Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share An Hour of Your Life Back
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
An Hour of Your Life Back
An Hour of Your Life Back
Most mangers spend 2.5 hours a day managing drama. What if you could get one hour of your life back?
The research by Cy Wakeman shows that the average manager spends 2.5 hours a day listening to people complain about other people, new policies, new clients and other workplace problems without ever coaching people how to succeed within the imperfect circumstances that they must succeed in.
What if you could spend half that time coaching them, instead of just letting them vent? Could we shift that time toward solution-based thinking in a way that we are more productive with those conversations? What if we became so skilled at it, that each day, we got an hour of our life back? What could people accomplish with that time?
I believe we can do that. But to make it happen we have to develop our coaching skills and put them to work when the opportunity presents itself. And it will present itself. It will show up 2.5 hours a day.
It’s definitely challenging for multiple reasons. One of those reasons is a long-held belief that the open-door policy will improve communication. By telling people our door is open to discuss any workplace problems; we have invited a bunch of drama, with open arms, right into our personal space. It’s what we do with that open-door policy that matters.
We mean well when we announce the open-door policy, but in reality, we might end up prolonging the person’s suffering. All with good intent in our hearts.
When we let people vent their drama, without ever showing them that their thinking is at root of the problem, we end up encouraging them to stay in that state of suffering. In a way, we are telling them that it’s ok to feel that way.
It’s only ok temporarily. It’s normal for people to be hit with negative emotion. The world will not always work out in our favor. But it is not ok to dwell, and stay there forever. It’s normal for the limbic brain to engage automatically and emotionally judge workplace challenges. But we also have the responsibility to point people toward their prefrontal when those emotions are taking control of their lives.
It’s ok to feel bad. It’s ok to let off a little steam. But it is not ok to dwell, to obsess or to stay there forever.
This is a struggle for a lot of people. Managers mean well when they listen to the drama of their people. They can think that letting off steam is good for them. But to what extent? At what point does listening to people vent encourage them to stay in that poor pitiful me state? Are we actually hurting them by encouraging them to stay there? At what point does letting people vent turn into encouraging the victim mentality?
In her book No ego, Cy Wakeman says, “No one came through my open door to directly ask for coaching on handling sticky situations in a more effective, productive, and efficient way. I realized pretty quickly that the open door was a portal for drama. It catered to ego, fueled feelings of victimhood, and contributed to low morale.”
In her experience, the well-intended open-door policy ended up strengthening the ego and the victim mentality. The policy back fires because managers and supervisors aren’t developed into master coaches. At best, most of them attend a seminar or two on the subject, but they aren’t developed into coaching ninjas.
If a manager is unaware that circumstance is what can’t be changed, and that our thinking is the only thing we have true control over, and that our emotions are just a symptom of our thinking; then the actions our people take will be extremely limited in achieving the results we desire. Our managers need to be aware of this and teach it to the people they lead.
The skill of coaching isn’t just a morally good thing to do. It can show up as increased productivity and profit. What could managers do with that 2.5 hours spent feeding victimhood? What ROI would the organization see by developing our coaching ability? There is no return on investment for just listening to people complain. But there is an ROI on helping people manage their emotions.
Today I am going to discuss some universal topics that may come up in these dramatic, woe is me conversations and some potential methods to help coach people out of it.
How to influence the conversation is the hard part. There are so many books on the subject, so many teachers, so many ideas and so many concepts about how to do it. And they are all great! But none of them are the be-all-end-all solution.
The key is to keep learning new techniques, trying them out and developing the skill. The more techniques we acquire, the more tools we have to pull out when we need them, the more we develop and strengthen that muscle.
First up is circumstance:
Most people complain about what they don’t have the power to change. Most complaining is arguing against circumstance. They see themselves as a victim placed in a life that isn’t fair. Yet deep down, we all know that the world isn’t fair. It’s not meant to be fair. This is natural to experience but it’s also a complete waste of time.
The world will never be fair, bad things will happen, we will be treated poorly by our peers, clients and other contractors and we will be forced to do our best with unrealistic expectations. All normal in the life experience. Yet people still argue against it.
It’s the ego that argues against circumstance. It’s the victim inside all of us that complains that life isn’t fair. It’s not who we really are or have the potential to become. Most, genuine, good hearted people struggle with this. I struggle with this. But it’s still a complete waste of time to complain about what can’t be changed.
In Buddhism, the ego is described as the source of all suffering. We all have an ego lurking inside of us. When our ego is in the driver’s seat of our thinking, we find ourselves focused on what everyone else should do, instead of focusing on what we should do to succeed in the our current circumstance.
People feel stuck when they argue against circumstance. They feel drained, demotivated and it shows up in their actions. Our goal is to point people away from blaming circumstance, to stop entertaining the ego, and the victim mentality; and to focus on what they can do in a crappy situation.
We need to stop talking about what others do, or should have done, and focus the conversation on what we can and should do.
“What can you do?”
Or my favorite from No Ego, “What does great look like?”
“What’s the best possible (and realistic) outcome considering this crappy circumstance?”
And one that seems to work a lot with my construction groups: “How can we polish this turd?”
Once we identify the problem is true circumstance; as in, it happened in the past and we don’t have a time machine to fix it, or we are going to work with this client or contractor even if they are a total pain in the rear; once we identify that we truly can’t change the problem, then we have to move the conversation toward what can be done.
Having a gazillion different ways to ask “What can you do?” is the great first step. When they say “but” you say “what”. And fill in the rest with ...
View all episodes
By Philip Greisen
5
2323 ratings
An Hour of Your Life Back
Most mangers spend 2.5 hours a day managing drama. What if you could get one hour of your life back?
The research by Cy Wakeman shows that the average manager spends 2.5 hours a day listening to people complain about other people, new policies, new clients and other workplace problems without ever coaching people how to succeed within the imperfect circumstances that they must succeed in.
What if you could spend half that time coaching them, instead of just letting them vent? Could we shift that time toward solution-based thinking in a way that we are more productive with those conversations? What if we became so skilled at it, that each day, we got an hour of our life back? What could people accomplish with that time?
I believe we can do that. But to make it happen we have to develop our coaching skills and put them to work when the opportunity presents itself. And it will present itself. It will show up 2.5 hours a day.
It’s definitely challenging for multiple reasons. One of those reasons is a long-held belief that the open-door policy will improve communication. By telling people our door is open to discuss any workplace problems; we have invited a bunch of drama, with open arms, right into our personal space. It’s what we do with that open-door policy that matters.
We mean well when we announce the open-door policy, but in reality, we might end up prolonging the person’s suffering. All with good intent in our hearts.
When we let people vent their drama, without ever showing them that their thinking is at root of the problem, we end up encouraging them to stay in that state of suffering. In a way, we are telling them that it’s ok to feel that way.
It’s only ok temporarily. It’s normal for people to be hit with negative emotion. The world will not always work out in our favor. But it is not ok to dwell, and stay there forever. It’s normal for the limbic brain to engage automatically and emotionally judge workplace challenges. But we also have the responsibility to point people toward their prefrontal when those emotions are taking control of their lives.
It’s ok to feel bad. It’s ok to let off a little steam. But it is not ok to dwell, to obsess or to stay there forever.
This is a struggle for a lot of people. Managers mean well when they listen to the drama of their people. They can think that letting off steam is good for them. But to what extent? At what point does listening to people vent encourage them to stay in that poor pitiful me state? Are we actually hurting them by encouraging them to stay there? At what point does letting people vent turn into encouraging the victim mentality?
In her book No ego, Cy Wakeman says, “No one came through my open door to directly ask for coaching on handling sticky situations in a more effective, productive, and efficient way. I realized pretty quickly that the open door was a portal for drama. It catered to ego, fueled feelings of victimhood, and contributed to low morale.”
In her experience, the well-intended open-door policy ended up strengthening the ego and the victim mentality. The policy back fires because managers and supervisors aren’t developed into master coaches. At best, most of them attend a seminar or two on the subject, but they aren’t developed into coaching ninjas.
If a manager is unaware that circumstance is what can’t be changed, and that our thinking is the only thing we have true control over, and that our emotions are just a symptom of our thinking; then the actions our people take will be extremely limited in achieving the results we desire. Our managers need to be aware of this and teach it to the people they lead.
The skill of coaching isn’t just a morally good thing to do. It can show up as increased productivity and profit. What could managers do with that 2.5 hours spent feeding victimhood? What ROI would the organization see by developing our coaching ability? There is no return on investment for just listening to people complain. But there is an ROI on helping people manage their emotions.
Today I am going to discuss some universal topics that may come up in these dramatic, woe is me conversations and some potential methods to help coach people out of it.
How to influence the conversation is the hard part. There are so many books on the subject, so many teachers, so many ideas and so many concepts about how to do it. And they are all great! But none of them are the be-all-end-all solution.
The key is to keep learning new techniques, trying them out and developing the skill. The more techniques we acquire, the more tools we have to pull out when we need them, the more we develop and strengthen that muscle.
First up is circumstance:
Most people complain about what they don’t have the power to change. Most complaining is arguing against circumstance. They see themselves as a victim placed in a life that isn’t fair. Yet deep down, we all know that the world isn’t fair. It’s not meant to be fair. This is natural to experience but it’s also a complete waste of time.
The world will never be fair, bad things will happen, we will be treated poorly by our peers, clients and other contractors and we will be forced to do our best with unrealistic expectations. All normal in the life experience. Yet people still argue against it.
It’s the ego that argues against circumstance. It’s the victim inside all of us that complains that life isn’t fair. It’s not who we really are or have the potential to become. Most, genuine, good hearted people struggle with this. I struggle with this. But it’s still a complete waste of time to complain about what can’t be changed.
In Buddhism, the ego is described as the source of all suffering. We all have an ego lurking inside of us. When our ego is in the driver’s seat of our thinking, we find ourselves focused on what everyone else should do, instead of focusing on what we should do to succeed in the our current circumstance.
People feel stuck when they argue against circumstance. They feel drained, demotivated and it shows up in their actions. Our goal is to point people away from blaming circumstance, to stop entertaining the ego, and the victim mentality; and to focus on what they can do in a crappy situation.
We need to stop talking about what others do, or should have done, and focus the conversation on what we can and should do.
“What can you do?”
Or my favorite from No Ego, “What does great look like?”
“What’s the best possible (and realistic) outcome considering this crappy circumstance?”
And one that seems to work a lot with my construction groups: “How can we polish this turd?”
Once we identify the problem is true circumstance; as in, it happened in the past and we don’t have a time machine to fix it, or we are going to work with this client or contractor even if they are a total pain in the rear; once we identify that we truly can’t change the problem, then we have to move the conversation toward what can be done.
Having a gazillion different ways to ask “What can you do?” is the great first step. When they say “but” you say “what”. And fill in the rest with ...