - "It's the culture stupid!" 

The literature of failed change programs is extensive. The list of failed acquisition and merger integrations is also extensive. Competent and successful executives moving to new organizations find that what worked for them in corporation X where they built their reputations does not work in their new organization. What's going on? "It's the culture stupid!" 

What is culture anyway? There are almost as many interpretations about what culture is, and how important it is in our lives, as there are experts speaking and writing about it. This is what we (LPR) say that culture is.

Even when culture is clearly understood, at least intellectually, the biggest mistake leaders make is that they do not invest themselves in coaching and training people to live the organizing principles and values - pretty posters with value statements that don't reflect what actually happens will kill most organizations.  

Look at Zappos core values and how they inculcate them in the organization. They engage people in creating the culture and training new employees in the culture, for example, here in this culture training class.

They even have a 400+ page Culture Book, in which employees express what each value means for them and how they see it being expressed.  It is the best expression of a culture I have seen in 25 years of working with organizations to build strong cultures. It is a culture in which there is integrity between what is espoused and what is lived.

So to build a vibrant, healthy, growing company with a personality and a following, "It's the culture stupid!"

Listen For Commitments and Values

Every action, I repeat every action, is an expression of our commitments and values! Said another way, our actions are not random, arbitrary or capricious - they are shaped by an underlying set of commitments and values. A bit like the coding in a computer's operating system which we don't see, but nonetheless dictates what a computer can and cannot do, we too have an equivalent set of operating principles, expressed as commitments and values.

Some commitments and values are explicit. If asked what we are committed to, and what we value, many of us would be able to recite them without difficulty.

Having said that, we are not always conscious of all the commitment(s) that shape our actions. And, if asked, we could not say, very easily anyway, what we valued that has us do this, or say that.

In a meeting for example when there is argument and counter-argument, when there is upset or withdrawal on the part of some folks , when there is collaboration and agreement - each of these ways of being are the expression of commitments and values.

Knowing what shapes peoples' actions is just as important a leadership competency as knowing how to decipher the coding of a computer operating system is to an application designer.

Ask us to walk you through the design elements that source action. Producing breakthroughs and creating a culture of collaboration, team work, empowering relations, open communication, innovation, alignment, integrity, respect and fun, will no longer be a mystery

Design Accountabilities to Stretch and Grow People and Organizations

In 25+ years of coaching executives one of the areas where I see huge personal and organizational growth opportunities, opportunities that are being lost, is in the area of establishing and managing the organization as a network of accountabilities.

Firstly, in most organizations we have worked with there is no shared understanding of what it is to be accountable. Mostly we hear people speak about roles and responsibilities and accountabilities using these words interchangeably. The bottom line is the focus is on activity, "just doing my job", "as long as I keep my boss happy, everything is fine".

We have yet to see a network of relationships structured around who is accountable to whom, for what specific desired results, in what time frame. A network of relationships with a set of structures, agreements and disciplines around interacting, dealing with breakdowns, handling conflicts and celebrating accomplishments.

Instead we have who reports to whom, organized by function, with tenure, hierarchy and task as the organizing principles. We have task assignments with goals - much more an activity plan than a set of accountabilities. And we have incrementally extend/improve the level of past performance as another organizing principle.

Individuals and teams thrive and grow on relationships, on challenges, on the opportunity to "go where no one has gone before". Leaders need to challenge their people if they are to stand any chance of unleashing creativity, energy, collaboration - and have any chance of breaking out of business-as-usual.

So first off, create a culture in which accountability is understood by everyone. A culture in which an observable characteristic is that everyone is in a network of relationships based on who is accountable to whom, for what, by when. 

Second design accountabilities in such a way that a significant percentage of each person's set of outcomes to produce requires/calls for personal  growth and development, new learning and new levels of relating to colleagues and customers.

If this is not in place, people have no room to grow and neither does the organization.

Great Teams and Great Companies Have One Thing In Common

Great teams and great companies have many things in common, one in particular is they know how to communicate. 

I was working with one CEO recently who expressed his frustration, with all the histrionics of a prima dona, when a Discovery Audit we had conducted in his organization clearly uncovered that most people in the organization could not say what the organizations strategy was. His frustration became anger and disbelief when we further revealed that even many of his executive team were not clear what the strategy was.

When he calmed himself he asked, almost plaintively, "how is this possible, I have been talking about the strategy for six months?"

There was no doubt he had been broadcasting for six months. He had several town hall meetings in which he talked at people. It was frequently reported that he even talked over people who wanted to stop his presentations with questions. In smaller groups he frequently talked to people about their strat plans - as in "I haven't seen your strat plan yet, where is it?"

What we heard over and over was he never talked with people, engaging them in his thinking, inviting their questions or contributions, encouraging them to build on the strategy, to be co-authors with him, explaining to them how strategy impacts day-to-day actions, investments and decisions of all kinds.

For most people the strategy was the CEO's thing unconnected to their daily concerns. They did not even understand what was required of them in producing the much asked for "strat plans" as the communication was all one-way. Without doubt a failure of communication - but all too common.

So here are a few things things that great communicators have in common:

They talk with people - a two-way exchange of ideas, commitments, excitement, fun, and the nuts and bolts of who, what, when, how and why its all important

They are open, honest and straight - no games, no secrets, no hidden agendas

They know the difference been facts and opinions and opts for the facts when they are available

They actively support each other and look for openings to assist each other - they don't gossip and undermine each other

They acknowledge, appreciate, praise and coach each other all the time, and in real time. They don't postpone feed back for blind 360's or annual reviews

They don't miss any opportunity to celebrate successes

They are not afraid of, or disempowered by, failure. They recognize that when they are pressing to accomplish things that have never been accomplished before - there will be failures. 

They miss no opportunity to learn from failure and then share what they have learned with everyone who can benefit from the insights

The signal to noise ratio is very very high, 90+%.

Look For Teachable (Coaching) Moments

In every interaction with reports and colleagues look for teachable (coaching) moments. 

There will always be opportunities to acknowledge somebody's performance or way of being. This acknowledgment will help people see their implicit, and even automatic, behavior - it makes it explicit. This means that that person will now be able to do what they do - the things that you have acknowledged - more consciously. And that in turn means they can now improve their performance and, they can now teach others - because they explicitly know what they are doing that works.

Also, in addition to acknowledging people, look for ways to help them improve. If you see ways in which people can improve by building on their strengths, or by stopping things that get in their way, and you don't tell them, you are in effect conspiring to have them perform sub-optimally. Not much of a friend or colleague. And worse, implicitly,  not much of a commitment to the team or organization improving.

Be an example by looking for learning moments yourself. For example: ask colleagues at the end of a meeting, "What did I do during the meeting that worked or added value - just one or two things?" and, "What could I have done differently that would have given us a better outcome, or more easily, or more quickly?" This is, in effect, a brief after action review.

For teachable moments to be a rich part of an organization culture there needs to be high levels of trust and a proficiency in open generous communication.