Effective Leadership: Elevating The Coaching Discussion

Obviously, a big part of our job as leaders within an organization is to manage performance. But limiting our one-on-one discussions to just metrics is a big mistake. We should seek to have "bigger" discussions with our employees - not just interrogate them about their numbers for the week.

Here's a simple tip: Begin to ask your employees more reflective questions. "What's your five-year plan?" or "What do your really enjoy doing?" or "What would your dream job be?". The question is not so important, but the practice is. Drawing you employees out will help you as a leader to know them better and to target areas of development that will address not only those skills needed for their immediate job performance but for their long-term career development as well. And think about this: if I'm an employee with a boss who is genuinely concerned about my long-term development - not just about my current "numbers" - I am much more likely to be loyal to him/her and the company.

Effective Leadership: Are you a "Steve Jobs" or "Bobby Knight" Leader?

David Aaker at the Harvard Business Review has an excellent post, "Steve Jobs and the Bobby Knight School of Leadership". It raises a few interesting questions? Would their management styles be tolerated if they weren't so successful? Would their management styles be effective with Gen Y'ers and Millenials? Could they have been even more successful if they had learned to scale back their negative behaviors?

Corporate Culture: 10 Warning Signs of a Toxic Boss at the Interview

Here's some information on how to determine a bad potential boss:

10 Warning Signs of a Toxic Boss at the Interview

Effective Leadership: Maximize Employee Performance by Leveraging Discretionary Effort

Here's a few thoughts on discretionary effort:
Maximize Employee Performance by Leveraging Discretionary Effort

Effective Leadership: Coach to behaviors not metrics

The call center business is very metrics driven. We operate in an environment where everything is measured - hold time, handle time, conversion rates, dropped calls - you name it, we measure it. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's even an Avaya report that will show you the number of times the toilets flush in the employee restrooms. Well maybe I'm exaggerating just a bit but it's not hard to understand how we can sometimes fall in to the trap of managing to metrics instead managing to behaviors.

It is not uncommon at all to walk past a coaching discussion and hear something like this: " Well, your AHT (average handle time) is 540 seconds. Get that down to 480 by next week." Unfortunately, this supervisor thinks he's "helping" his agent be saying this. The reality is this is not helpful at all. If the agent knew how to reduce their AHT to 480 seconds don't you think they'd already be doing that?

A much better approach is to arm the agent with the specific BEHAVIORS that will help them accomplish the goal. Instead of saying "get your handle time down", the effective coach would give the agent specific action items that will result in a lower handle time, for example: follow the required call flow or ask this specific question at a specific time, etc. And this doesn't apply to only AHT discussions. This applies to any aspect of managing performance.

I am not saying that metrics or numbers are not important. On the contrary, in the call center industry, particularly in the call center outsourcing industry, meeting metrics is how we make our money. But their is a huge danger in holding agents accountable to metrics instead of behaviors and here's why: Agents do not control metrics. BUT agents do have complete control over their behaviors. If the right behaviors are happening the metrics will take care of themselves.

An agent feels empowered when he or she leaves the coaching discussion with specific, observable and measurable behaviors to put in to practice vs. feeling demoralized after getting beat up over their "numbers". And here's something to keep in mind: If agents are doing all the "right things" and still not hitting the metrics than we have probably showed them the wrong "right things". Make sure you focus on the "critical few" behaviors that will have the biggest impact on performance.

Remember, managing performance is about changing behavior. It's as simple as that. And you will never change behavior by focusing on a number. You have to focus on the right behaviors and hold your team members accountable to those behaviors.

Effective Leadership: Get Your Kicks on Route 66

My family just completed our annual vacation. This year we took an RV to Oklahoma to visit Laura's parents and then swung over to see the Grand Canyon on our way home. It was a great visit. I wanted to share at least one thought I had while driving home - and trust me, we did alot of driving!

If you've ever driven on I-40, which runs across the southwest US, you'll notice that much of its path parallels Route 66. In fact, every few miles you can exit I-40 and actually drive on "Historic Route 66". Perhaps it's because Route 66 has such an iconic presence in our culture or perhaps I was just spending too much time watching mile markers and cacti roll by, but I kept thinking about this old stretch of pavement. I thought about how times have changed since it was originally built. I thought about how the construction of I-40 forever changed Route 66 and the little towns that had sprung up beside it - many of those towns are now ghost towns. I thought about the men (there were probably a few women too) who built the old highway. In all of these instances I was really thinking about a legacy - I was thinking about what was left behind.

The hundreds or thousands of people that built Route 66 are, for the most part, dead and gone now. Yet there is something left behind - some of it good, some of it bad. There's the romantic aspect of Route 66 that recalls a different, maybe cooler and more care free time, that makes us sing songs and think of old TV shows or grainy home movies from the 50's and 60's. But there is also a legacy of lonely stretches of crumbling asphalt running past abandoned gas stations, hotels and restaurants - a street of broken dreams. I guess the true legacy of Route 66 is in the eye of the beholder.

As leaders, what will our legacy be? Will our life's work be left to crumble and decay after it's replaced by "Interstate 40". Or will we leave something behind that will be of true value for all that follow in our footsteps - something that won't be discarded when the next new thing comes along. Again, as so often is the case with leadership, it comes back to that stewardship question: did I leave people better than I found them?

Corporate Culture: The Victory Garden

I've started writing a blurb in Center Partners' monthly newsletter, "Off the Hook". Here's this month's column:

Have you ever planted a garden? Just a generation ago everybody had a garden but, unfortunately, it is becoming a lost art. Gardens are a lot of work! It’s not as simple as throwing some seeds in the dirt and hoping they’ll grow. To have a good, healthy garden you’ve got to have the right kind of soil. You’ve got to till the ground. You’ve got to clear rocks, sticks and other debris from your garden plot. You have to fertilize. You have to rake. You have to sow your seeds. You have to weed. You have to water. You have to keep critters (and in my case, kids) out of the garden. Are you getting my point? Good gardens don’t just happen. They require substantial planning and effective execution on the part of the gardener. And even with all the plowing, planting, raking, hoeing and watering, there’s no guarantee that you’ll have a good yield. No wonder gardening is becoming a lost art!

I think gardening is the perfect metaphor for building a healthy corporate culture. A great work environment doesn’t just happen on its own. Just like a garden, building a healthy, vibrant culture at work requires substantial planning and effective execution. It requires effort from every individual at every level of the organization, and we might not see the “fruits (or vegetables!) of our labors” immediately. But one thing is certain: every organization will have a culture. The question is will it be a culture that we have carefully planned, fed and nurtured? Or will it be whatever culture we allow to take root? Any gardener knows that growing a bumper crop of delicious veggies takes a lot of work but growing weeds takes zero effort on our part. It goes deeper than that though, because weeds will actually choke out the good, healthy plants that we want to grow. So the gardener’s job is not just to nurture the good plants but to pluck out the bad ones as well. It’s a constant fight - The never ending battle of man vs. weeds! (Start dramatic theme music here.)

The folks at the executive and director level of Center Partners are actively engaged in conversations about CP’s culture as we speak. You’ll be hearing and seeing more about this in the coming weeks and months. On a personal level, it has been very exciting to observe and participate in some of those conversations. I have been impressed with the insight, imagination and commitment of the people involved in the process. But everyone, not just the executives and directors, have key roles to play in CP’s culture. My kids get sick of me saying this, but we have a fairly common mantra/question in our home: “Am I being part of the problem or part of the solution?” Maybe, in keeping with the whole gardening theme, we could ask ourselves, “Am I nurturing a nice healthy garden or a scraggly weed patch?”

This past fall my family sat down for a dinner we made from things that came only from our garden. We had potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, cucumbers, raspberries and strawberries. Believe it or not, we felt a great sense of satisfaction knowing that we had “grown” all of those yummy fruits and veggies ourselves. Similarly, I think we can all feel proud of the culture we’ve grown and are growing here at Center Partners. We all have a stake in the kind of environment we have here at CP and it’s up to each of us to decide whether we want a Victory Garden or a weed patch. If we choose the Victory Garden then let’s all dig in and get our hands dirty!

Effective Leadership: "Sit right back and you'll hear a tale..."

I've always had a great affinity for Gilligan; I grew up watching reruns of Gilligan's Island every day after school; I can sing the theme song (both versions! If you're a true Gilligan afficienado you know what I'm talking about) word for word; I've even been told I have an uncanny resemblance to Gilligan himself - not sure if I should be proud of that or not. Believe it or not, I learned a few good lessons from "little buddy."

Remember the episode where Gilligan makes a set of wings? In one scene he has his wings on and is flapping madly and actually hovering about ten feet off the ground. He says "Skipper! Skipper! Look at me! I'm flying!." Skipper replies, "You can't fly! It's impossible! Get down from there!" So Gilligan dejectedly crashes to the ground. Gilligan was actually flying until Skipper "shot him down" with what he said.

Here's the moral to that little story: People have a tendancy to live up to their expectations. If you set the bar low - guess what - that's exactly what you get. If you set the bar high - that's exactly what you'll get. This is basically the same theme as my last post. We can "condition" people to perform (or not perform) by what we say (or don't say) to them.

Negative conditioning or negative messages have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. As an example, look at our current economic situation. For the past 18 months the media has been bombarding us with how bad the economy was. Even though the vast majority of Americans were still doing ok financially, the media (and some politicians') constant drum beat about the economy forced people to actually change their behavior - in a way that just caused more harm to the economy - they spent less money! Don't get me wrong, there are some major issues going on in our economy right now but if you believed what much of the media and politicos are saying we are on the verge of armageddon. The reality is the economy today is bad, but no where near as bad as it was even during the late 70's and early 80's. It goes to show if you say something often enough and loud enough people will begin to believe it and act the part.

Good leaders inspire. Good leaders play on the positive not the negative. Good leaders bring out the best in people - not the worst.

If the Skipper would've been on his game in that episode he would have encouraged Gilligan in his apparent successful attempts at flying. Who knows, maybe they could have flown off the island years sooner? Anything would've been better than the professor's coconut powered distress beacon!

Effective Leadership: Dogs, elephants and snow banks

The area in which I live was pummelled with snow over the past few weeks. Since December 18th we've recieved over 60 inches of snow! Needless to say, that's alot of snow. Most of us lucky homeowners have spent much of the last few days shoveling off our roofs in the hopes of avoiding a collapse. Well all of this roof clearing means nearly all the homes in my neighborhood are encircled by five-foot berms that, after daily thawing and nightly freezing, are now impenetrable, rock-hard mini mountains.

My dog Brandy, a shepherd/husky mix, has discovered that the chank link fence in our back yard which is about 4 1/2 feet tall without snow is now effectively about a foot high. She just scampers up the snow mound and hops right over the fence to freedom. Here's the funny part. Brandy would have never thought of jumping over the fence if the snow mounds had not provided her the opportunity. I've removed all the snow from the part of the fence where she's been escaping but guess what? she can still jump over the 4 1/2 foot fence! She could have been jumping over the fence for the past two years that we've had her but the thought never occurred to her. She WAS conditioned to stay within the confines of the yard. But now she sees that that measley little 4 1/2 foot fence need not keep her from exploring the big wide world! All thanks to the lousy snow!

This reminds me of a little story I've heard about training elephants. (I'm not positive it's true but it's a great analogy so stick with me.) When training baby elephants the trainers will cuff a large chain to the elephant's ankle. The other end of the chain is fastened to a large stake which is pounded deep into the ground. The chain and the stake are so strong that there is no way the baby elephant can escape. The little elephant learns very quickly just how far he can walk until the chain stops him. As the elephant grows he is conditioned to being staked. By the time the elephant is fully grown the trainer no longer has to use a big chain and stake. In fact he can use a flimsy rope barely nailed into the ground - anything to just remind the elephant that they are restrained. That elephant's brain is conditioned to believe he can't "escape" because he's staked - even if that stake is so flimsy he could pull it out with little effort.

Do we as leaders ever negatively "condition" our employees? We probably wouldn't do it intentionally, but I think we probably do it more than we realize. How might we be conditioning our reps? It might sound like this: "Oh, nobody's ever been able to achieve that! Maybe you'd better rethink your goals." Or maybe there are operational or process issues that condition our employees. I remember a former employer of mine would always have a "fire sale" at the end of every quarter. They were always short of hitting their quarterly sales figures so they would offer deep discounts. Both the reps and the customers were conditioned to expect big promos and discounts at the end of each quarter. Why should an agent try to hold top margin when he or she knows the company is going to slash prices at the end of the quarter? Whey should a customer cut a purchase order now when they know they can get a much better price by merely waiting until the end of the quarter?

Think about ways in which your organization might be negatively conditioning its employees and what you can do to help change that trend. Me? I'm going to go find my dog who is roaming the neighborhood at this very moment...

Effective Leadership: 20-60-20 - a win-win-win scenario

In our Coach Me 2 class we spend a little time discussing the 20/60/20 rule. This rule says that on a given team roughly 20 percent of our agents will be superstars, 20 percent will be strugglers and 60 percent will be average performers. So, with which group should the manager spend the most time?

The manager should dedicate the most time to the middle 60 - because that's the majority of his team. Unfortunately, however, many of the managers I've talked with say most of their time (and energy) is spent managing the bottom 20. Wouldn't it be great if there were a way to ensure that our top 20 and middle 60 got the same level of attention as our bottom 20? "But there just isn't time" you might say. Well today is your lucky day!

This is one of the most effective things a leader can do: use your top 20 to help you develop your bottom 20. This is a win-win-win scenario. The first winner is the top 20 agent. He or she feels appreciated and recognized when you say to them "You do a really good job at X. I would like for you to spend some time with (insert bottom 20 agent's name here) and show them some of the things that work well for you. Then report back to me and let me know how it went." Interestingly, one of the key workplace motivators for an employee is being entrusted with additional responsibilities. This scenario fits that bill quite nicely.

The second winner is the bottom 20 agent. They will benefit from getting some one-on-one "coaching" from a successful practioner, and them getting it from another face can't hurt either. And, let's be honest, if we have been in a management role for awhile we may not be as good in the trenches as our top 20 agents are; so tips and tricks coming from these folks might hold a bit more weight than those coming from us.

The third winner is the manager. Obviously, by leveraging our top twenty to work with our bottom 20 we've created much more time for ourselves to work with our middle 20. We could spend alot more space talking about all the cool things that come about from using the 20/60/20 rule but all we really need to know is that it works. Give it a try and see what happens.

Career Management: "Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man!"

We recently had a young man complete six weeks of new hire training at our Couer D'Alene call center. Unlike his classmates who took full advantage of the company's rather casual dress code, this young man dressed in business attire throughout training. It wasn't until the newhire group graduated that the class realized this individual was a new agent just like them. They had all assumed he was their manager observing their performance in training - simply because of the way he was dressed!

ZZ Top reference aside, how we dress is quite important. I know we've grown up hearing things like "don't judge a book by it's cover" and "looks don't matter", but the reality is looks and dress do matter. People make judgements about us based on how we dress. The last thing we want is for our personal appearance or dress to be a distraction or detriment to how we are perceived in the organization.

In a career exploration class I facilitate we actually spend a lot of time talking about how to dress in the workplace. The adage about dressing for the job you want instead of the job you have makes total sense! And though it may seem superficial, one of the easiest things you can do to help yourself move up in an organization is to upscale your wardrobe.

Corporate Culture: "All in the Family"

The family was the world's first "organization". Wise men and women down through the ages have discussed the vital role families play in society. Most societal ills can be traced back to the breakdown of the family unit. Debates rage about what defines marriage and family. Families are a big deal to everyone because there is so much at stake: A nation or society is only as strong as its familes.

Isn't it funny how as kids we would fight tooth and nail with our siblings. I can remember a few fights I had with my brothers - name calling, cruel insults, eye gouging, bloody noses, body slams - you name it. But if someone outside of the family were to threaten or bully me or one of my brothers the other two would be their to defend the other to the last breath. That's what families do. What is it about families that makes us so invested emotionally - both good emotions and bad emotions? Well, I don't understand all of the science but I think it's part of the grand plan. It's at home with our family that we first learn the lessons we'll need to be successful in life. And yet it seems we sometimes compartmentalize or differentiate our "family self" from our "professional self". Perhaps there are things we've learned from our families that we could apply to our organizations?

Isn't it great how your family loves you unconditionally? You can be the world's biggest bonehead and your family will still accept you. You can be in between prison terms and you'll still get invited over to your parents' home for Thanksgiving dinner. You can continually fued with siblings, possibly even coming to physical blows, but if someone else threatens a family member all of sudden you'll rush to their defense. Blood truly is thicker than water. Except in very rare occasions, a person's family will love and accept them no matter what. Familes don't give up on each other.

Our workplace organizations are different. First, we get to choose the people who will be in our organization. Second, if things aren't going well, we can always ask people to leave. We have all kinds of metrics we can use to determine a person's "worth" to the organization. If they aren't measuring up, we don't have to keep them around. And when we "let someone go" there's always a supply of new people waiting to take their place. Imagine if familes had "performance plans" like organizations have. "Sorry son, but we're just not seeing the type of performance we need from you so we're going to have to let you go." I'm sure my parents felt like having that talk with me once or twice!

At the risk of sounding very touchy-feely let me propose this little exercise: Imagine your team at work is "family". You didn't get to choose them, they're imperfect, and you can't get rid of them. Some of them have difficult personalities. Some of them are lazy. Some of them do embarrassing things in public. Some of them disagree with you and will tell you right to your face! Some of them belong to a different political party, church or bowling league than you do. If some of them are underperforming, too bad. You can't just replace them with a new family member. To put it another way - for better or for worse - you're stuck with them. If this were the case, what types of things would you do differently? How would your "performance management" change? Would you be more creative about finding a good fit for each of your employees? Would your focus be more long term than short term? Would you be more forgiving? Would you put yourself in their shoes a little more often? Spend a little time pondering this scenario.

In one of the CORE training classes I regularly facilitate I ask the question "what has made our company successful in the past?" In almost every class I'll have a tenured employee say that one of the keys to our company's past success was that our work environment was "like a family." What makes a work environment "like a family"? Do we feel accepted? Do we feel like folks we work with care about us? Do we feel like we are valued unconditionally?

Obviously we have a job to perform and business needs to be met. Businesses exist to drive profits and build stockholder wealth, but I think there can be a balance between bottom-line needs and the emotional needs of our people. People may choose to "give up" on themselves and, let's be honest, sometimes our organization may not be a good fit for everybody. If that's the case, that's okay. Hopefully, though, we as leaders will not be the FIRST one to "give up" on an individual. Here's where the "family" model really comes into play. Your family continues to accept you and root for you and even invite over to Thanksgiving dinner - even if you are "underperforming".

What can we do as leaders to keep the positive aspects of the family relationship alive in our workplace? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Effective Leadership: A Walla Walla winery and the law of the harvest

Last Friday the entire North Idaho L&D team took a field trip to Walla Walla to tour Hence Winery. Even though I don't drink and was not involved in the sampling that the rest of the team enjoyed, I found myself quite fascinated by the whole wine making process. It reminded me of Covey's discussion of the Law of the Harvest.

We learned from the winery owner and our tour guide, Henderson Orchard, that it takes, at minimum, five years from the time the first starts are planted until a winery can actually have wine ready for the market. That's alot of lead time! Imagine all the work and care that must happen during that five years. And there are no short cuts! Owning and operating a winery is a major investment - of time, money, energy and sweat, all in the hopes that after years of hard work it will pay off.

Covey points out that farmers (or winemakers for that matter) can't "cram" for the "final exam" like some of us did in school. Imagine if a farmer kept putting off all the important things that need to be done to have a healthy crop - plowing, raking, seeding, fertilizing, watering, weeding - until the night before harvest time. That would be silly right? Yet do we sometimes try to cut corners when it comes to developing our employees? Effectively leading others is hard work. There's no "cramming" allowed. Perhaps you've heard the banking account analogy? Forging a healthy relationship is like maintaining a healthy bank account. We need to be making more deposits than withdrawals or we will go broke. And a "broke" relationship is not much fun for anyone. (I'll discuss this analogy in more detail in a later post.)

A good relationship with our team (or our spouse or kids) is governed by the Law of the Harvest just as much as the vineyard. Without planning, planting, growing, nurturing, hard work and plenty of patience, neither will be very productive.

Employee Motivation: Maslow and Money...The path of least resistance

What's the most common thing companies use to motivate their employees? Money! Don't get me wrong. We all appreciate money and none of us would turn it down if it were offered to us, but is monetary reward really the best way to motivate people?

I mentioned in my previous post about Maslow's Hierarchy that leveraging higher level needs will yield better results than focusing on lower level needs. Yet money is usually the motivator of choice, particularly in a sales environment.

Remember the five levels in Maslow's Hierarchy? 1.) Physical, 2.) Safety-Security, 3.) Social-Belonging, 4.) Esteem, 5.) Self-Actualization. These build on one another. For example, I would not be highly motivated by social or esteem factors if I don't have enough to eat. The needs in the lower levels need to be met before the higher level motivators kick in. Money is actually a Safety-Security factor, that's only the second level of the hierarchy. "But money is the most important reason people work," you might say. Money is important, but actually it is not the main reason people stay with or decide to leave a job.

Research the Kelly Company conducted found that folks looking for a job cite organizational factors (money, benefits, company reputation) as the primary determinant in whether or not they'll join a company - followed by job factors (duties, schedule, training) and then by leader factors (trustworthiness, coaching, flexibility). However, something very interesting happens once an employee has joined an organization. The list flips. The leader factors become the most important thing to the employee. Would you believe that pay comes in at number five (behind things like coworkers, career opportunities, and schedule) for reasons people leave an organization? The number one reason people leave is their leader. Maybe you've heard this cliche: "People don't leave companies, they leave managers." According to this research, it's true.

So why do we so often default to money as the prime motivator? I think we do it because it's easy. It takes much less effort to throw some extra cash at folks than to actually make a person feel like they're part of a team or build their esteem. Perhaps giving cash away is the path of least resistance? It's true the top three levels of the hierarchy require "heavy lifting". It's hard work to motivate and build people up in the face of everyday job pressures but the payoff is worth it. And a funny thing about focusing on the higher levels - it doesn't really have to "cost" the company anything. I'm not saying we should all do away with money-based incentives. But if we think that's all we need to do to keep our employees motivated, we're missing out.

Effective Leadership: The Value of Failure

This past weekend I was at a family reunion in western Montana. It was your typical family reunion - too much food, too much noise and too many people I didn't recognize. It was a good time though, and it provided me with a little reminder at the expense of my two-year old's physical and mental well being!

The reunion was held at a hunting lodge owned by a cousin who runs an outfitting business. (See the picture of his lodge) There is a stocked fishing pond literally steps away from the back door. Needless to say, my wife and I had to keep a very close eye on my son, Noah, as we worried he would get too close to the pond and take an unintentional swim. Over and over we told him to stay away from the pond. Yet he would continually walk towards the pond to see how close he could get until one of us bolted from the deck to grab him. Well, eventually it happened: as he was holding the hand of an older cousin and walking around the pond he decided to make his break for the water. He wiggled away from his cousin, darted to the edge of the pond and reached down toward the water. You've probably noticed toddlers are a bit top heavy - they have big heads - so Noah fell headlong into the pond. His cousin Spencer was right there and had him out of the water in about two seconds but that's all it took for Noah to learn his lesson. His Mom and I had told him over and over what might happen if he got too close to the edge, but it wasn't until he experienced it himself that he "got it." For the rest of the day, Noah wanted nothing to do with the "yucky" pond.

One of the key requirements of adult learning theory is providing an environment in which it is safe to fail. Without even realizing it, we had placed Noah into this type of environment. Obviously an unsupervised two-year old playing beside a pond could be a recipe for disaster, but because there were several safe guards in place (ie. multiple adults and older cousins keeping an eye on all the rugrats) it was actually a good learning environment. Noah was able to experience first-hand the dangers of getting too close to the water's edge. That icy, two second plunge taught him more about ponds than anything his mother or I could have told him.

On a fairly consistent basis I'll have supervisors come into the training office voicing their concern that a brand new agent is "messing up." Uhhh....Yep, new agents will do that from time to time, but here's "where the rubber hits the road," so to speak. Here's where you can tell the difference between a good leader and an average (or poor) leader. The good leader will use those "mistakes" as a coaching opportunity, a chance to build up the agent and leave them better prepared the next time a similar situation arises. The average or poor leader may treat a mistake like an act of disobedience or an affront to the leader's authority. (Think of Cartman from Southpark yelling "Never question my authority!!")

Perhaps some leaders confuse training with performance. They may think because a newhire has been through "training" they will hit the floor doing everything exactly right. That would be great, but that's not a realistic expectation. Even if the agent has "heard" everything they need to know to perform their job, it will take actually "doing" the job and, yes, "failing" a few times before it starts to stick. The trainer's job is too teach the new agent what he or she needs to know - the knowledge. The leader's job is to help them put it into practice - the execution.

Every interaction a leader has with an agent provides two possible outcomes. The leader will either build up the agent or tear them down - it's really as simple as that. Mistakes are mistakes - they need to be corrected, but not at the expense of the leader/agent relationship. As leaders we have the power to determine how we go about correcting those mistakes. Good leaders see them for what they are - they are errors that once corrected will make the agent even better. An average or poor leader may see mistakes as another "mark against" an agent they don't want to spend time devoloping - it's easier to just get them off their team. It sounds counterintuitive but failing is one of the building blocks of success. The test comes in how we as leaders deal with failure and how we help our agents deal with failure.

Employee Development: Picasso or Cezanne? Fleetwood Mac or the Eagles? You Decide!

Last week I had the privilege of attending the annual ASTD (American Society of Training and Development) convention in San Diego. One of the highlights of the conference was a keynote address given by Malcolm Gladwell. He's the author of "Tipping Point" and "Blink" - two excellent books I highly recommend. In his address Gladwell explored the concept of 'genius' using several fascinating examples. Let me try to paraphrase:

The artist Picasso burst on to the modern art scene in his early twenties. He was almost immediately revered as a genius and people clamored to purchase his work. The paintings Picasso made in his twenties and thirties are worth about four times as much as those from his later years. Paul Cezanne, on the other hand, was a "starving artist" for years and years until, finally, in the later years of his life, people began to recognize his artistic genius. His paintings from the end of his career are worth about eight times as much as those from his younger years. Both Picasso and Cezanne are viewed as geniuses but they achieved that status in very different ways and on very different time-tables.

The rock group Fleetmac Mac is best known for their mid-70's, Stevie Nicks-Lindsay Buckingham sound heard on their grammy winning album "Rumors". But what many folks don't realize is that "Rumors" was their 16th album! The group had actually started in the mid sixties with drummer Mick Fleetwood, bassist John McVie (the "Mac" part of Fleetwood Mac) and guitarist Peter Green. Fleetwood Mac slogged it out for over a decade with a revolving door of musicians but it wasn't until right before the "Rumors" album that the group really took off. Fleetwood Mac might be viewed as the classic rock equivalent of Cezanne. The Eagles might be viewed as the Picassos of rock and roll. They formed in 72 or 73 and were shortly at the top of the charts with their first album. By 1975 they were one of the biggest bands in the business. Like Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles are considered musical geniuses from that time period. Again, the Fleetwood Mac/Eagles scenario illustrates two different types of genius. One type, like Picasso, sees success quickly. The other type, like Cezanne, takes longer to achieve that success but when it does the results are worth the wait.

Gladwell points out that in today's music business Fleetwood Mac wouldn't have a chance. No label would be willing to give a band a decade to develop their genius. He also observes that, unfortunately, that shortsightedness often spills over to the business world as well. I agree.

Do we sometimes overlook or even lose someone who has tremendous long-term potential because they aren't a 'Picasso' right out of the gate? Perhaps what organizations need are leaders who approach talent management with the eyes of a long-term investor rather than those of a "day trader". While companies will always appreciate the 'Picassos' on their team, perhaps they should learn to appreciate the 'Cezannes' as well. After all, 50 million Fleetwood Mac fans can't be wrong....

Experiential Learning: Are You Experienced?

As a trainer I'm always beating the drum about making training "experiential". Adult learning theory stresses the importance of experiential learning and hands-on training and, of course, I agree with that - it's crucial. But I like to think that "experiential" also refers to what the adult learner brings with them to the classroom.

As a trainer, I am doing a great disservice if I do not acknowledge and leverage the wealth of experience that my participants have. In any given class I'm sure I have multiple individuals who are full-blown experts at something. True, they may be new to my particular industry, but chances are they are bringing with them a bevy of experiences, skills and insights that will help them in their current undertaking. Why not build on what they already have instead of building from scratch? One of the easiest ways to do this is to simply give your class plenty of time for discussion. Let them talk. Let them bring up past experiences. I've found that in most cases the more my participants talk the better. It's the basic "guide on the side" vs. "sage on the stage" philosophy.

This past week I attended an ASTD seminar with Cynthia Clay, President of NetSpeed Learning in Seattle. She shared a great quote from George Siemen of the University of Manitoba. He views the training professional as a "museum curator". A trainer should be "an expert who creates spaces in which knowledge can be created, explored and connected." Wow. What a great analogy. Our job isn't necessarily to jam folks' brains full of everything we know but rather to create an environment where they learn on their terms. One of the best ways for adults to learn is from other adults and sometimes one of the best things a trainer can do is shut up and let participants talk.

I remember a Sunday school teacher a few years back, an older lady who was a retired school teacher - a very intelligent woman steeped in the traditional "education" approach. It seems nearly every week we would get to a point in her lessons where there would be some great discussion going on or at least the potential for some great discussion- but this sweet lady always nipped it in the bud! "Well, we need to cover all of this material so let's move on", she'd say. Why was it so important that we moved on? To be honest, I got more out of the contributions made by other class members than from her "curriculum". This is an example of being curriculum driven vs. learner driven. Focus on the learner not the curriculum! I would much rather have participants really "get" one or two topics than simply hear a dozen topics just for the sake of "getting through" the material.

C.S. Lewis said "a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument." We cannot underestimate the value of experience. It is a key element in adult learning. It means we need to give participants hands-on experience but it also means we need to make the most of the experience they already have. Much of the learning that takes place in your classroom may very well come from the experiences shared by your participants. Don't be afraid to let that happen.

Corporate Stewardship: What I Learned from Boy Scouts and Sheep Herders

A long, long time ago I was a Boy Scout. In addition to memorizing the scout law (“a scout is trustworthy, loyal, brave”, etc…) my scoutmaster made us memorize the Outdoor Code. I won’t recite it for you, but one of the main ideas was that you should always leave a campsite better than you found it – clean up your mess, don’t leave a fire-ring, have little or no impact on the environment, and so forth. It makes sense - it’s Common Courtesy 101. But there’s a broader application. The Outdoor Code is basically introducing the concept of stewardship isn’t it? I think there is value in looking through the “stewardship lens” as we view our roles as leaders at work.

A steward is someone who has been given responsibility and accountability over something – usually something of high value. For the good steward, it is not merely enough to “take care of” his charge – that’s the bare minimum. The good steward wants to leave his “something” better than he found it. A good example is illustrated in a discussion I heard in Sunday school a few years back. The teacher asked the question: “What is the difference between a sheep herder and a shepherd?” The class consensus went something like this: A sheep herder is a hired-hand. He takes care of the sheep because he has to – he’ll get fired if he doesn’t. He does the minimum required to keep his job. But don’t expect him to go above and beyond or to put himself at risk when danger emerges (i.e. wolves, robbers, storms). The shepherd, on the other hand, does what he does out of genuine concern – even love – for his flock. He will leave the flock to go after the lone lost lamb. He will risk his very life to protect his sheep. But the shepherd’s focus is not only on keeping his sheep safe from harm but also on helping them grow, prosper and be happy.

So you may be saying, “Okay, this shepherd talk is great for Sunday school class, but what about here at work?” Good question. But before we leave the sheep scenario, let me ask you this: if you were a sheep, would you rather follow a sheep herder or a shepherd? And here in the real world, would you rather have a sheep herder supervisor who is “managing” you like another unpleasant task (i.e. doing the least amount of work required) or a shepherd supervisor who is genuinely interested in helping you grow, prosper and be happy in your position? In which scenario are you most likely to enjoy your job? In which scenario are you most likely to perform better?

In a work setting what does stewardship look like? Am I suggesting you’ll need to risk your life fighting off wolves for your agents? No. What I am saying is that our relationships with agents will be more satisfying and productive for them and for us if we think of ourselves as not just managers but as stewards. The next time you get a new agent on your team I challenge you to ask yourself: “What can I do to leave this agent better than I found her?” Then work to ensure that every interaction you have with that agent builds on that theme.

Stewardship is a very deep concept that can be applied to every aspect of our lives. For the sake of this conversation we’re just applying it to our roles here at work. But there is tremendous power in approaching our day to day job related duties as a steward. Oh, I almost forgot to mention. There’s another word for steward with which you may be more familiar. The word is “coach”.

Effective Teams: The Tao of Ralph and Sam

Some of you who have attended CORE training recently have probably heard me mention the greatest cartoon ever made – the old 1950’s Warner Brothers cartoon with Ralph and Sam. Ralph was a coyote (played by Wyle E. Coyote) and Sam was a sheep dog. The episodes always began with Ralph and Sam meeting each other and walking to work together. “Morning Ralph”, “Morning Sam”, they’d say and they would ask about each other’s kids, wife etc. Then they’d finally get to work – and this is where the fun started! They would each punch in to the SAME time clock then go to work. Sam’s job was to guard the sheep and Ralph’s job was to steel the sheep. Of course what follows is ten minutes of slapstick mayhem and violence – Ralph always at the receiving end – like falls from cliffs, explosions and anvils landing on heads. It’s the good clean fun we expect from those great old Warner Brothers shorts. But believe it or not, there’s a message for us in these brilliant cartoons.

I’m sure we’ve all experienced times where our team or department seems to be at odds with other parts of the organization. Perhaps it takes the form of a process that is so cumbersome it becomes a major performance blocker or maybe it’s an attitude (implied, inferred or actual) that says “that’s not my job”. Whether these problems are intentional or unintentional they have the same effect: they get in the way of us being truly effective.

At one of my previous companies we would refer to the accounts receivable department as the “sales prevention” team. While it was purely unintentional, their processes were very customer “un-friendly” to say the least. Ironically, one of this company’s stated aspirations was “let’s make it easy for our customers to do business with us.” Frankly, the A/R team made it easier for our customers to do business with our competition!

My example may be extreme, but can you think of anything we might do that conflicts with other parts of the organization? Are we ever guilty of self-inflicted “catch 22’s”? Do we ever feel like we’re our own worst enemy? It sounds very simplistic, but I think the key to avoiding the “Ralph and Sam” syndrome is to keep the big picture in view. One of the risks of departmentalizing is “nearsightedness”, where we lose the ability to see things that are farther away. Our focus becomes our own group or department sometimes at the expense of the larger objective. The more we can do to help our teams understand the big picture, the more agent buy-in we’ll have. That means “Ralph and Sam” will actually be working with each other instead of against each other.