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?

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.

Is it contradictory?

Psychological Safety is a slightly misleading term. Many people think it's about being nice for the sake of avoiding conflict - that to be psychologically safe, we should avoid holding ourselves and others to a higher standard of performance. We’ll also avoid difficult conversations and feedback, so people feel safe. A psychologically safe environment is often uncomfortable, precisely because it is safe to do all these things. As a result individuals and teams will push into greater performance.

High psychological safety without a correspondingly high performance standard creates a comfort zone. Comfortable, but highly unlikely to yield high performance, learning or innovation. Over time, those comfort zones crumble into complacency and eventually apathy.

So what can our business owner of last week do to raise both psychological safety and performance:

• Aim for 5x as much affirming feedback as corrective. Tell people when they are doing a great job and why. This is significantly more effective in setting a high performance standard than critical or corrective feedback. And corrective feedback will be more willingly accepted when it is needed. People will want to know how to improve.

• Ask for feedback yourself. Listen and act on it. By doing so you set the standard that feedback is part of how we work.

• Give yourself feedback by reflecting on your work, what went well and what could be improved. Show the way on this and set up opportunities for others to do the same regularly. Many micro versions trump occasional large ones like performance reviews once a year.

• Be specific and clear when giving feedback. Many of us shy away from this in an attempt to be ‘nice’. It misses the mark.

• Get to know your team and what motivates them. When people feel you care about them as people, as well as the results, the results will benefit.

PS if you’d like some great questions to ask for reflection and feedback, send me a message and we’ll send them 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?