Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders

Summary

You've heard the well-known Oscar Wilde quote "Be yourself - everyone else is already taken". Yet we often tempted to be something that we're not. But the research shows us to impress, do less.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 88 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week discover that a great way to impress is to do less.

You've heard the well-known Oscar Wilde quote "Be yourself - everyone else is already taken". Yet we often tempted to be something that we're not. We often try to present ourselves the way we think others want to see us, rather than as we truly are.

If that sounds like you, you're not alone. Research shows that, when given the opportunity, 66% of people try to impress by catering to the other person's needs. In addition, 71% thought catering would be the best approach. Research also demonstrates that trying to impress is precisely the wrong strategy, especially when it comes at the expense of being ourselves.

This is particularly the case when we don't know much about the people we're trying to impress. That could include a presentation, a job interview, a sales pitch or a range of other scenarios.

To explore this further researchers set up a scenario where people were applying for a fictional job. Participants in the study were then placed into one of two groups. The first group was encouraged to be themselves - to try to be genuine and authentic. The second group was encouraged to try to position themselves in the way they thought aligned with the interviewer's expectations and interests - to cater to their needs. Those who were encouraged to just be themselves were 26% more likely to be hired than those who tried to become something they weren't in an effort to impress.

A second study was conducted at a forum where entrepreneurs were pitching ideas to a panel of judges. The entrepreneurs who were genuine in their approach were three times more likely to be selected by judges than those who tried to cater to what they thought the judges wanted to hear.

Why is being yourself better than trying to cater to what you think people want to hear? Researchers suggest three main reasons:

1. It's cognitively hard to not be yourself - we're not thinking at our best
2. It's emotionally draining to not be yourself - we're not as aware or in control of our emotions
3. We're anxious because we can't fully anticipate what the other person may want or expect - we're putting effort into guessing at their needs and interests

Taken together it's a recipe for poor performance.

Being yourself makes the best impression. Guessing at others' needs is far less effective.

Now the next step is if we can genuinely take others' interests into account. To do that, we need to ask people about their needs and interests. Then we don't need to guess at their needs, and we can still be ourselves. We can be genuine, informed and empathetic. That sounds much better than guessing at others' needs and pretending to be something we're not.

I hope you found that helpful. As always, the research referenced in this episode is available in the show notes at our website - leadership.today

While you're there, why not check out our upcoming webinar. Each month we run a free 45 minute webinar on a wide range of topics. If you can't make the session, you will receive a link to a recording to watch at your own time.

Have a great week, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week.

Reference

To be or not to be your authentic self? Catering to others' preferences hinders performance. Francesca Gino, Ovul Sezer, Laura Huang, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 158, May 2020, Pages 83-100

We routinely prioritise activities that have a deadline over far more important but not urgent activities. That includes our tendency to sacrifice breaks when we're busy. But a break might be exactly what we need to boost our performance.

Hello and welcome to episode 87 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at the importance of taking breaks to achieve even higher levels of performance.

Researchers call it the mere urgency effect. It's the finding that people routinely prioritise tasks with a deadline independent of their importance, over far more important tasks that don't have a deadline. So even if another activity has much greater potential for outcomes, we will instead focus on a task with a deadline even if it isn't really that important. The researchers found that this effect is even more pronounced in those who consider themselves to be 'busy'.

Being busy and being effective rarely go together. We have work cultures that celebrate busy-ness above all else. I remember being cc'd on a farewell email which repeatedly spoke about the long hours this person worked, and how they had earned a rest in retirement. There was no mention of the outcomes they achieved, the difference they made to the business, or the legacy they left in others - just the long hours and the well-earned rest. Is that what you want to hear at your retirement?

The science shows that we need both stress and recovery to be truly effective. Long hours without breaks are not good for productivity and performance. Taking this to the next level, a few organisations have trialled four day weeks. In these cases employees were paid the same as they would have received for a five day week but only needed to work four days. The shorter of the two studies, with Microsoft Japan over a 5 week time frame, saw significant productivity increases of 40%. Another organisation, Perpetual Guardian in New Zealand, found job performance was maintained, but other factors such as engagement, work/life balance and stress all improved markedly. People could deliver just as much if not more in 20% less time. Clearly when it comes to performance not every hour is created equal.

This contrasts with recent research from the UK which showed 82% of people don't always take breaks. This is despite breaks being legally required for shifts of over 6 hours. The research showed that some people always take breaks, some people rarely take breaks, but most people fluctuate. Even though people were aware of the health and well-being benefits, completing tasks was still prioritised over taking breaks. A break is often seen as optional, and one of the things that is first to go when we get busy. The research also demonstrated that pressure from managers made a difference both ways. The manager sets the tone as to whether breaks are normal or not. We need to be careful about what we role model to our people. If we say 'take a break' but routinely eat lunch at our desk, guess which behaviour your people are going to follow?

Here's the problem - If we see breaks as just an opportunity to boost an individual's well-being at the expense of productivity, the work will always win. But the science is clear - breaks increase our productivity. Way back in episode 29 we talked about chronotypes - that our energy and attention levels fluctuate across the day, with most people favouring the morning, while some favour the afternoon and evening. But we're not victims of our chronotype. We can recharge our energy and attention levels through frequent breaks.

Some years ago I undertook some consulting work with a power plant. The production team was focused on, not surprisingly, production. In their minds the best scenario was to run the plant continuously and never give the plant a break. Then there was the maintenance team. In their mind the best scenario was to never run the plant so everything could be maintained at peak condition. Now those are extreme perspectives and the leaders in those areas wouldn't express it that clearly, but their actions bore it out. The pressure to run the plant at 100% collided with the risk that the entire plant could be taken out by equipment failure. But the owners and senior leaders tended to favour production over maintenance. The business made money through production, but only ever seemed to lose money through maintenance. Interestingly, even several significant unplanned outages didn't change their perspective. Clearly well-planned maintenance together with realistic production is the best scenario.

As human beings we face the same dilemma. Time doing work is favoured over long-term productivity and performance. "Just get it done" is the norm, not "make sure you refresh and re-energise".

Is there another way? How might we avoid the mere urgency effect? Here's how you might make a change:

1. Implement a trial and experiment on yourself. What works for others may not work for you, so prepare to try a few different approaches.

2. Measure your productivity - track it with numbers. This will give you a baseline measure that you can use for comparison.

3. Remove the choice to take breaks - schedule them in and take them. Make breaks as important as a meeting with your boss. I suggest putting them in your calendar so others can't book meetings over the top.

4. Use breaks to tackle those important but non-urgent activities like refuelling, exercise, connecting with people, or planning for the future. Don't just fritter the breaks away on time wasters like social media.

5. Measure your energy, attention and productivity across the day. Use an hourly reminder and rate each factor out of 100%.

6. Keep experimenting. Play around with how long you work before a break, with the length of breaks, and with what you do on those breaks. Implement a new trial.

7. As a leader, encourage your people to do the same.

I trust this helps in taking you out of the world of mere urgency, and allows you to deliver even greater results while also looking after yourself and others.

As always, the references used in this episode are in the show notes at the leadership.today website. And while you're there, follow the "on demand" link to find recorded webinars and our Boost Your Assertiveness online course, all available with a free 7 day trial.

Mike Oliver, Karen Rodham, Jennifer Taylor & Claire McIver (2020) Understanding the psychological and social influences on office workers taking breaks; a thematic analysis, Psychology & Health, DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2020.1764954

Meng Zhu, Yang Yang, Christopher K Hsee (October 2018) The Mere Urgency Effect, Journal of Consumer Research.

When things inevitably go wrong, it's far better to treat yourself like your best friend rather than your worst critic. A little self-compassion goes a long way.

Hello and welcome to episode 86 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at the importance of self-compassion when we're faced with setbacks and disappointments.

It was early in my career and it had been a crazy week. We had a client event coming up and needed to get physical invitations out to people as soon as possible. I put my hand up to organise the invitations and get them out the door the same day. After some quick design work and a proof read by a colleague, the invitations were on their way to clients. As the team sat together on the Friday morning that same week, a few printed invites were handed around. I received a few congratulations for having the invitations out so quickly. It was at that point that one of the Directors said "we have a problem here". I thought he was joking, but the look on his face said otherwise. It turned out that in my haste I had put the wrong street name on the invitation, automatically inserting the street from my previous workplace. At that point, the person who had proof read the invitation and given it the all clear helpfully pointed out that they hadn't proof read the invitations "for the details". I was well and truly thrown under the bus. Over 20 years later I can still remember the feeling of embarrassment, disappointment and frustration.

We've all had moments like that when we feel like we've let others down. They can really play havoc on our well-being and productivity. So how do we best respond in those moments? Research demonstrates that a little self-compassion goes a long way.

Researcher Zessin and colleagues describe self-compassion as "a positive and caring attitude of a person toward her- or himself in the face of failures and individual shortcomings". Self-compassion is about remaining positive about ourselves, and also treating ourselves in a kind way. Their analysis, combining 79 research papers, found that self-compassion is crucial for well-being. That if we are positive and caring towards ourselves, we are going to be far better off when things inevitably go wrong. We can then maintain our composure and be able to perform more effectively.

Research demonstrates that, when we mess things up, it's natural to experience negative emotions, reduced self-esteem, and even to feel excluded from the group. Self-compassion appears to buffer individuals from these adverse impacts, helping people to experience fewer negative emotions while still feeling a part of the group that they let down.

Other research shows that those with greater self-compassion feel less stressed when they end up procrastinating. So even if it is just ourselves that we're letting down, having self-compassion can help a lot.

I was eventually able to see my invitation error as a mistake that anyone could have made, and to draw out learnings from the situation. But it took weeks, not moments, to get to that point. So how do we move to acceptance faster? How do we boost our self-compassion?

To answer those questions, it's helpful to explore the different elements of self-compassion that researchers focus on. Self-compassion is often divided into three components: self-kindness, mindfulness and common humanity. Each provides an insight into how to build our levels of self-compassion:

1. Self-kindness - here we acknowledge the pain, but are then kind to ourselves. A helpful approach can be to consider how you would respond to a friend in the same situation. We're often far more compassionate to others than to ourselves. Taking the perspective of a considerate friend can provide a useful vantage point to put our failures into perspective.

2. Mindfulness - this is about being aware of our emotions and keeping them balanced. When things go wrong it's normal to experience negative emotions, but it's important to not let ourselves tip into exclusively negative territory. It can be helpful to focus on what we have learned through the situation. We also want to challenge our negative self-talk. Journalling is an approach that can help. The act of writing out the details of the situation and how we are thinking and feeling about events can make it easier to challenge the negative response we might be experiencing.

3. Common humanity - here we are recognising that everyone experiences challenges and set backs. Part of our common humanity is a tendency to get things wrong. Mistakes and growth can go hand in hand if we allow them to. I've found that if things are hard then I'm probably learning something - I'm sure that's true for you too.

So how are you when it comes to self-compassion? It's far better to act like your best friend rather than your worst critic. Allow yourself to experience the pain and take responsibility when you do mess up, but be kind to yourself so you can move forward.

Well, would you believe it has been two years since I launched the Leadership Today podcast. In that time we've had 86 main episodes and 13 Midweek Motivate episodes - 99 in total. Over that time we've cracked it onto the management podcast charts in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Singapore, Uganda and the United States. All of this was to help thousands of leaders to achieve results through people for good. I'm really thankful for the people I've met along the way, and look forward to extending into our third year. And, as is apparently mandatory at the end of all podcasts, if Leadership Today has been helpful to you, a great way to say thanks is with a rating and review, or just sharing the podcast with a friend. Have a great week.

Zessin, U., Dickhäuser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship between self‐compassion and well‐being: A meta‐analysis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 7(3), 340-364.

James H. Wirth, Ashley Batts Allen and Emily M. Zitek Self-Compassion Buffers Against the Negative Effects of a Poor Performance. Social Psychology, May 2020.

Sirois, F. M. (2014). Procrastination and stress: Exploring the role of self-compassion. Self and Identity, 13(2), 128-145.

The most widely cited model when it comes to development is 70/20/10. While it is often referenced, it is also frequently misunderstood. This week we look at why development isn't quite 70/20/10.

Hello and welcome to episode 85 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at why development isn't quite 70/20/10.

The most widely cited model when it comes to development is 70/20/10. While it is often referenced, it is also frequently misunderstood. The idea is that organisations and individuals should focus development opportunities around three different areas:

• 70% of development should be "on the job"

• 20% should be with "other people"

• 10% should be through "courses"

So where did these suspiciously rounded-off figures come from? 70/20/10 was coined by Bob Eichinger, Mike Lombardo and Morgan McCall in the 1980s with the Center for Creative Leadership. They arrived at the figures based on responses from senior executives about their key development experiences. The 70/20/10 proportions were a rounded-off representation of the themes coming through those reflections. Despite the widespread acceptance of the model, it has also received a number of criticisms, most of which are unfair. For example, some suggest that 70/20/10 is saying that formal learning isn't important, or that the 'on the job' component is passive. Neither of those really reflect the model and the authors' intent.

One reasonable criticism is that the work was based on a relatively small number of US executives who also turned out to be predominantly male and white. Anyone who is familiar with research into leadership will recognise this isn't the only place where this has been a problem. In fact some argue that the bulk of psychological research has been conducted on university and college students - hardly a representative sample of the population. In addition, it does suffer from what we could call 'survivor bias'. When we ask existing leaders to reflect back on what made them successful, we're staring back in time to what made these people successful during the 1970s. A similar criticism can be levelled at research based on successful entrepreneurs who gain an almost cult-like status. If we ignore all of the unsuccessful entrepreneurs whose businesses failed, it's hard to gain a true perspective on what really made the difference for the successful ones.

The original intent of the model was to encourage organisations to proactively focus on the development of their people, and that a great way of doing that is through the work they conduct, the people they interact with, and the occasional more formal training they undertake. If we accept that original intent, it's easy to see that 70/20/10 is a helpful guide when considering development opportunities.

Since the original study the Center for Creative Leadership has updated the figures using a broader and more diverse sample. They have drawn out some interesting nuances to the model. Their latest research shows that the 70% "on the job" element is actually made up of challenging assignments (45%) and hardships such as business mistakes or losing a job (22%). So the 70 is actually 67. The updated 20% "other people" is actually 23%. And the 10% "courses" is actually 5% coursework and 5% personal life.

I'm sure you will appreciate that calling 70/20/10 the 45/22/23/5/5 model is far less catchy, so it's okay to stick with 70/20/10. What I find most interesting is the picking apart of the "on the job" component.

As I flagged earlier, often "on the job" is misinterpreted as passive learning - that somehow learning and development will just happen as people go about their day job. But the "on the job" element is not just business as usual. As CCL have highlighted, 45% of our leadership development tends to be through stretching and challenging assignments. We can take a proactive approach to giving people challenging accountabilities and roles in the context of their development goals. That would go a long way towards helping people to grow and develop. The tension we face in doing that is organisations typically want people who can already do the job, whereas individuals typically want jobs that allow them to develop. So organisations will need to shift towards seeing appointments and promotions as development opportunities, at least in part. We can still assess whether people have potential, but even the best tools still require us to roll the dice a bit on talent. Taking this approach may actually reduce the certainty that someone will work out. But it does reinforce, again, the importance of the "20" (or 23) part of 70/20/10. If we're going to stretch people, then we really need to surround them with people who can support and encourage their development. Giving someone a stretch assignment is far more like growing a plant from a seedling than it is like screwing in a new light bulb.

You might want to think about and discuss with your people the kind of stretch assignments that might aide in their development. If I think back through my career, I really wasn't ready for my first consulting role, my first people management role, my first executive leadership role, or for running my own business. Each transition felt like jumping into the deep end of the pool yet again. But it always felt like I had people around me cheering me on who were prepared to jump in to rescue me occasionally if that's what it took. In summary, 45% of our development is likely to come from challenging assignments. Work with your people to help identify their development goals and options to safely stretch them.

I find the 22% of development coming from hardships really interesting. Does it mean that we should manufacture hardships for our people? Obviously not, although I do occasionally think that's what some leaders are trying to do. Rather we should see hardships as a key element of development. They are a great chance to learn, provided people see them that way and are supported to draw out the key development outcomes. Of course, hardships are more likely as you take on greater responsibility. As you work with people to give them challenging assignments, you're also increasing the risk of hardships. Think back over the hardships in your own career and how much you learned. For me the global financial crisis was one of the greatest business hardships I've experienced. I don't think it's coincidental that the development gained through that tough time coincided with me being in a stretching role.

Here in July 2020 we're still in the midst of a global pandemic. Are we helping our people to use this hardship as a development opportunity? Are we taking that mindset into it ourselves? Perhaps one way to help ourselves and our people come through this time is to focus on the opportunities to stretch and grow.

In all of this, the 70/20/10 model reminds us that we each need an opportunity to reflect and build on the learning through connections. Provide people with the opportunity to connect and reflect on hardships and learning. Be there for your people as they are stretched beyond what they think they can do. If we do this, we will all emerge stronger and more capable.

As I wrap things up and on a more personal note - how are you going? Can I encourage you that if you're finding these current circumstances challenging and stressful then, congratulations, you're a human being like the rest of us. Hopefully this episode reminds each of us of the opportunity to emerge stronger, and the need to support others through to the other side, whatever that might look like. Have a great week.

Putting Experience at the Center of Talent Management By: Joan Gurvis, Cindy McCauley, and Milynn Swofford. Center for Creative Leadership

https://cclinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/talentmanagement.e-1.pdf

Being a great leader isn't about having all the answers - it's often about asking the right questions. This week we look at ten great questions leaders ask.

Hello and welcome to episode 84 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at ten great questions leaders ask.

One of the most significant societal and workplace shifts over the past two decades has been from answers to questions. Like many of you, I grew up before the internet. If I had a question about something, there was only a few options of where I could turn for answers. There was the school library which had, amongst other books, a complete set of Encyclopaedia Britannica. At home we had the more budget version - the World Book Encyclopaedia. In order to keep the encyclopaedias up to date, the publishers would send out a 'Year Book' update each year. That included little tabs that you could put in the relevant spots in the original encyclopaedia to point out that the information was now out of date, and which year book to refer to instead.

Answers were difficult to find and expensive to access. Even simple things like finding out movie session times involved buying the newspaper or a phone call to the cinema. The relative cost of answers meant that you were very careful in the questions you asked, and relatively trusting in the material presented.

The internet changed everything. Firing up Netscape Navigator allowed information and answers from all over the world to suddenly be at our finger tips...if only we could find them.

Services like Google helped to categorise content and make it searchable. Over the next few years answers suddenly became cheap. Now you don't need to go to the library or buy the book, because chances are someone else has written the same content up online. If you want to know the history of France, how birds fly or how to fix your washing machine, the internet is your one stop shop for information. Answers have become prevalent and cheap. It's now the trustworthiness and quality of answers that varies.

Questions are the valuable commodity now. Perhaps they always have been, but even more so in this landslide of opinion and content. As leaders our role is less about providing answers, and more about helping people to ask the right questions. Great questions help people to discern between competing opinions in order to craft a way forward. As research has highlighted, questions build both liking and learning - they help to build connections and trust. Yet many of our educational institutions and workplaces still focus on rote learning and parroting back facts.

So what are some great questions to ask? A quick search on Google revealed "350 Good Questions to Ask - The only list you'll need" followed by the next entry "253 Good Questions to Ask - The only list you'll need." As tempting as it is to just copy and paste those posts in, instead here are 10 questions I have fond helpful that provoke, challenge and extend our thinking:

1. What are our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats? There's a reason why a SWOT analysis is still beneficial. It forces us to look outside at the upside and downside possibilities, while also considering our own capabilities.

2. What does success look like? People work together more effectively when they're clear about the end state they're working towards.

3. What's the problem we're trying to solve? Sometimes we can be busy trying to solve something when we're actually not clear about the problem. As a result we can end up working towards solving the wrong problem. Work with people to define a problem statement - episode 33 has more information on how to structure that.

4. Who else is involved or impacted? It's easy for us to overlook the human element of situations, so always make an effort to consider who else should be involved.

5. What else could we try? We often stop at the first proposed solution but that's rarely the best way forward. Instead, make sure you bring out as many options as possible.

6. How do you feel about this? We can underestimate the emotional element. Feelings matter and they impact our ability to make decisions.

7. What's getting in our way? Or What is likely to get in the way? It's important to anticipate obstacles so we can plan options to push through or avoid them.

8. What progress have we made? Often we don't spend enough time reflecting on the progress we have made. Taking time to reflect can help encourage us to keep going.

9. What support is available? We often underestimate the amount of support available to us. It's important to consider the people and resources around that can be of assistance.

10. What will we do next? Help your people to move beyond conversation to action. I often encourage people to think about what they can do in the next 24 to 48 hours.

There will always be places on leadership teams for those who can ask the right questions. It turns out that a great question is as much about innovation as it is about information - it takes the conversation forward in a new direction. As leaders we need to focus less energy trying to have all the answers, and spend more time getting the questions right.

Well I hope that was helpful. I've brought together a range of our on demand resources into one place. This includes recordings of webinars on a range of leadership topics, and our Boost Your Assertiveness course. Each month I'll add another webinar, and there will be an additional video course added each quarter. Just go to the leadership.today website and click on the on demand link to take a free 7 day trial. Have a great week.

The Surprising Power of Questions by Alison Wood Brooks and Leslie K. John Harvard Business Review, May–June 2018 Issue https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-surprising-power-of-questions

It's often easy to see feedback as criticism. As a result, we can be tempted to ignore it or react negatively. This week we look at turning criticism into feedback and growth.

Hello and welcome to episode 83 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at turning criticism into feedback and growth.

Very early in my career, my boss at the time called me into his office. While I can't remember the exact words, I vividly remember the impact. In effect he said "Andrew - you're smart and doing good work. But you can use your critical thinking to be very critical. Rather than just spotting what's wrong, you would benefit from being more positive and trying to improve things yourself". I remember feeling hurt, disappointed, upset, confronted and discouraged. And I remember reflecting in the coming days that he was absolutely right. It was amongst the most helpful feedback I have ever received.

"I have some feedback for you" - be honest, what's your immediate response to those words? What's going on in your body? Are you feeling excited about someone giving you feedback? Probably not. More likely you are heading towards a threat response.

Our instinctive reaction is often to see feedback as criticism. But what is the difference between feedback and criticism? The difference is the perceived intent. If you think people are seeking to help you, it will feel like feedback. If you think people are seeking to hurt you, it will feel like criticism. It took me a few days, but I recognised that my boss was trying to help me. He saw potential in me, and astutely identified exactly what was holding me back. In fact over 20 years and numerous career moves later, that same ex-boss continues to provide excellent feedback and advice. I'm glad I was able to convert what I initially saw as criticism into feedback and growth.

As argued by Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall, feedback is often self-centred and poorly structured. Rather than bringing out the best in others, it's often an attempt to transfer advice from one person to another. It's better to think of feedback as an input in the development journey. Feedback isn't about telling someone what to do, rather it's about allowing them to see their impact more clearly so they can better align that with their intent. Often times the impact we have is vastly different to our intent.

Feedback is not always packaged well. As a result it can be tempting to just dismiss the feedback. On the receiving end it's easy to think that it is just their perception of events. But their perception is also their reality. To us our perception IS our reality. It's how we see the world.

When we take on more of a growth mindset, we take feedback and even criticism as an opportunity to learn, grow and adapt. We look for the reality in the perception.

Here are five tips for receiving feedback, and five tips for providing feedback.

On the receiving end of feedback:

1. Assume positive intent or, if you can't do that, separate the feedback from the intent. People rarely provide feedback to hurt you, after all giving feedback is hard and risky. But even if you think the feedback is meant to hurt or limit you, change your perspective to see it as data.

2. Seek further information. Ask the person for an example that relates to the feedback. This will help you to understand what you actually did and the impact it had. Help the person to make the impact you had even clearer. Make sure you express this as a desire to understand rather than to question their feedback.

3. Listen for the core of truth. Even if you're unsure that the intent is positive, there's probably some truth in the feedback. Sift through the feedback to find the truth.

4. Let the person providing the feedback know the impact their feedback has had upon you. Don't let people guess at the impact.

5. Seek further feedback. Even if it hurts and is hard, ask for and actively seek out additional feedback. It's the best way to grow and change our impact.

And when we're providing feedback:

1. Share your positive intent. Now, this isn't about a feedback sandwich approach - it's not about inserting negative feedback between two positive pieces of feedback. It's about enveloping your feedback in positive intent. Ensure that people walk away knowing that you're on their side and want to help them become even more effective.

2. Seek their perspective and response. Don't just drop the feedback and walk away. It's important to gain their perspective about the situation.

3. Invite a follow up meeting. While you've planned to provide the feedback, they haven't had that same chance. Make sure they do have an opportunity to think about that and have some additional time with you.

4. Dial up the positive feedback. We don't provide enough positive feedback. Think of it like a bank account - the more positive and encouraging feedback you provide, the greater the balance you have to draw on when you need to provide more challenging feedback.

5. Model an appetite for feedback. It's not reasonable to wander around throwing feedback at everyone if you're not open to receiving feedback yourself. Actively seek out feedback about specific areas.

Each of us can help turn criticism into feedback and growth. I hope you found the content helpful today in doing exactly that. We run webinars on a pretty regular basis here at Leadership Today on a range of topics, and so on the website at leadership.today you will find a bunch of pre-recorded webinars that we've done and also an upcoming webinar that you can register for. I look forward to seeing you on one of those webinars and also to speaking with you again next week. Have a great week.

The Feedback Fallacy by Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall Harvard Business Review March–April 2019 https://hbr.org/2019/03/the-feedback-fallacy

And a response to the article worth reading: https://hbr.org/2019/05/what-good-feedback-really-looks-like

Summary

When faced with unexpected negative outcomes, people tend to become more paranoid and attracted to conspiracy theories. This negatively impacts their ability to make sound, rational decisions. This week we look at five ways leaders can help overcome our tendency towards paranoia when faced with uncertainty.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 82 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at five ways leaders can help overcome our tendency towards paranoia when faced with uncertainty.

A firm I worked for was going through an acquisition. As part of the company being acquired, that meant moving to some beautiful new offices on a high floor overlooking gardens. We had only just moved in when there was the first of many morning teas to celebrate birthdays in the office. As we made our way into the open kitchen area I could not believe the amount of food. There wasn't just the traditional birthday cake, but also sushi, sandwiches, spring rolls and pastries filling the large table. Just before the speech began, I heard a low voice next to me say "Hey - you're one of the new guys, yeah? So here's the deal - make sure you take as much food as you can - maybe for lunch or to take home. Otherwise if there's food left over the management will cut back on how much they order next time". Sure enough, once we finished singing happy birthday, people were making their way back to their desks with loaded plates and containers full of food - more than enough to cover their lunch if not another meal on top of that. To me it looked like a somewhat overly generous way to celebrate staff and bring people together. But for the paranoid whisperer, the birthday celebrations had become just another way that the leaders were scheming to take something away from the workers. The acquisition provided fertile ground for all sorts of conspiracy theories and paranoia.

How prevalent is paranoia? One study showed 20% of people believe that someone was against them at some time during the last year. 8% of the population believe others are actively out to harm them.

In a work context, I've lost count of how many times people have said "the management" or some other elusive group were out to get them. There have been accusations of sabotage, stealing clients, or other teams intentionally making things hard out of spite. All of this resulted in cultures driven by blame, fear and even revenge.

Research demonstrates that paranoia is a predictable response to uncertainty and unexpected change. As human beings we try to make sense of negative and unexpected events, and often that involves finding someone to blame. Blaming others helps us to explain and make sense of events, even if the conspiracy theory we put together seems a little strange to others.

In one study researchers measured people's levels of paranoia and then had them play a card game where the chances of winning were manipulated during the game. Those with greater levels of paranoia tended not to learn from the outcomes in the game, expecting even higher levels of volatility than was present. High levels of paranoia decreased effectiveness. They made decisions and choices that weren't based on the experience of playing the game, but rather based on their perceptions of the person leading the game. As the experimenters increased the level of uncertainty, even the initially low paranoia participants started acting like those with high paranoia. Their learning also decreased and they became far less effective. When uncertainty was high decisions were based far more on their expectations than on real-time experience.

Now I can guess what you're thinking - when bad things are happening to you, surely it's natural to feel paranoid. But in an earlier study, researchers found that even when just observing a similar game people were inclined to become paranoid towards the person running the game as the uncertainty increased. You don't have to be on the receiving end of the negative outcome to become paranoid.

As the the author of Catch-22 Joseph Heller said, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." However, we often see ourselves as being in the spotlight - as if we are the main actor in a performance revolving around us. It's easy to then think that if something unexpectedly bad happens, that someone around us is pulling the strings. We can become hyper-attuned to others as a source of risk, particularly if we don't know them well. But if you have to choose between conspiracy and a misunderstanding, go with the misunderstanding every time. People aren't very good at conspiracies.

So what can we do about all of this? As a leader when the unexpected happens:

1. Create meaning even if you can't explain everything. Part of your role as leader is as meaning-maker. What do these events mean for the team and for individuals?
2. Find the predictable. Grab a hold of what you can control, and encourage your team to do the same. This helps to increase the level of certainty within your team.
3. Talk about the risk of paranoia and conspiracy theories. You might even share this research so people can manage the risk of conspiracy theories and pull themselves up when they see themselves falling into that trap.
4. Challenge interpretations of negative intent. Help people to steer away from assuming others are out to get them, and explore other potential reasons that might be driving their behaviour.
5. Connect people. It's much harder to think those you personally know well are conspirators against you. Help your team to understand their world and the pressures they are facing, then identify ways you can support each other.

Paranoia is a natural response to uncertain times, but that doesn't mean we have to put up with it. I hope these ideas will help you to steer your team through challenging times, bringing people together rather than driving them apart.

As always I've provided details of the research used in this episode in the show notes. And just before you continue on with your day, why not make sure you've hit the subscribe button and provided a rating for the podcast. That will help you and others to find future episodes. Have a great week.

References

Erin J Reed, Stefan Uddenberg, Praveen Suthaharan, Christoph D Mathys, Jane R Taylor, Stephanie Mary Groman, Philip R Corlett. Paranoia as a deficit in non-social belief updating. eLife, 2020; 9 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.56345

Raihani, N.J., Bell, V. Paranoia and the social representation of others: a large-scale game theory approach. Sci Rep 7, 4544 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04805-3

Summary

The objective of leadership is aligned motivation. When we inspire people from the outside in we build a team that contributes because they want to, rather than because they have to.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 81 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at inspiring others from the outside in.

The objective of leadership is aligned motivation. As leaders we want a group of people who aren't just motivated, but are motivated towards the same vision and objectives. There's no point in having a group of motivated people who are headed in different directions. It's not much better to have a group of people who know exactly where they are headed, but lack the motivation and drive to get there. As leaders we need to align the motivation of our people.

But how do we achieve this? Do we just need to hire people who are already on board with where we are headed as an organisation? And then what happens when the direction changes? How do we move people towards a new vision and direction? That's where understanding human motivation can be really helpful.

I've referred to the work of Deci and Ryan before. It's fair to say that they have done more to build our modern understanding of motivation than any other researchers. Deci and Ryan suggest that we often think about motivation as a single thing - that motivation varies just in amount. As a result we then try to work out how to make a person more motivated to do something we want, or less motivated to do something we don't want. Their work demonstrates that it's more helpful and accurate to think about types of motivation.

The first distinction they make is between autonomous and controlled motivation. With autonomous motivation I'm doing something with a sense of willingness, volition and choice. I'm undertaking the action or completing the work because I enjoy doing it, and I find it interesting and personally valuable. It's likely the work aligns with my values and interests. With autonomous motivation I do it because I want to.

With controlled motivation I'm doing something to gain a reward or to avoid punishment. I'm completing the work because I feel pressured, demanded or obliged. With controlled motivation I do it because I have to (or at least I feel like I have to).

Not surprisingly, Deci and Ryan found that autonomous motivation is much better for performance, creativity, problem solving, well-being and engagement. Having freedom and autonomy is a basic human need. We're much better off as human beings when we have autonomy and freedom.

When we think about autonomous motivation, we typically think about it in terms of intrinsic motivation - that it's something inside of us. Here we are doing the activity or work because we personally find it interesting and enjoyable, and not just because someone told us to do it. So it's easy to think of intrinsic motivation as 'good'. People then contrast that with extrinsic motivation, where we are doing an activity in order to get something else. That 'something else' might be a financial outcome, the praise and approval of others, or a good grade. Therefore many people lump all types of extrinsic motivation into the 'bad' category.

However, Deci and Ryan found that people could internalise extrinsic motivation in a way where they own it as their own. Over time a person could come to understand the inherent value of the activity and integrate it into who they are. The extrinsic element could be an idea or a concept such as a team purpose. If I come to identify with that purpose, I can eventually own the purpose as my own. At that point I have become autonomously motivated. I've taken the extrinsic idea and made it an intrinsic purpose. The leader who has helped me to do that has aligned my motivation. At that point I'm not doing it because you told me to do it, rather I'm doing it because I want to do it.

It's perhaps a subtle difference, but our job as leaders isn't to motivate people, but rather to inspire them. When we inspire someone we are sparking their motivation towards a particular direction. That's different to thinking we can somehow impart motivation onto others, or force them to be motivated. This change in mindset helps us to understand that aligned motivation is about inspiring people. As Deci puts it, it's not about focusing on how we can motivate others, but rather how we can set up the conditions where people can motivate themselves.

So how do we go about inspiring people from the outside in?

1. Understand what motivates our people. We take the time to uncover what connects people to the work, and what motivates them outside of work. We need to understand their perspective and interests. That takes time - there aren't any short cuts.
2. Communicate a compelling vision. We take our plans and shape them into a vision that is clear, concise and memorable. It's an influencing exercise. We need to approach it the same way we would try to sell someone a new product or service. It's an upfront investment that will pay dividends later.
3. Align individuals to the vision. We work with each individual to help explain the vision and why it matters in a way that is aligned with their interests. We allow our people to make the choice to engage.
4. Define roles in the context of the vision. We take the time to ensure all the work we undertake links back to the vision.

This helps to explain why the 'me too' and 'black lives matter' movements have been so successful in engaging a broader group of people where other approaches have had limited success. By way of illustration, both movements have allowed me as a white male to see my role in being part of the solution. So even though I haven't been on the receiving end of sexism, exploitation, racism or abuse in any significant way, I have been able to align my motivation with those who have. The countless leaders in both movements haven't motivated me, rather they have set out the conditions that allow me to understand their perspective and how that aligns with my own, and then demonstrated how I can support and help. That's a very different approach to telling me I have to change, even though clearly I have unwittingly benefited from being on the better end of the equation for years. Rather the leaders have inspired me by drawing out my personal values of fairness and equality, and by encouraging me to take action. And that's what great leadership looks like.

When we inspire people from the outside in we align their motivation, building a team that contributes because they want to, rather than because they have to. Great leaders take the time to listen and understand first.

I hope you found that episode helpful. In the show notes I've included links to a couple of videos with Edward Deci explaining Self-Determination Theory in more detail.

References

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fm1gt5YAM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGrcets0E6I

Hello there. Welcome to midweek motivate, where our goal is to build your leadership and give you something practical to try with your team.

We are in the final week of a six week coverage of the Six Daily Practices of Outstanding Leaders. So far we've looked at the importance of Reflecting, Inspiring, Developing, Connecting and Delegating. The final daily practice that we will explore today is Clearing.

Research I conducted early this year showed that 48% of people experience frustrations that impact their productivity at least daily. Those experiencing frustrations multiple times per day estimated their productivity at just 64% of what they could otherwise bring. 80% of those who experienced frustrations multiple times per day also said they frequently experienced negative work related stress. In summary, frustration are bad for your organisation, and even worse for your people. However people are often reluctant to voice their frustrations as they don't want to be seen as negative.

Leaders can help by Clearing the way for their people. Such leaders undertake four activities:

1. Identify frustrations - they work with their people to find out where frustrations exist. There's no point in trying to ignore frustrations as that just makes things work. Take the time to actively seek out what's getting in the way for people.
2. Investigate cause and impact - sometimes we can't change the cause of a frustration, but Clearing leaders recognise they can still reduce the impact of the frustrations on their people.
3. Champion continuous improvement - we don't need to fix everything overnight. If we help our teams to continuously improve each day, we can significantly reduce frustrations over time.
4. Measure and communicate productivity - frustrations directly impact productivity. It can be incredibly helpful to measure productivity and share with the team the positive impact of removing frustrations.

I encourage you to talk to your people this week about frustrations that impact their productivity. If you want to review the list of actions I've included it in the show notes.

This week is a replay of our 24th August 2019 episode - Seven Reasons to Get Back to Nature. We will be back next week with a brand new episode.