Sound Bites Don't Like Nuance

That sounds like a sound bite with nuance to me. What do you think?

I was listening to a podcast interview between Katie Hair and Digby Scott. Great conversation BTW and well worth a listen. 

Katie offered up the sound bite that became this week's title. Initially, I totally agreed with what she said, but on further thought I reckon it’s nuanced.

Sound bites can be very blunt instruments, and can certainly be used to polarise camps and opinions. They are often deliberately weaponised, especially in social media. 

Right - Wrong, Black - White, Us - Them

But, the most effective leaders I work with have well thought out sound bites which they repeat often, and to great effect. They use them to focus intention, set direction, define standards, build culture and more. The sound bites themselves don’t have much nuance - they grab your attention. Then if accompanied by nuanced examples, they can guide very nuanced decision making and behaviour. More importantly, they can ensure some consistency in doing so. 

I reckon a sound bite is a bit like a sharp blade. What it does will depend on whose hands hold it. It could brutally slash, but also carve intricate patterns or execute precise surgery.

I wonder, have you seen sound bites used in nuanced ways?

Just Wait

Have you ever had the feeling that you had more than one boss? There’s the person you report too, but another who actually calls the shots. It’s a confusing and unsettling place to be, especially if the 2 people are giving significantly different directions.

The first time I experienced it, a well-intentioned senior leader used to interrupt work that was well advanced and started throwing challenges and questions at the team. He’d usually finish the conversation with a strongly stated preference for how the work should proceed. It was always a significant departure from what had been done to date and involved a lot of rework.

After a while the team would get direction from their immediate boss, but rather than start work, we’d wait until the senior leader made his position clear. The team, and our immediate leader second guessed themselves. The senior guy wondered why no one was showing any initiative, and started directing us in increasing levels of detail. No one was enjoying the dynamic, and it was incredibly ineffective and inefficient. When Hierarchy Hopping like this takes hold, people effectively have 2 bosses. They will always defer to the more senior, because that has the least risk attached.

“Just wait” becomes BAU, everything gets slower and less innovative.

Have you experienced Hierarchy Hopping? Next time we’ll look at the picture from the perspective of that senior leader.

Trying Too Hard

“My work seems irrelevant”

“I feel like a glorified admin”

“No one is listening to me”

“I think I might lose my job”

These are some of the things that middle managers have said to me when  Hierarchy Hopping is happening.

Many of them overcompensate. They work really hard to prove their competence, or exert their authority. Worst case - They overreach and ignore the expertise of their team and the guidance of their leader. Their efforts to be relevant further fuel the Hierarchy Hopping where people above and below them “hop“ over their role for solutions and tasking. They feel even less relevant so try even harder. The people above and below them start to feel that they are a bad fit, even if their skills/experience are a great fit.

I have only ever seen 3 outcomes:

• The team recognises what is happening and gets clear about roles, responsibilities, delegated authorities and expectations. They have robust conversations as their collective understanding of how to work well together evolves.

• The “new” person in the middle leaves, or if they are particularly insistent on hanging in, their team starts to fragment and leave.

• The person in the middle gets performance-managed out.

In all but the first option, the team is left with baggage that makes it even harder for the next person appointed to the middle role.

Have you experienced Hierarchy Hopping, or its impacts?

Piggy in the Middle

Take a well-respected, competent, and confident crisis management specialist. Put them in charge of an operational team. Give them a clear mandate to lead, and 6 months to make a positive impact on team cohesion and results. What would you expect the results to be?

I expected great results and a tight-knit team, but instead I found:

• A new leader who felt irrelevant and undervalued.

• The operational team feeling micromanaged and like they weren't trusted.

• A senior leader who was feeling overwhelmed with details that he thought the new team leader would have been taking care of.

• An increasingly toxic environment where trust was diminishing.

How could it go wrong so quickly - especially when everyone involved was technically good at their job, committed to the team, and the work they did together?

It’s a pattern I’ve seen often enough that I call it Hierarchy Hopping. If there are 3 (or more) layers, and middle layers get bypassed, chaos ensues. A senior leader bypasses their operational lead and directly tasks the team. People on the frontline bypass the operational lead and go to the senior leader to fix problems.

Hierarchy Hopping

Why would it happen? Clearly there is a need for the additional layer, otherwise the role wouldn’t exist. 

For the senior leader there’s often comfort and familiarity in the ‘tools’ of the layer one down from them. Plus, if the layer is new, they’ve previously been responsible for fixing the problems and tasking the team. Handing that to a new person can feel unsettling. The new person can do the job, but the newly leveled up leader feels disconnected from what is happening and so returns to what is familiar. The new person is unintentionally sidelined and the frontline people now have 2 direct bosses.

They’ll hesitate to act until the more senior person's view is clear. You’ll hear them saying, “We are supposed to work on X, but every time we get started, the boss comes down and the direction changes. Let's just hold for a while until they tell us which way to go.” Over time this reinforces itself. The new Ops leader is getting no traction or buy-in, so starts to second guess themselves or throw their hands up and say “what’s the point of my role?”. The frontline shows less and less initiative as they wait for clear direction from 2 bosses.  The senior person experiences even more load/stress than before the new ops manager was around. The person works hard at demonstrating their value, often overstepping all sorts of boundaries in an increasing effort to do the job they were hired for. The senior person feels that if they are not involved at the front line, it will all fall apart. 

Uninterrupted, it starts to get toxic. People play the 2 leaders off against each other, and start assigning blame to others. The team becomes less effective and more fractured. There’s lots of unhelpful talking behind each other's backs and factions forming. 

Over this series, we’ll look at ways people at all levels can avoid it, and/or fix it if Hierarchy Hopping starts.

Challenging Conversations

If you are a leader, difficult conversations are part of the territory. Done well they can significantly enhance relationships, cohesion and results. But they can also do the opposite. Whether it’s feedback, a piece of bad news, conveying a controversial decision, resolving conflict or negotiating, challenging conversations show up over and over.

They are difficult because you care about the outcome (and possibly the people involved) and there’s some emotional connection to it. If you didn’t care about the people or out come and had no emotional stake in it, the conversation would either not be needed or would be easy.

It took me years to learn that challenging conversations are better had as early as possible. There’s usually more options and less consequences the earlier you have them. Delay or avoidance might feel easier in the moment, but it inevitably adds to the original problem.

What conversations are you avoiding? What is the cost of delaying having them?

Connection Tales

John leads a small team in a role that is heavy on logistics. Lots of loading and unloading. Lots of making sure the right resources are available at the right time. Lots of planning ahead, and also responding to unplanned, urgent jobs. John told me the team didn’t show much initiative and often sat on the sidelines waiting to be tasked with something. John finds that frustrating and often takes over jobs himself, or criticises the lack of action. He reckoned the situation was getting worse.

We talked in more detail and it turned out that the team also does lots of good and timely work. John started to connect with the good work the team was doing. He started recognising efforts and thanking the team for them. Over a couple of weeks the team has become much more proactive. John has connected with what’s good about his team, and what motivates them. The team is responding.

A senior leader described dealing with a serious complaint. It didn’t go well and escalated in unhelpful ways. As we talked though it he could see a lack of connection between the people involved and with the problem. The person making the complaint felt dismissed and disrespected. Why? Probably because the conversation went too quickly to solving the problem. There were some unavoidable constraints. He explained those in detail. When we do that before we really hear and understand the problem, it feels dismissive and defensive. Connecting with what matters for the person, taking the time to deeply listen and understand, gets us to a place where a solution can be properly discussed.

In both examples the leader is trying to get a good outcome as quickly as possible. That’s understandable and desirable. There’s an enormous amount of time and task pressure for most leaders. Sometimes we need to slow down, connect and then go for the outcome. It feels slower, but connection ultimately gets us there quicker and the outcomes are more sustainable.

Where and how could you do a better job of connection? Who do you know who does that really well?

Which direction and how?

Direction over detail is well and good if you know where you are going. Alice (in Wonderland) asked that cat which way she should go. She didn't care where she would end up. The cat reckoned in that case, direction didn't matter. Quite right!

I facilitated a conversation recently where big changes are afoot for an organisation with a long, proud and effective history. The conversation was about creating an ideal future within the inevitable changes.

The leaders and team did a great job of looking forward. They:

• Acknowledged and celebrated past success.

• Identified aspects of their organisation/work that they did not want to lose or compromise in the change.

• Articulated the likely limits to their future, including considering what is happening for their stakeholders.

• Laid out a high level plan for their future, which adds value and insulates from irrelevance.

• Framed their propositions thoughtfully, highlighting value to stakeholders rather than just making a wish list.

There’s a lot of detail to be added, but in less than 2 hours they have the bones of a solid future.

The risk in such a conversation is people getting stuck in the past rather than looking forward. They could have lamented the situation, complained, pushed back against inevitable shifts and fought over irrelevant detail. They did not. It was a great working example of Direction over Detail.

Right to disconnect

I keep running into leaders who say “I choose to do a lot of my work after hours and send lots of emails at night or the weekend. I don’t expect my staff to respond, but they do.”

If you do this it will set the expectation for many of your staff to respond, even if you explicitly state that you don’t expect them too. Expectations come from many sources:

• Notifications - if someone has their phone around them all the time, and notifications on, at the very least, they’ll see the message come in. Even if they choose not to respond, it will be on their mind.

• Standards - You are working after hours which sets an expectation that others should too, especially if you hold a senior position.

• Boundaries -  Some people and cultures have difficulty saying no to others. If you breach their boundaries, they’ll respond. 

• Old ways - It used to be said ‘never leave the office before the boss’. It’s changing, but it’s an enduring idea. If you are working any hours, it easily morphs to ‘don’t knock off before the boss’.

• Behaviour - You may not expect a response, but if you get one, do you respond again? This draws staff into an after hours discussion that your behaviour reinforces, even if you say you don’t expect it.

The new legislation is likely to get some leaders in strife for after hours emails like this, regardless of what they say about expectations. There’s a dead easy solution. All email platforms have a timed or delayed send feature. Learn to use it! Write your emails whenever it suits you, then set it to send during working hours. Simple, cleaner, better.

Don’t let legislation lead

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ll know that WHS legislation has recently changed in Australia to include psychosocial hazards. Organisations now have a legislated responsibility to ensure that people are safe from undue psychological impacts of work. As of this week, there's been additions to enshrine people’s right to disconnect from work, meaning they cant be compelled to respond to out of hours communication unless it is unreasonable (e.g. when you are on call, or under a specific set of conditions for a limited time)

You could take the approach of finding out what the new rules are and then follow the legislative lead. That will take you down a rabbit hole of minimum standards and a compliance mindset. A better approach is to build the culture you and your team want/need for optimal performance and then create it together. The standard you set will be much greater than the minimum required, and will have the added bonus of boosting engagement and performance. 

Which Why?

A senior leader team I was working with this week spent time sharing their individual “User Manual”. Some great insights about how and where people work best, their preferences for information, building trust, working hours and more were shared. Super valuable. A common theme was that for them to commit time, effort and resources to something, they needed to know why. Makes sense - few if any of us like wasting time on work that doesn’t seem relevant. Whole books have been written on “why”. But which why? Those leaders articulated 5 different types of why:

• Large, audacious ‘change the world’ vision/mission why

• Large organisational purpose why

• Personal mission why

• Tactical ‘how does this relate to the rest of my/our work?’ why

• Unrelated to the organisation whys like family, health, travel, personal growth, freedom, balance, choice.

All the leaders wanted to know why. They all agreed that knowing why was fundamental to alignment of effort. But not all of them wanted to know the same why. A challenge to alignment is we tend to articulate importance through our own why and huddle with others who share that perspective. An effective leader works to understand the different whys in their team and works with people to align effort with the why that most interests them.

There’s a good chance that most of the whys you work with are in the list above. There’s also a good chance I’ve missed some. What would you add?

Clarity is Performance Fuel

Photo by Solen Feyissa on Unsplash

When it’s clear what you are doing, a solid performance becomes much more likely. The opposite is also true - a lack of clarity makes it very difficult to perform. The Olympics are on at the moment, and we are witnessing amazing feats of human performance by some incredible athletes (Go Aussies! - just sayin’).

These are humans who have dedicated themselves to a very clear outcome and have trained specifically for it for 4 years or more. Great work teams have clarity too. They know what they are working toward, as well as what each person’s role is within the team.

When clarity is missing, commitment rapidly dissolves. People initially attempt to deliver, partly in an attempt to gain clarity. But over time their commitment wanes. Imagine training for the Olympics, but being told regularly that the discipline you will be competing in has been changed. The novelty would appeal for a while, but it would get demotivating pretty quickly.

One of the imperatives of leadership is to add clarity whenever possible. How do you do that in your team?

Conduct: Low Hanging Fruit

Christine Porath has been researching incivility in the workplace for almost 3 decades. She defines it as “...seemingly inconsequential inconsiderate words and deeds that violate accepted norms of workplace conduct…”. It’s the small, slightly rude acts we do and experience - things like eye rolls, sarcasm, harsh words, snappiness. The stuff we can all do especially when we are tired and stressed.

Porath says it’s on the rise. In 1998 she found around 25% of people experienced regular rudeness at work. In 2005 it was almost 50%. By 2022 it was over 75%. An alarming pattern.

I often ask teams about the pattern in their own workplace. 98% say there's some level of rudeness. Over 70% say they do it occasionally when they lose their cool, and that they regret it later. A fair portion of us do it to ourselves with harsh negative criticism and self talk when we disappoint ourselves in some way (I know I do).

So if it's rarely deliberate why is it growing? Rudeness easily provokes a “Tit for tat” dynamic. The more we experience it, the more likely we are to bite back or pay it forward. That adds further to stress, which makes it even more likely that we’ll behave that way.

If you want a high performing team, there’s enormous value in naming this stuff. Talking about where and how it happens, and discussing ways to reduce it. In the same way that rudeness is contagious, so is kindness. It’s an easy, high ROI element of conduct that teams can turn to their advantage.

If you like to know more about how rudeness shows up, its impacts and what to do about it, I’d love to hear from you.

A Tale of Two Teams

I’ve worked in and with a lot of different teams. Each of them had a unique way of operating together. While there were some similarities, none were the same. One of the best ‘team health’ gauges is commitment.

In one team, no one was committed to their teammates. People would actively sabotage work and make each other look bad to gain advantage. It was like an episode of Survivor. Commitment was transitory and only ever for defence or advantage. It was a horrible place to work. Everyone was focussed on who was plotting what.

On another team, commitment was high. We would go out of our way to support each other to get results. Success was celebrated together. People willingly put in extra effort for each other. Everyone was focussed on getting the best outcomes. In both situations the leader was a very active participant in setting the team dynamic and culture, and the team echoed and amplified the standard they set. Both dynamics were also strongly self reinforcing.

Where does commitment lie in your team? If you want optimal performance, there will be tangible commitment to the team (each other), the task (what we are doing?) and the organisation and/or purpose (what are we here for?). Good leaders model and encourage commitment.

Clarity precedes commitment

While I was working as a survival instructor, we emphasised over and over again the importance of water as one of the 5 survival priorities. Participating in an advanced exercise, we encountered a smelly, slimy pool covered with bubbly green algae. It didn’t look drinkable. But parting the layer of green sludge revealed slowly flowing, almost clear water. Clarifying it by straining through fabric, then boiling to purify, and it was perfectly drinkable. It took a while to convince the rest of the group that it was a better option than walking further with an unknown distance to our next water source.

There are similarities in the workplace. Like the group facing that sludgy looking pool, sometimes we need clarification before we commit. Clarification is a key role of leaders at all levels (even if you are an unofficial leader).

On Friday I was working with a CEO and Board discussing their strategy. They are pursuing organic growth by being exemplary at what they do (it’s working well). They also want to grow by acquisition. The nature of their industry means potential acquisitions are a rare find. The CEO was seeking guidance from the board about how aggressively to pursue the acquisition strategy. He mapped a provocative ‘worst case’ to see how the board reacted. Initially the discussion resembled the survival group around the skanky pond - wrinkled noses and obvious discomfort. As the conversation progressed, there was more and more clarity. By the end, the Board and the CEO had a crystal clear understanding about their approach. Ambiguity gone. Alignment achieved.

As a leader, in any situation, it’s worth asking “How can I add clarity to this interaction?”

Minor Changes?

Three stories from real people in real businesses this week:

• An engineer was plagued with constant ‘minor changes’ requested by a client. The engineering needs to be precise because of the loads on the structure. Relatively minor changes equal a full redo of the calculations and drawings.

• A highly customised vehicle had to be upgraded. The old model was no longer available. When the new one finally arrived, it didn’t fit in the shed.

• During an approval process a commitment was made to do things a certain way. When regulators made their inspection something completely different was happening. The original commitment had not been passed on to the operational team. The project may be suspended.

• A piece of public paving near my place was completed and dug up 6 times in one year because roads were changed, trees were planted, cables were shifted, water pipes were replaced etc.

We’ve all had experiences like these where one part of an organisation seems really badly informed about decisions others are making. At worst this leads to massive do-overs and significant frustration. I reckon it’s a compounding situation right now.

People’s to - do lists are so hectic, that they are focussed on what is right in front of them. Taking the time to ask for input from others and/or keep them informed can easily feel like a distraction from our primary focus. It’s false economy. I wonder what percentage of work across the planet is caused by a lack of cohesion, collaboration and communication. It must amount to a massive cost in time, dollars, resources and energy.

If you lead, take the time to slow down and facilitate the connections with people. Everything will go faster.

Police or Purpose

Many moons ago I was a Youth Worker. I once saw a great act of policing. There was a group of young people from a country town visiting Freo. They had gathered in a car park drinking around a mate's ute. They were loud and dropping empty cans/bottles everywhere, but not causing any harm.

A couple of local cops turned up and the older of the 2 leant on the back of the ute and had a yarn to them about street drinking, noise and drink driving. He politely asked them to chuck all the empties into the back of the ute, identified a guy who hadn’t been drinking, eyeballed his licence and then said, “My partner and I are off on patrol, when we get back it would be great if you had cleaned up the cans, and moved you and the ute back to wherever you are staying. If we come back we might need to write some cautions”.

He could have technically thrown the book at them and been much more pushy in his approach. His explanations and requests made sense, and had the group immediately on side. If he’d taken another approach it could have easily escalated with undesirable outcomes for all.

Workplace policy and procedure is similar, I reckon. As a supervisor, employer, or business owner you know that they have their place. From there you have 2 choices:

1. Use them to ‘police’ behaviour and productivity. This approach usually has lots of black and white compliance, criticism, right and wrong involved. The problem is that it rarely motivates people to do a great job. It’s more likely that they’ll adhere to the minimum standard, and/or hide stuff that will draw attention and heat.

2. Tell people about the purpose of them. Involve them in discussions about why they exist and what ‘good’ work looks like in your context. Get people focussed on a good job, not just a compliant one. They’ll be more likely to follow your lead, get excited about doing great work, and evolving great procedures to do it.

Force won’t fix it

A while ago, I was doing a maintenance job on my motorbike. When trying to re-fit the front axle it wouldn’t slide through without a bit of force. As the saying goes, ”If at first it doesn’t fit, get a bigger hammer.” I got one and in return I got some damaged parts. My bigger hammer made a bigger problem.

The situation came to mind when I was talking to a leader about the performance of his team. According to him, they are not bad, but the general standard of their work is a bit lackadaisical. In attempting to lift the standard, all his tactics are about more force. Some of what he told me:

• He expresses anger and/or disappointment at the current standard of work (Understandable by the way, it costs him $$ when work is not on point)

• He plays people off against each other

• He makes thinly veiled threats about people losing their job

• He demands longer work hours to make up for the perceived shortcomings

• He constantly reminds people of policies and procedures

• He is looking over people’s shoulders all the time

• He never thanks people for anything (Why should I thank them for doing the job they are paid to do, especially if they are not doing it well? he asked)

I asked him how that approach was working for him.

“I think it’s getting worse,: he said. People don’t take responsibility and blame others/circumstances for their results. Like me with my axle bolt, I understand his frustration, but I’m not surprised.

In an environment where high results/standards are expected, but people don’t feel psychologically safe, the dominant feeling is anxiety. People will do almost anything to avoid attention and cover their butts. More force adds to the problem, making it harder and longer to fix.

Next time we’ll look at some of what he can do to reverse the current situation and build

Psychological safety as well as the performance standard.

That takes the cake

Want to see a really great example of high quality feedback delivered really well? Such examples are hard to find in a format that can be widely shared. Last night I was watching the finale of School of Chocolate on Netflix. It’s an interesting show if you are into food, sculpture, fine art and expertise. In the finale, two people are competing for a massive prize by making a chocolate showpiece. Chef Amaury Guichon gives the competitors some great feedback when their build is done. The whole season is worth a watch if you are into that sort of thing. If it’s not your flavour, but you’d like to see the feedback go straight to the final episode from 27 min 10 sec until 30 min for one competitor and 30:46 to 33:00 for the other (You’re welcome!). If you want a bit more context watch the whole episode. SPOILER ALERT, if you plan to watch the whole series, watching these 2 segments before watching from Episode One will make it less enjoyable.

Chef Guichon uses some fine ingredients often missing from feedback:

• It’s clear, concise and specific with good examples

• It’s actionable

• When he expresses an opinion, or preference he owns it by saying “I would have liked…”

• When he’s talking industry standards he’s clear about that too

• He doesn’t beat around the bush with ambiguous fluff, making statements that sound as if there’s deep meaning buried in the marrow just waiting to be sucked out by someone who is already on the bus and willing to step up and lift their game (See what I did there?)

• He is respectful in his delivery

• He cares about the development and growth of the person receiving the feedback

• He gives quality corrective feedback as well as feedback on elements that were well executed

Magnifique Chef Guichon! It’s a great recipe. With a bit of practice anyone can do it. Sing out if you’d like a hand with that.

Why can’t we just talk openly?

A new CEO asked this question of his senior staff, one of whom I’m coaching at the moment. His belief is that people should be able to raise issues and talk openly about them with each other. But people don’t. Simply saying that they should, regardless of good intent, won’t change people’s minds.

There’s been a history in the organisation of people raising issues and experiencing significant backlash. There’s been people actively working to boost their reputation while tearing others down. There's been gossip and blame. People are accustomed to bad outcomes when they speak openly about problems. There’s nothing in recent history that suggests doing so would be good or safe.

To change that will take more than words. It will take building trust and psychological safety. That will likely mean starting with relatively small and inconsequential pieces and building up to the bigger stuff. It will take some courage and accountability.

All that can be achieved reasonably quickly, but simply saying it won’t make it so.

“Did you get a free coffee yesterday?”, the owner asked my wife. “No , why?”, she replied. As she brewed a fresh and free coffee, the owner told Donna she had noticed she didn’t drink her breakfast coffee on Sunday. We had left before she could ask why not. She was genuinely curious about why that coffee had been left untouched by one of her regular customers. She listened to Donna’s feedback, asked great questions, and listened some more.

On its own, that’s pretty cool. But it doesn’t make a difference. I’m sure many of us have had experiences of giving feedback, only for nothing to change. At that coffee shop, action is guaranteed - like when the lids on takeaway cups kept coming off and the owner had a new supplier the following day - she makes it safe to speak, she listens and she acts.

Safety in this case is created by 4 things:

1. She has a track record of being open to feedback and genuine enquiry. She always receives feedback without judgement, justification, blame or excuses. She simply listens.

2. The free coffee is a way of saying “I know you were not happy with our product. I know we did something different and less good”. She is creating an invitation to talk about it by acknowledging the problem and making a gesture of good faith.

3. She separates the people from the problem. It’s all about the best possible coffee. It’s not about an argument or lynching baristas.

4. She acts which lets people know the feedback is heard and valued.

By comparison, a coaching client is currently being asked to give feedback about a team member. The process is not transparent. The intent is not transparent. There's a history of issues raised being ignored or not acted on. There’s a history of people being treated differently because they gave feedback. Not surprisingly, she doesn’t feel safe to give feedback.

How do you personally seek and encourage feedback?

How do you make it safe for others to seek it and give it?

What action do you take as a result?

And if you are in Midland, check out New Ritual cafe. The coffee is great.