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.

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.

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.

Sleep Pressure

My stumbling shuffling half run barely kept my feet under me. Leaning forward, arms flailing as sharp spinifex belted my shins sending painful signals to my brain. It was about 2 am on a moonlit night deep in the Pilbara on a survival course and I had fallen asleep and run off the track we were walking along. Yep, I’d gone to sleep not only standing up, but walking on a rough 2 rut track in the middle of nowhere. I found it hard to believe at the time, but I’ve seen it happen a couple of times since to different people.

I’ve recently been reading an excellent book “Why we sleep” by sleep researcher Matthew Walker. Experiences like mine while walking come down to something called sleep pressure. When we are underslept our body makes it harder for us to stay awake. For years I’ve been interested in optimising human ability and longevity. One of the most consistent recommendations I’ve heard from experts over the last decade is that optimising sleep is the most powerful variable. So much so that interventions in diet, exercise, brain training and more can be rendered ineffective if sleep is insufficient. Walker's book explains why. Sleep fundamentally affects every single system in the body and brain.

He gives compelling evidence for our current ‘lack of sleep’ epidemic, and some useful suggestions for remedying it. A significant insight is that we are unable to judge our own impaired state when underslept. And not just after one or two long nights pushing to meet a deadline, or having fun, but chronically if we are getting less than 7 hours and preferably more (That's sleep too, not time in bed). We can convince ourselves we don’t need as much sleep as that, because from the inside, the deprivation is not noticeable until you are nodding off in your equivalent of a dusty Pilbara track.

Well worth a read.

The Dark Side

Psychological Safety (PS) is confidence that you won’t be embarrassed, rejected or punished (by boss or team) for speaking up, sharing ideas, asking questions and providing feedback. 

So far we’ve seen that Musk encourages all of these, especially in the development of the products his companies create. It is far from a perfect picture however. Let's look at Musk’s behaviour which reduces PS. BTW, few (If any) of us  are perfect in this regard. This is intended to provoke reflection.

• “You’re an idiot” - Musk will often use language like this. It damages PS  by  directly attacking a person, rather than an open conversation about the problem. It also doesn't give any suggestion or support for improvement.

• “Your resignation will be accepted” - When people push back on timeframes, safety or variability of an idea/solution, Musk resorts to ordering them to do it while threatening their job. There are examples of this making teams go further/faster than they thought possible, but they don’t feel safe. This kind of behaviour leads to people covering things up, rather than telling the full story. Arguably, it was precisely the same behaviour that caused the Challenger space shuttle explosion.

• Ignoring sound advice - Musk puts arbitrary time frames on delivery that are often completely unobtainable. He has a litany of promised features behind him that have been confidently announced and not achieved. Parts of his team acknowledge that this has pushed them further/faster, however there is also chaos in the wake. I like Gilbert Enoka’s (former All Black’s Mindset coach) approach to this. He says targets need to be out of reach but not out of sight. When we can’t conceive it being achievable, a target can demotivate. If it’s too easy it won’t motivate us either. Musk could maintain the relentless drive for innovation and progress while making it more safe (and fun) by setting better gaps. It would do a lot for the believability of his promises too.

How do you personally create or contribute to the PS of your working environment? Are your behaviours net positive or negative?

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaacson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Musk making it safe

mage of Starship explosions tweeted by Musk"

Elon Musk has an unusually high appetite for risk compared to most entrepreneurs. There have been many times over his many business ventures when he has risked an ‘all-in’ bet on something that was far from certain. On some of those occasions, Musk himself has stated that the most likely outcome will be a company ending failure. He’s also known to be demanding, setting very high expectations and seemingly impossible timeframes. He’s not shy when it comes to firing people. So how does he create psychological safety, which is an important ingredient for success in a high performance environment:

• Clear vision - for all of his companies there is a single line summary of purpose (except Twitter now X perhaps). SpaceX is “Make humanity a multiplanetary species to ensure the survival of consciousness.” While this is lofty, it also drives real world-decisions. Musk moves fast, because the goal is not just a moon shot, or orbit, but a Mars colony. Whatever you think of the vision, there’s no ambiguity in it.

• Delete, Delete, Delete - Musk is on a relentless drive to delete anything unnecessary from his companies and the rules governing them. That would normally lead to people feeling at threat, but Musk’s mantra “if we don’t end up adding back at least 10% of what we deleted, we didn’t go hard enough” sets the stage. There’s an inherent understanding that some of the deletion experiments will fail. That’s both expected and encouraged.

• Accountability - If someone says “It's an engineering requirement”, Musk will ask, “who from engineering said so?”. There’s a name attached to everything. It stops people hiding behind departments or processes, and gets people to own their decisions. It also means things can be discussed. Much harder to have a conversation with ‘engineering’ than with Steve from engineering. That this is framed as an expectation so that deletion conversations can be had faster, rather than as a blame point for failure makes it safer. Steve would still be sweating when the spotlight turns to him, but it’s very different from a blame game or witch hunt. Steve will be prepared to answer challenges on the calls he made.

There’s no doubt Musk drives himself, his people and companies harder than I think is ideal; however these and other clear elements make it very obvious what people are signing up for. As a result he attracts, driven, focussed people who want to change the world we live in. There’s no denying the incredible list of achievements.

Next time we’ll look at some of the ways Musk damages psychological safety and what we can learn from that.

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaccson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Observing Elon

I’ve read a couple of great biographies about Elon Musk recently. He is on the record as disliking Psychological Safety. It’s one of the cultural mismatches of the much reported Twitter purchase. 

I disagree with Musk. 

There’s significant evidence that he values Psychological Safety, and like many leaders, misunderstands what it means. 

Amy Edmondson in her book, “The Fearless Organisation” says Psychological Safety is not being nice, or lowering performance standards. In high performing teams there will be a hard-edged drive to sorting issues and clearing a high bar. It’s likely to be rewarding but not necessarily comfortable. 

Musk actively does many things to make it Psychologically Safe to ask questions, challenge the status quo, and achieve incredible results. Like all leaders, he also, either inadvertently or deliberately does many things that degrade Psychological Safety in his companies and teams.

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaccson. It’s current up to 2023. Over the next few weeks, I'll share some more detailed thoughts on Musk and Psychological Safety.

Well Worn Path

This week I have spoken to 3 leaders who are creating something genuinely new. Innovative ways of addressing some of the deepest challenges of their sectors. It’s exciting work and I love spending time with people who are explorers at heart. They want to venture over the nearest hill, motivated by deep curiosity. The conversations reminded me of a piece I wrote in my first book “Thrive and Adapt” exploring situations when breaking a new trail is the best option.For those of us who like to explore (myself included) it’s helpful to avoid unnecessary expenditure of effort or resources. It maximises our exploratory range. Here’s that piece, lightly edited for context.

A decade ago, I was on a cross-country walking trip in the Pilbara with my Dad who was 76 at the time. There were no paths or markers to follow, no guidebook. We were reading a map of the area and taking the country as we found it. It was a great journey!

In situations like that, I’m always on the lookout for game trails –the paths taken by cattle or wildlife between one water hole and another. They are sometimes counter-intuitive. They don’t always follow the shortest route. Sometimes they head into hilly or rocky territory and seem to wander a little aimlessly. Over the years, experience has always shown that the animals know the easiest and best route between points. Their trails are sometimes ancient – even wearing into solid rock surfaces. From a walking point of view, finding a game trail is gold. The going is easier because the animals have smoothed the way. The large rocks and obstacles have been shifted off the track over the years and, at times, it’s as good as walking on a footpath. The alternatives are never as easy. Often, they involve struggling through dense bush or over rough and broken ground. Without a game trail, forward speed is slower and takes more effort. Despite the extra effort, sometimes I choose to walk off the game trails. The walking is harder but if there is something in the landscape worth exploring, the game trails won’t always get you there.

In business, it’s similar – finding and following a well-worn path frequently results in easier and faster forward-progress than ‘reinventing the wheel’. Business systems, mentors and proven systems are all examples of ‘game trails’ in the business world. It’s smart and sustainable to follow them whenever you can. But there’s also times when you may want to blaze a trail yourself, to define a new path, and be a pioneer. I use four filters to determine if trailblazing is the best approach.

1. No one has done this before – I need something in my business that is not currently available.

2. I can offer something new – there is a need in the marketplace which is currently unmet.

3. I can refine something existing – making it better or more applicable than the original.

4. I’m seeking to learn, understand or explore – sometimes the harder road yields great insights and personal progress.

If none of those conditions exist, go for the pre-existing ‘path’ that gives maximum sustainability and minimum effort for the return.

So Sure

I was leading a group on a cross country walk deep in Pilbara. I was so sure that I had our position accurately pegged on the map. It seemed so obvious…All we had to do was follow a dry riverbed down hill. I never noticed a subtle turn left into a major tributary or even that we were now going uphill, until someone in the group pointed out an undeniable flaw in my reading of the map. It was another example of the socks, a situation where certainty led to blind spots and consequences that took a while to sort out. In both those cases I was absolutely wrong, there have been others where I have been technically right, but doggedly pursuing that ‘rightness’ has hampered progress.

Leadership in part, is a fine art of balancing peoples buy in with the action that is closest to ‘right’. Everyone following blindly down the wrong path, doesn’t make it any more right. Equally, no one following down the optimal path renders it sub optimal. We should never compromise ethics and values, but sometimes we need to ease up on what we think is right.

I’d love to hear your experiences with that.

Hidden Resistance

Over the years of being involved in many organisational change initiatives, there has always been resistance. Some of the reasons for resistance are obvious and easily addressed. Some are more subtle, hidden away in places we don’t often consider. In my experience, locating and addressing hidden resistance has a much greater effect on progressing change, than adding further force.

One hidden source of resistance is that the status quo serves some or all of the people in some way. It doesn't necessarily need to be positive - the old adage about the devil you know exists for a reason! Asking and answering the question “How does the current situation serve me/us/them?” will give some insight. Here are a few examples I have encountered.

• Ian had been one of the major people involved in creating the current system. He was quick to admit that it no longer served the organisation and it was time to move on, but he also had an emotional attachment to it. It was hard to let it go without feeling that his original work was somehow substandard. He also felt that people pushing the change were not listening to his depth of experience. How could you address this with Ian?

• Lorraine knew her team and their circumstances very well. She manually ran an excellent roster of many people and never missed a beat. As the organisation grew, rostering was being brought into a central function, which gave capacity to better manage overtime hours, use people’s skills and availability across a larger spread of the organisation's work and allow staff to easily see their rosters and request changes. Lorraine was concerned about losing control of the excellent relationships she had with her staff and clients. She was also concerned about learning a computer based system, and was resolutely sticking to her paper based one, slowing the whole project down. How could you assist Lorainne with that situation?

• The whole of A Shift had a reputation for quickly solving the problems that the current system caused (usually many a day). They relished their reputation and the edgy excitement of solving problems ‘on the fly’. An A Shift supervisor said, "the new system will mean less problems, and our work immediately becomes more mundane and boring.” A Shift was significantly blocking progress on the new system and as a result getting even more problems to solve. How would you work with A Shift?

In each of these situations, once the reasons for resistance were heard, understood and addressed, the people involved became avid supporters of the changes being made. Trying to force them toward the new systems would have resulted in them being casualties of change, or the resistance being driven more underground.

We need influencers!

With no staff and no budget, I was tasked with some complex and often contentious change initiatives. The only significant tool I had at my disposal was influence. My manager and I used to debate the difference between influence and manipulation. Her view was that influencing people was inherently manipulative. Despite her being a significant and successful influencer of people via her steadying hand, compelling vision, deep care for staff and customers, values based approach and cheerful disposition, she felt that influence had an undertone of deception and force.

My perspective is that influence is essential to all successful groups of humans. And regardless of our role in family, community or work, our influence makes a difference. I reckon the concept of influence gets muddied by slick sales tactics, deceptive actions designed to force people to a conclusion and more recently by the superficiality of some social media influencers.

I was delighted to see my good friend and colleague Suzanne Waldron step into this discussion exploring the nuances of influence, and an assurance that influence and manipulation are not the same thing. It reminded me instantly of those deep conversations with my old boss where we both respectfully influenced each other's perspective. I am looking forward to joining Suzanne as she unfolds her deep and rich experience in this space. I reckon the conversation will make me a better person and leader.

Worth being part of I reckon. What do you think?

#influence #leadership #makingadifference

Two simple ingredients to build trust

As soon as someone says “You just need to trust me” the spidey sense starts tingling! It feels like the wool is being pulled and instantly arouses suspicion - even when the intent is genuine.

Several of the leaders I spoke to this week lamented how long trust takes to build. In reality it can be built quickly with 2 simple ingredients.

1. Do what you say you will do, when you say you will do it. If there’s a valid reason that won’t happen, renegotiate the timeframe and details. Follow through builds trust quickly. It shows commitment, care and competence. People notice that. The absence of follow through erodes trust quickly too. One of the easiest ways to do this is to always make sure you keep people informed. Follow through if no one knows is the same as no follow through.

2. Be consistent in how you show up. If people are second guessing what mood you’ll be in all the time, it creates massive uncertainty and damages trust. We all have variation in mood, and I’m not suggesting you act inauthentically. As James Clear says in Atomic Habits, “It’s like an election, you just need a strong majority”.

Trust builds fast when individuals and teams hold a high standard in these ingredients.

Look Again

Photo by Kaori Yokochi, Roberta Bencini, CC BY 4.0 eativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

“Possums are rare on hilltops and in open forest. They are mostly found in the creeklines.” This was an ‘obvious’ conclusion from a scientifically conducted survey of a vast area of forest to determine possum behaviour and ideal habitat. The multi-year surveys large areas with cameras, on foot and non lethal trapping programs.

For several years, possums were rarely seen outside the creek lines. Then one year, none were seen in the creeks. Researchers wondered if the possum population had been decimated. But then, there they were, on the hill tops. That year, possums were rarely found in creek lines.

One of the researchers described the challenges of ensuring conclusions drawn from evidence are valid. “Correlation is not Causation” is one of the mantras to avoid jumping to conclusions. Almost everything we investigate has some bias built in. How we ask, what we ask, and what we think the answers mean can all add up to assumptions that may not be valid.

Take the research about goal setting. There’s heaps of it, and generally it concludes goal setting (done well) equates to greater success. I often wonder how many people or companies have epically failed despite having well thought through goals. The ‘proof’ given are all highly successful people or businesses and the ‘obvious’ conclusion is goals equate to success.

Here are some of the researched down sides of goals:

• At all costs - the goal is focussed on to the exclusion of all else resulting in missed opportunities, rushed or fudged work, exhaustion.

• Inability to adapt - The goal adds to perceived difficulty of changing direction when circumstances dictate.

• Assumed Control - The goal assumes a far greater level of control over variables than is reality.

• Wrong Target - The wrong things are measured resulting in a different outcome than what was really being aimed for.

• Unmeasurable - some things don’t readily yield to a defined target. E.g. What goal can be set for improving a close relationship? When is it done?

• Uncertain Environments - When variables are unknown/unknowable, setting goals based on them is a folly. For example a farmer may set a goal for a particular crop yield, only to be faced with a drought. Her skill may improve the yield, but a lower yield than the goal does not make her a ‘failure’.

As we enter December and January, a period when we often review and reset goals, consider if they are the most effective methodology for what you are trying to achieve. If you’d like to explore some alternatives, let me know.

Into the unknown…

Image by Tracy Peltier from Pixabay

“So much depends on the outcome of … [insert your process, enquiry, application, etc here]”

I met with three CEO’s last week who echoed a theme. Much of the short to mid term future in their organisations depends on the outcome of things outside of their control. In each case, the outcome/s will require their organisation to change. The outcome/s will also dictate how palatable those changes will be. Whatever happens, there will be change and it will be reactive in nature.

“People are uncertain,” they told me.

Uncertain environments make detail difficult to map. Forecasting various probable outcomes is important work, but can add even more uncertainty.

Maybe you can relate. I know I can.

It's worth remembering that humans have always faced uncertainty. It is uncomfortable and we are pretty good at it. Like those 3 CEO’s you’ve got this.

Here are few things we can do in uncertain times to inject certainty for ourselves and those around us:

• Big picture - Where detail is lacking focus on the big picture. What direction are we heading in? What’s our Why? Is our purpose clear? Are there non-negotiables and principles to bring into focus? When detail is lacking, big picture guidance adds certainty. It gives clarity about what will guide future decisions. Focus on elements that fundamentally won’t change regardless of outcomes and future changes.

• Best Behaviour - Double down on how you treat each other. Focus on and reinforce the best of how people interact with each other in your organisation. When the going gets murky at our house, my partner and I call each other to kindness and integrity. Regardless of what happens, we at least have some certainty about how we will ‘be’ with each other.

• You know how to weave! One CEO, calling on her Maori heritage, likened the situation to being in a place where you don’t know what plants to gather to find the fibres to weave the mat. I reminded her that even if she didn’t know the plant, she could recognise a weavable fibre, and still knows how to weave. Whatever happens next, you know more than you think you do. Bring your deep knowledge and experience with you. The details of execution may be up for change, but you still know how to weave.

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?

Work Both Ways

I worked with a team with some of the best scores I have ever seen for psychological safety. It wasn't surprising. The team focusses on it in everything they do. Despite the scores, their biggest opportunity for improvement was feedback. They give and receive plenty. They value it. They care about each other as well as the result. These are all ingredients for a great feedback culture. Almost all of them said the quality of feedback was the challenge.

To give quality feedback work in 2 directions at once. Down into detail and up into context. Specific, actionable detail is feedback gold. If it's not specific enough it's difficult to act on. The master stroke is to link to a bigger contextual frame. Context makes feedback useful across everything you do, rather than just the immediate situation.

I love working with teams to develop great feedback skills. Done well feedback is a superpower for teams. Done poorly it can tear them apart.

How does your team score on feedback?