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?”

Lead like the Pool Guy

Andy the pool guy delivered a spa to our place this week. It took 2 of us to assist him with unloading and moving into its new home. Andy was a great example of effective leadership. The spa was heavy, and mishandling could easily have broken it, or hurt one of us. Every time we were about to change position, Andy gave us a ‘just in time’ brief about what was about to happen. It was smooth and low stress. He would say things like, “the trolley is about to kick away from us, but it wont go any further”, and “put one hand here like this, and the other one under here”. He was using his experience and knowledge to guide the process. He took responsibility for both the results and the people involved, he isolated the potential problem areas and made sure it was in hand before we moved, he consistently added calm clarity.

Great work Andy! How can you lead more like Andy in some of your work?

Problem Solving

I’ve been thinking a lot about problem solving. A useful starting point is to know the nature of the problem you are trying to resolve. Is it simple, complicated, or complex?

I recently started bringing a 1992 Honda Goldwing back to life. There’s been lots of problem solving. I had to chase down why the headlights weren’t working. This is an example of a simple problem… It’s a closed system, and while there are a number of potential failure points, they are predictable and simple to rectify (that doesn’t necessarily equate to easy).

Photo by Knak

For a simple problem the best approach is a logical sequence to find which part of the system is failing, then find the exact location, and then fix that. In the case of the headlights there were 3 breakdown points. It took a while to find and rectify them all. The problem was compounded because the relatively simple headlight circuit ‘lives’ in a complicated motorcycle system, so the first job was to discover if it was a complicated problem (involving multiple failures across multiple interconnected systems). In that case, it would still be a matter of systematically testing and unravelling until the base issue was discovered.

In a number of coaching sessions recently we’ve been looking at complex problems. Complexity is when there are many factors involved, some may be causal (or maybe not). Often there are multiple overlapping causes and no easy solution. An example was conflict between 2 highly experienced leaders. Both their jobs and teams are “mission critical” for their organisation. Both teams are also critical to each other’s success. BUT the actual outcomes each team is tasked to achieve are somewhat contradictory.

The ideal progression for one team causes real world problems for the other and vice versa. There is no simple answer for these leaders. For both, a key piece in improving their working relationship was acknowledging that none of it was personal. If they saw each other's actions as intentionally hostile, it was no good.

They are working on a better understanding of what the genuinely non-negotiable parts of their roles are and being unambiguous with each other. The problems they face are complex. Their current understanding of each other’s roles helps them navigate the complexity more effectively and position both teams for the greatest success.

What are some of the problems you are currently facing? What category do they fit in?

A Standing Ovation

I saw a great post this week of a leader receiving a standing ovation and as he walked down between 2 rows of his team heading for the exit on his last day. The celebration was warm, genuine and emotional. People were cheering, slapping him on the back, hugging him and crying as he walked the guard of honour. I know nothing of the man or his work, but he had clearly made a massive impression and impact on his colleagues and team. I suspect he was a master at some of the core ingredients of building trust and psychological safety in a high performing team.

• Competence - in a professional environment, connection is important, but you also need to be able to get the job done.

• Warmth - we judge people in a heartbeat, way faster than they can demonstrate their competence. Warmth means you care and genuinely connect with people as people, not assets or resources. The easiest and quickest way to do this is make eye contact and smile.

• Integrity - do what you say you will do, when you say you will do it. Competence and warmth won’t be enough to continue building trust and psychological safety if you don’t follow through. (PS, this also means being good at saying “No” - more on that later)

• Connection - beyond your warm smile, is connection. Getting to know team members, what they care about, what they aspire to, what their challenges are, where they shine and where they need support not only show you care, but also help in building high performance.

• Clarity - Great leaders add clarity to everything- roles, boundaries, timeframes, measures of success, standards and more.

I reckon that standing ovation was built on these ingredients. And the beauty is they are all skills which means they can be learnt and improved by anyone. Which of them could use some attention in your world?

Expedient?

How much pressure are you under to get things done?

Many leaders are experiencing increasing transactional cadence. The rate that things pop into the “to-do’ list is intense. It has us asking ourselves what the most expedient way to deal with each item is. I reckon it’s the wrong question. The quickest way to a result sometimes creates second or third order consequences that consume more time, energy and resources than a little more initial effort might have.

In my front yard right now there’s a large messy hole. The team that installed soak wells and paving did a great job. It looked awesome. But through winter there’s been issues with drainage. Today they dug part of it up to find the problem. A quick compaction job to finish the original job, rather than return another day, left a hollow air space under a pipe. The pipe slumped into the hole and no longer ran freely. It will be a full day to fix, and a fair bit of mess to clean up afterwards.

Some of the leaders I work with are either doing similar, or people in their teams are.

Sending a text rather than meeting about a critical tweak got things moving immediately, but the team is now redoing a heap of work because it was misunderstood.

Assuming someone had been included in a major project briefing, rather than directly checking now has a team buried in contentious stakeholder management, because residents were not informed of a major project nearby.

A customer issue has escalated to a major complaint and standoff after a rushed approach to finding out what the real issue was.

A colleague's motivation has dropped because she wasn’t included in the celebration of a piece of work she majorly contributed too.

These are all examples of time, energy and resource waste because something was done in what appeared to be the expedient way, only to cause more consequences. Most of them could have been avoided with a bit more though before rushing to the desired end point.

Sometimes we have to slow down to go faster. It’s a lesson I find myself learning more often than I’d like. How about you? Where could you slow down to go faster?

The Missing Link

One of the teams I’ve been working with has a great feedback culture. They ask for it and give it. They clearly valued feedback and made it part of how they work together. They also give lots of positive feedback, and often pause to self-reflect - sometimes giving themselves feedback about something they could improve.

And yet all of them said the same thing. The feedback they received was hard to use.

Actionable detail is the missing link. Feedback is more valuable if it is actionable. The more specific the better.

“You did a great job today” is feedback, but not useful. “You did a great job today. The specialist information you brought to the meeting, and the way you broke it down for non specialists really helped our colleagues understand what was needed. You left them with a clear path for action too. Thank you and keep it up.” is much more useful.

“I need you to step up” is feedback that’s not useful. “When we met on site today, you hung in the background and didn’t raise any of the issues you have previously highlighted. Could you take a more active role in leading the project. Next time could you bring the issues up for discussion and guide the resolution. I can offer support if you need a hand to prep.”

If you’d like a tool for giving more useful feedback, let me know and I’ll send it through.

5.6:1

Years ago I saw this research by Losada and friends which says the highest performing teams give almost 6 times more positive than negative feedback. How these numbers were derived has copped lots of scrutiny and criticism, but I reckon that completely misses the point.

The ‘work’ of making a team excel, is in alignment. The clearer our shared expectations of things like behaviour, standards, targets, the more likely we can achieve them. Lack of clarity burns time, energy and resources. Knowing what a great job looks like and why is way more important than what substandard looks like.

Positive feedback clearly sends a message that we care about each other and value the good stuff. We’ve all experienced places where people only seem to speak up if there is a problem or a criticism - and never seem to notice people’s good work.

I reckon most of us have room to improve when it comes to this ratio. I know I do. And rather than focus on the number - focus on clarity. “Is what we tell each other about performance clear enough that we can take action on it? Do we emphasise good work more than things we need to improve?” Those are effective questions. P.S the same ideas work well in our personal relationships too.

Next week we’ll talk more about the clarity and quality of feedback.

Feedback

How’s feedback working in your team?

When I ask teams about improving how well they work together, feedback almost always shows up in the conversation. Most teams tell me there is not enough feedback, or that it’s low quality. Ideally feedback is clear and specific enough that you can do something useful with it. In effective teams (ones where there are competent people and not much in the way of toxic behaviour), getting better at feedback is a great way to level up. But while a lot of us would like more (or better) feedback, hardly anyone gets excited about giving it. We shy away from it, concerned about negative reactions or hurting people’s feelings.

One of the best ways I know to change that dynamic is to start giving people clear and useful feedback about the great work they are doing as well as the stuff that needs improving. You’ll build a culture where feedback feels safe, and people feel valued whatever the nature of feedback you are giving.

Teams that nail this have a ratio of about 5X more positive feedback than corrective feedback.

What do you reckon the ratio is in your team?

Know Your Place

One of our Perth footy teams has been copping a heap of flack lately. They have had a woeful season, plagued with injury and losses. As always, there’s a bunch of armchair coaches with plenty of views about what could or should be done to fix it.

One player has been copping more criticism than usual. It’s been based on how much contact he has with the ball (Nowhere near enough apparently). In a radio interview another player was discussing the issue. His view is the player is doing exactly what his job is on the team, and doing it well. Apparently the position has wildly variable ball stats because it’s oriented slightly behind the play to create opportunities and turnovers. Depending how the game unfolds this means either lots of contact, or none. He could easily rush into the play and increase his stats, but hanging back is precisely what he’s meant to do.

There are several lessons from this interview that relate to Psychological Safety and high performance in any team:

• Clarity and willingness . The roles are clearly articulated and understood. People are willing to play their role for the team, even when there’s external pressure to do something different.

• Support roles are crucial. There are roles that are specifically about support. The people in these roles are unlikely to be the central figure or superstar (many times they don’t want to be either). Their support is part of the recipe for success. The highly visible roles in any team are surrounded by people who make it possible for them to do their best work.

• Support for support roles is crucial too. In a high performing team their essential contribution is recognised and celebrated in ways that make sense to the people in support, and the culture of the team. If those in support roles are not properly recognised, they either rush into action to improve their ‘stats’ or they become increasingly disengaged as their hard work goes unnoticed (or worse, others claim credit for it).

Without role clarity, none of this will happen well. What can you do today to increase clarity for the people in your team dedicated to support? How does recognition happen for them? Could that be improved?

If you’d like some tips and strategies for improving Psychological Safety in your team, feel free to be in touch.

Disclaimer - My knowledge of AFL is possibly the lowest of any human in Australia (at some point I’ll tell you about my own woful start and very short footy career). While my interpretation of the nuances of the game is way below the average armchair coach, the observations derived still stand.

The View from Here

How clear is the strategic view in your organisation? Most of the leaders I am working with are experiencing 3 factors clouding the view:

• Staff shortages - For many this means time off strategy and on tools to keep up. It means employing people you might not employ in different times. It means pressure on induction and training processes as people try to get staff up and running in the shortest possible time. It often means frustration as the combination also makes for low engagement and lack of clarity = do overs, or new people leaving before they are even up to speed.

• Fatigue - the cadence has been high for ages. To-do lists grow so fast you know some items will die there, never seeing the light of day. People are worn down.

• Short horizons - some have got into a habit of reacting to whatever comes up. It started with COVID when Friday’s plan was torn up on Monday because the rules had changed - reactivity was the only choice then. Combined with staff shortages and fatigue it’s leaving many feeling as if they are perpetually chasing their tail.

It all obscures the view. How do you know that your business is delivering on what it promises? Are you experiencing a greater than usual gap between front line efforts and high level strategy and planning?

If you answered yes to either of the above, sing out. I have some solutions that are working well across a number of sectors.

The Edges of Clarity

“We meet and agree on the direction of the project. But then I find work is being done that is counter to the strategic direction we have agreed.” (A CEO)

“One of the decision makers is unavailable to meet for extended periods. Meanwhile we have to decide and take action. Then he shows up, doesn’t like the decisions and ‘throws grenades’.” (Company Director)

“My manager meets with me weekly and keeps getting involved in the nitty gritty of my projects. I’m a senior practitioner with years of experience managing projects like this. When she gets involved in this way, I feel like my skills aren’t valued and it slows everything down.” (Senior Technical Project Manager)

“Mate, we just sit on the sidelines until ‘Bullshit Castle’ tells us what to do. If we start anything, they always come and change it anyway, so what's the point? Might as well chill til they make up their mind.” (Frontline Supervisor)

Have you ever heard or said things like these? They are all real examples from coaching sessions over the years. All stem from a lack of clarity. Lack of clarity burns time, energy and resources. Do-overs, stress, frustration, lack of momentum, fatigue, cynicism are byproducts.

The challenge for clarity is that your expectations and assumptions are probably different to mine. Unless we spend some time understanding the gaps and creating alignment, we are destined to carry unnecessary load. It’s no wonder that “Lack of Clarity” is listed as a psychosocial hazard in the updated Work Health and Safety Legislation in Australia.

Time spent increasing clarity is never wasted time. It’s a case of slowing down to speed up. Where could you add clarity today?

Mark the Boundaries

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

One of the reasons sporting games work so well is the crystal clear boundaries. Everyone knows what defines the field of play. What’s in and what’s out. How to score. Even when there is technical complexity, the rules are clear, and create the conditions for clear decision making (notwithstanding the perpetual armchair critic who can always clearly see how the ref got it wrong!). These clear constraints are what make games work. 

Lack of clarity creates ambiguity and often the result is uncertainty and/or stress. As a leader, we can contribute to clarity via regular discussion about the boundaries. Unlike a ‘field of play’ where the boundaries are clearly marked, work often has boundaries marked only in our collective understanding. If the collective understanding is fuzzy, so are the boundaries.

A simple framework for the discussion is:

• IN - what’s clearly ‘in’? Why? What purpose does it serve? How does it help us deliver? When is it important?

• OUT - What’s clearly ‘out’? Why? How does it detract or distract us from our important work? What are the consequences if we are ‘out of bounds’? How can we stop or reset ‘play’ when we are ‘out’?

• DISCUSS - Some areas of our work are open to discussion or judgement and creativity. What constitutes ‘good enough’? What’s our appetite for risk? How do we decide when we disagree, and there are sound reasons for each position? How will we innovate if it hasn’t been done before? What do we do when we are caught by surprise or disrupted? How should we use our judgement? Discussion in the fuzzy territory between clearly in or out results in greater clarity of the boundaries.

This approach can be applied to specific roles, delegation, projects, decision making process, team norms/expectations, delivery against metrics and more.

Where could you clarify boundaries today?

The Busy Dillema

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

I was working with a leader (let’s call her Beth) last week who echoed a familiar theme. Busy! Not just with ‘busy work’. Beth faces a continual assault of important things joining her action list. Much of it is ‘Mission Critical’ - left for too long it becomes both important and urgent. Like many, she feels the timeframe for action is getting compressed. The result? Close range focus and compelling reactivity. Both feed the sense of urgent transactional pressure. So how the hell do you add clarity in the midst of that!

One of the simplest levers is to look for recurring patterns and see if you can inject clarity early. Beth works in human services and has an important customer whose service sometimes reaches a crisis point where their family gets involved. At a minimum, this requires some careful communication. At worst it results in a formal complaint and mandated response/action. The urgent (and important) requirement to respond adds pressure to Beth, her team and the person receiving the service.

When we unpacked it in detail, most of the issues arise because the family doesn't have enough information about what is happening. The family, Beth and her team spend hours (sometimes days) resolving the situation. When Beth contacts the family regularly to update them on the service, the larger concerns are dealt with while they are still manageable. It adds clarity for everyone. Adding a regular call or visit to update the family saves time and adds value for everyone involved.

The challenge for Beth is she is genuinely busy. The service is mostly going well. Making those regular calls will be in competition with many other urgent tasks. AND proactive action like this always creates clarity, capacity and alleviates pressure.

What are the recurring pressure points for you? What action could you take to add clarity and reduce the pressure?

Clear as Mud

Image by Hans from Pixabay

One of the greatest barriers to effective work is getting clear about what we want, need or expect for a job well done. Here are some examples of lack of clarity getting in the way of good work. They are all live examples from my own interactions with staff, or from leaders I coach.

• A designer sends me some sample ideas based on an initial brief. It’s not even close to what I was expecting. I’m baffled, because I’m sure I have been really clear about what I consider some of the fundamental ‘must haves’ in the design. When I go back to my brief I find several areas that I thought were crystal clear, but on reflection are very ambiguous. I have not set the designer up for success. I could have done a much clearer job of the brief. The designer could have asked for more clarification.

• A manager gets very frustrated when a high priority piece of work has received no attention for several weeks. They had given an urgent task to the person responsible. The urgent task was interpreted as a ‘drop everything else’ priority. He had shifted all his effort and attention to the new task. It left the manager questioning his capability and him feeling ambushed and unsupported.

• A team gets delegated work from their team leader. They take no action. Why? Because the team leader has a pattern of taking over part way through a delegated task and ‘re-doing’ it because it’s not ‘up to standard’. Neither the leader or the team can articulate what the ‘standard’ is. The team has decided to wait until the team leader initiates the direction, because it feels like a waste of time to do otherwise.

• A director gives a senior leader responsibility for coordinating the scheduling of staff for significant remote area projects that the team is delivering. The leader starts organising a detailed roster to ensure expertise, breaks, and logistics are all taken into account for each trip. She’s told she’s overstepping the mark. The directors wanted to be able to assemble their own project teams. The senior leader was completely confused about what was expected. Turns out they wanted someone tracking workloads and scheduling issues, to advise on team makeup, rather than someone to actually assemble the team. Both had a really different picture of what ‘coordination’ meant.

All these examples burnt time, energy and resources. They created frustration and more work to arrive at good outcomes. All of them involved capable, competent and enthusiastic people. Lack of clarity was a significant factor in all of them.

Do you have similar experiences where you work? What’s the impact?

Lack of role clarity is listed as a potential psychosocial hazard. Lack of clarity adds to workload and can certainly contribute to stress. Clarity also contributes to a sense of certainty and acts as a launch pad for high performance. Next time we’ll talk about what we can do to add clarity.

Goals?

“The biggest casualty of COVID will be goals and plans”. So said Jason Clarke, Mindworker when I interviewed him right back at the beginning of the pandemic.

I reckon he hit the nail on the head. Many of my goals and plans got sidelined, and no doubt yours did too. During that period we all experienced this together, but that kind of disruption happens all the time on a smaller scale.

Factors outside our control make a mockery of our plans. Consider some of these scenarios, any of which could leave your plans in a smoking pile. Some of them might be familiar:

• War breaks out in your region

• Interest rates climb, changing your financial reality

• New technology threatens or removes your job

• You or someone close to you becomes seriously injured or ill

• A competitor out-paces you

• Your entire worldly goods are lost in a natural disaster such as a fire or flood

• A funding program changes its costing model destroying the margins for your not for profit

• Your business is unable to source mission critical supplies

• You cannot find enough staff to run your business

I’m sure you know people who have been impacted by such realities. Maybe you are currently directly experiencing them yourself.

In the face of these kinds of disruption a typically constructed SMART goal may not stand up.

On survival courses we taught 5 priorities for survival. The priorities give clear focus to make a flexible plan that you can adapt to the reality you face.

Some of the sectors I work with find “Areas of Focus” a great way to handle uncertainty.

Regardless of how much duress you are currently under, being clear about your top priorities and key areas of focus is part of creating a psychologically safe environment that withstands disruption.

What are you focussing on in 2023?

If you’d like a conversation about planning for/in uncertainty, I’d love to hear from you.

Bulls and Boardrooms

I stood on the sideline of the auction yards, hoping to buy a bull that (in my opinion) was the finest animal on the lot. It would be a great addition to the farm breeding stock. Two bids later, I stepped back and watched the price climb. Maybe I was right about it being the best bull. It sold for the top price. I eventually secured a lesser bull. I made the decision without supervision and using someone else's money. The farmer I worked for was a master of delegation. He had given me a signed blank cheque and sent me to the annual sale alone. His instructions were simple. “Buy the best bull you can. Don’t spend more than $1500.” When I got back I told him about the best bull, and together we admired the one I had purchased.

I’ve often thought of him when I lead others and work with leaders. One of the most significant roles of a leader, all the way to the boardroom, is delegation. Despite delegating all the time, there’s often unnecessary friction because we don’t always do it well.

What that farmer did very well was define the task or territory - Best bull possible at or below $1500. My task was epic for my age and experience, but the parameters were crystal clear. I knew precisely what was in and out of my authority that day. He also backed the decision I had made.

When we are delegating, we can reduce friction significantly by clearly discussing what is in and out of the territory. Sometimes there will be grey areas, in which case discuss the triggers to refer back for more information or support.

And get really good at accepting the outcomes of delegated territory. Questioning or criticising decisions and actions makes it much less likely that people will want to act for you next time round.

How and where could you improve your capacity for delegation?

Like a Lighthouse

My mate Jeremy Watkins reckons we have the wrong idea of clarity in leadership. People commonly think of clear glass or water when picturing clarity. Jeremy says a lighthouse in heavy fog is a more useful concept. The lighthouse can't help you see in the fog, but it can show the way and mark the rocks. Good leaders do that by distilling purpose and challenges down to a few clear pieces that their teams can action.

In a recent workshop with senior leaders I saw this in action. We generated a large page of current challenges. Some impact their whole sector, some unique to their organisation. It was a lot. The page was overwhelming. But they can't afford to ignore any of it. Every item is mission critical in some way. Ignorance, far from being bliss, could spell ruin.

One leader had a lighthouse moment. “This all boils down to 4 themes”, she said. She nailed it! The page didn't change but there was a palpable sense of relief and clarity about what they needed to do about it. That clarity will flow on to the whole organisation. It's much easier to make and communicate a clear plan for 4 themes than it is for the 100 plus items on the original page.

Could your organisation benefit from clarity like that? In what areas? What would the impact be of achieving it? How will you create the time and space to reach it? It’s unlikely to emerge from the fog on its own. Be the lighthouse.

This is a set up? - 3 keys to feeling safe.

I put the document in my desk drawer and locked it, taking care to remove the key. The document wasn’t particularly sensitive or contentious, but in the current environment it could be used against me. Trust was at an all time low. One of our leaders was setting factions against each other. Information was being stolen and manipulated to favour some and disadvantage others. People had lost their jobs as a result of blatantly manipulated information. 

There was no such thing as open conversation, sharing of ideas, or collective problem solving. Dog eat dog. It’s the most extreme environment I have ever worked in. 

I reckon leaders mostly operate with good intent, rather than being actively malicious. Sometimes though, our actions can create unintended impacts on Psychological Safety.

Here are three ways you can rapidly influence it.

1. Clarity - What's the overall purpose and direction? What is each person's role, responsibility and scope of authority? What are our priorities tactically and strategically? What does success look like? If any of this is unclear, it can easily feel as if the goal posts are shifting. It adds uncertainty.

2. Respect Hierarchy - When leaders bypass direct reports to task people further down the hierarchy, the people in the middle feel like they aren’t trusted. Same happens when leaders routinely step in to deal with problems or complaints from further down the hierarchy. Clarity makes this significantly easier.

3. Responsibility - When teams look for scapegoats anytime problems arise or mistakes are made, the result is mediocrity. People tend to operate in a way that doesn’t attract attention. Finger pointing hardens the boundaries between silos and reduces willingness for collaborative work. Great questions to ask (and encourage others to ask) are ‘How have I (or my team) contributed to the issue?’ ‘How can I/we contribute to a solution?’ What is the best outcome in relation to our clear direction and priorities?’ 

When these 3 are missing, people often feel as if there is deliberate action against them, even if there is no direct malicious intent.