Understand Others Before They Understand You | Episode 033"Two monologues do not make a dialogue."Jeff DalyThe title of this topic may seem a bit anti-intuitive to managers who are constantly in a hurry and want to be understood. They hurry with the best of intentions - just to get the job done and to feel the adrenaline of speed and achievement.But 100% of the results in your team only happen through people. There is no other way. Nothing happens by itself. And these people, before giving in to their work, must first feel accepted, heard, seen, and be aware of the goals and priorities. Only then can they focus their attention and energy on achieving the goals.A good metaphor for this topic is when you squat before jumping. Before you jump, there is a moment of stabilization, squatting and only then bouncing. This jump stabilization is equal to your understanding of the people on the team with whom you are about to accomplish your goals. And only then, their understanding of your vision.To build a bridge between your vision and its fulfillment, you will inevitably need a team to help you. Not a team to bother you. Sometimes teams naturally hinder and sabotage their managers. This is a normal reaction when people feel they are used as consumables.This does not mean that managers view them as easily replaceable parts. But that may be the feeling of the people, and that feeling depends only on them. We must make some change if this feeling of consumables proves to be chronic.It is up to the manager not to ignore this sabotage by the team, hoping it will work out on its own. It is just a symptom of something that needs to be fixed. It can be a broken process that frustrates people. It can be the increasing pressure to do more with less. Or it could just be that people are not in the right places anymore and need job rotation.The state in which you have the right people in the right places is always temporary.It is only a matter of time before there is a change in the external environment, in the people on the team, or yourself. In other words, to have the right people in the right places, you will also need to have the right expectation that this configuration will be rearranged. To get this configuration - to have the right people in the right places, you must first be in the mode of listening, exploring, and getting to know each other. In short - in mode to understand them. And only then do they understand you.Once people move towards their goals, the fuel for their movement is in them. Unlike gas station fuel, the fuel that drives most of the people on the teams is free. This, of course, does not mean that they work for free. That means something else. The fuel that usually drives and energizes the people in the teams for a long time is free because it takes the form of:- Feeling that someone else cares about people as people, not just as positions;- Having a sense of belonging;- Taking pride in the work;- Having clear priorities;All the above are completely free. They give energy and meaning to the people in the teams.In this list, the emotional elements are a little more than the rational ones. And they are in this sequence. When discussing engagement and motivation, managers switch mainly to a rational mindset - how to evaluate and compare performance, what the bonus system is, and so on. But people are driven much more by emotional than by rational factors.And all these things that form the free fuel (feeling that someone else cares, pride in work, etc.), will not appear by themselves. They will emerge from people's communication with their managers. If these managers have the attitude to understand first, things happen very easily and naturally. Refueling with this free fuel, however, is not a one-time exercise. This charge also does not coincide with the monthly and quarterly job and career conversations. These conversations may go according to plan but refueling requires a different daily effort.No one fills their car at the gas station, only at the moment when they run out of fuel. But that's exactly what managers do with their teams. They think of them as people, not positions, only after they run out of fuel. Only when they are already on the verge of burnout.If you think that with monthly meetings or with such meetings in two weeks you can have and manage a team, you soon realize that you do not have a team. You just have people who report to you. But in reality - you do not have a team. Simply because you cannot know your people well if you do not keep up with them regularly for the operational and strategic goals.---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He---Book "Barriers to Change - How Managers Overcome Them Together with Their Teams" - https://amzn.to/2Qi8qGP

Acceptance Without Giving Up | Episode 032"If you have the determination to do something, it is done."ConfuciusImagine teaching a young boy how to ride a bike. The boy will hesitate, sway, and probably will fall many times over. However, you will not tell him he would never learn how to bike. You will accept his temporary failures, but you will not give up teaching him.Acceptance means that you follow the pace of the child and accept his speed of learning and development. And again - without giving up and without resigning from teaching him. You do not resign, simply because temporary failures are just that - temporary. Grit, perseverance, and discipline will help the child learn how to ride a bike. Just like any other adult has learned.But what happens in teams when people go through their temporary setbacks?Often their managers do not accept them. They do not accept failures; they do not accept people with temporary failures. One reason that this happens is that managers confuse acceptance with giving up. Acceptance is the ground on which new skills and confidence grow. If there is no acceptance, it is like planting wheat in an asphalt parking lot and waiting for something to sprout.What happens when there is no acceptance?When there is no acceptance, there are accusations, condemnation, and abdication. From the ground of accusations and condemnation raise fears, insecurities, and a desire to quit. No reasonable manager wants to develop these feelings in his people. However, they are emerging precisely because of managers who do not find the right way to create the right ground.As a manager, you accept others' failures because of you. Not because of somebody else. You need this healthy selfishness, so you do not take on the role of the martyr who helps, supports, and helps everyone to feel good and enough. No. The direct and immediate benefits of acceptance are for the other party - it receives encouragement, experience, and confidence. But the indirect and long-term benefits are for the accepting managers who do not give up.---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He---Book "Barriers to Change - How Managers Overcome Them Together with Their Teams" - https://amzn.to/2Qi8qGP

Dirty Yes | Episode 031 "Never prefer your personal stupidity to someone else's useful advice."SocratesThere is a phrase that illustrates a formal agreement, but also an actual disagreement in the team communication. I call it "dirty yes." Managers who chronically get such a "dirty yes" in their teams and wonder what is the reason for it, do not need to blame other people. They simply need to look in the mirror.One of the first reasons for this "dirty yes" to be so widespread is that the managers themselves give it to their teams. They promise resources they cannot provide. They guarantee rewards for which they have no authority. And finally, they make commitments to their managers to impossible goals and then impose them on their teams.Let us use a specific example. Imagine working with about 200 other people on one floor in an open space environment. At the beginning of the winter, you decide with some other managers to introduce a policy in which people must leave their coats in the wardrobes at the entrance. The purpose of this is to create a comfortable working environment for all 200 people. Not to turn work chairs into sources of any odors, not to have piles of scarves, hats, and any other winter accessories. All managers in the meeting agree with the rule and promise to introduce it on the same day. However, some managers, who are far from the entrance and the wardrobes, know that their teams will resist the rule and will probably not follow it. During the meeting, the managers give their "dirty yes" to all other managers. They agree because they do not want to admit that they cannot ensure the implementation of the rule, but they do not ask for an exception for their teams.At some point, the large accumulation of such a "dirty yes" can create an environment in which people have the feeling that they are constantly swimming in a river of hypocrisy. But in any team, hypocrisy cannot last long without the "help" of the manager of that team - with his actions or inactions.There are two main types of "dirty yes":- In good faith - people use it purposefully to achieve a better goal for their teams.- Malicious - people use it when they deliberately sabotage their colleagues or managers because they know that their mini-failure will be an even greater failure for someone else they want to harm.Naturally, the team is always a reflection of its manager. Almost every manager uses the "dirty yes" with the best of intentions, which, however, manifest in negative effects on the team.The antidote to this "dirty yes" is full transparency and the creation of a safe psychological space for people to express thoughtful disagreement - in all directions of the organizational chart. Especially in the northern direction.This "dirty yes" can be part of the corporate culture in places where people are more diplomatic, often agree, and rarely fulfill their commitments. Here, this phenomenon is just part of the unwritten rules. But everyone knows them and organizes their work according to them. Then the drama is not that bad.It is more complicated when this "dirty yes" is not part of the company culture, but it is a part of the personal professional culture of some managers. In these cases, people who have to work with such colleagues will go through a period of adaptation and finding an appropriate approach to work. It is important in this case that managers are not tempted to "fix" others and try to change them. Simply because it is impossible. The right strategy here is to manage the agreements with these people more precisely and on a more frequent basis so that the presence of "dirty yes" becomes visible in time.---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He---Book "Barriers to Change - How Managers Overcome Them Together with Their Teams" - https://amzn.to/2Qi8qGP

Silos + Micromanagement = Ineffectiveness | Episode 030In the usual speeches when starting a change, managers almost always use the same slogans: "Let's become more flexible, faster, more proactive." Naturally, this contrasts the current silos, internal bureaucracy, and suffocating micromanagement, in which 40-year-old experts explain themselves as students to their managers about how they allocate their time for the day. Silo thinking in managers occurs when, in a matrix structure, the achievement of the department's goals is placed in front of the achievement of the company's goals. For example, closing sales on paper is more important for sales managers than timely production and delivery. Or it is more important and comfortable for the production units to wait for the delayed materials than to look for suitable substitutes and ensure the shipment according to the initially agreed term with the clients. It can happen that instead of seeing and satisfying the greatest need of the client at the moment, the department managers waste time proving to each other who did not do their job on time. So they keep their backs at the department level, but they lose their reputation at the company level. There is nothing illogical in this self-sabotaging behavior of managers. It is a natural response to the way they are managed. They are probably micromanaged. 1) In which areas do you win battles at the departmental level but lose the war at the company level?2) How do you "contribute" to the formation of silos not only in the company but also in the teams themselves? 3) What is the painful change that you are postponing, but you know will be beneficial for your team?---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He---Book "Barriers to Change - How Managers Overcome Them Together with Their Teams" - https://amzn.to/2Qi8qGP

Managers, Not Companies, Take Risks | Episode 029Companies do not take risks. Individual managers in these companies take risks. Most people will hide under their desks when they need to take a chance that could cost them their job and career so far in the company. This fear naturally leads these same people to be preoccupied with trivial things that are hard to go wrong with. Over time this creates an avalanche of redundant processes, procedures, and inefficiencies. There is a paradox in which people are very busy, but, they do not have enough time. This is mainly due to people's tendency to engage in pseudo-busyness to feel needed in their work. Changes are needed to stop pseudo-busyness. Changes require risk-taking. Again, companies do not take risks. Only a few managers will take risks that can cost them their jobs. Every company grows because it solves specific problems for its customers. Over the years bureaucratic managers' interest has shifted to solving more of their own internal issues instead of clients' ones. But the appeal of outstanding managers remains on solving customer problems. What do you risk when you do not make bold risks?---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He---Book "Barriers to Change - How Managers Overcome Them Together with Their Teams" - https://amzn.to/2Qi8qGP

Performance Problem = Leadership Problem | Episode 028Let's start with the thesis that managers' primary responsibilities are to do everything possible for their teams to have excellent performance, regardless of whether they work in a change and transformation mode or normal conditions. It follows that if there is a problem with someone's performance, we have a leadership problem. Therefore, to improve team performance, leadership should be adjusted and improved in the first place. The outstanding individual performance is nothing but a function of outstanding leadership. Let's get political for a while. An even more understandable example in this direction is that if there is a problem with the representation of a minister in a government, the real problem is in the manager of that minister, i.e., in the prime minister. In city centers, people quickly identify where the real problem is in the government's representation and start protesting (in the prime minister, not in the civil servants). Things are not so clear in the company "governments." There is a tendency to explain poor performance by people's shortcomings rather than by the leader's weaknesses. The unsatisfactory performance of people in the teams is not explained by the fact that managers are constantly changing their priorities, fail to control their emotions, get distracted and forget about commitments that fall on their teams at the last moment of implementation, and conflicts arise. Weak managers explain their poor team performance by saying that the material is terrible, just like BB explains it. There are too many common parallels between poor government and poor corporate leadership. The most common thing is that there are accusations against others instead of looking at their own mistakes. This behavior is somewhat normal because all five of our physical senses are directed outward to assess the external environment. We have only one inner sense to evaluate our own actions. It doesn't function for everyone. It is everyone's conscience.---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He---Book "Barriers to Change - How Managers Overcome Them Together with Their Teams" - https://amzn.to/2Qi8qGP

Barriers to Change | Episode 027 Several significant internal barriers face any change at the individual and team levels.The first barrier is the lack of clarity. The mistake that managers often make here is to assume that their minds' clarity is the same as the clarity in the other people's minds on their teams. Overcoming this mistake is achieved by simplifying the message and using the most straightforward possible language, full of understandable pictures and metaphors. For example, suppose changes are being made to synchronize processes between different departments, instead of explaining the goals and purpose in dozens of slides packed with numbers and calculations. In that case, it is much easier to explain the memo in a simple message - "We make a change, so we can all row in one direction." Short and clear. To row in one direction, we must all see it first. Second, we need to get to work. Nothing more.The second barrier is the lack of focus. Once the purpose and steps of the change have been clarified, it is time to make it happen. At this stage, there is nothing more confusing than the frequent change of priorities. Overcoming this barrier is achieved by clearly defining who is doing what by when. And daily alignment of this focus.The third barrier to change is inertia and the comfort zone. People feel safe when they know what they are doing and have done it many times. This protects them from mistakes and saves them energy. But only when the external environment does not change. In large companies, it is possible to form remote islands of comfort zones simply because external dynamic change does not reach these inland islands. The way to get out of inertia and the comfort zone is by bringing these people closer to the changes taking place in the external environment.The fourth barrier is the natural resistance that occurs when change is imposed from the outside by force. Here we cannot help but draw an analogy with Newton's third law, which states: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Except for the world of physics, I think that this law also works in teams.Let's look at the situation with the coronavirus. Any average person would agree that walking in the park and hanging out with random people at that time is not a good idea. Almost no one will go for a walk independently and take a risk if they realize what that risk is. But when someone outside forbids walking in the park, that ban creates natural resistance because it is imposed outside by force. We do not react to the health restriction and protection against the virus, but to the restriction of our right to choose where to take a walk.Something similar happens in teams when they are about to go through some organizational changes. Even if these changes lead to something better, they will enjoy people's natural resistance and Newton's third law in a team environment if they are imposed by force from outside.This fourth barrier can be summarized by the conclusion that people are not against change but are against someone else trying to change them. Overcoming this barrier can happen by integrating people's opinions before the change itself begins. At the same time, it can increase people's involvement in its implementation. It can also improve the way it is executed by avoiding pitfalls that are probably not visible to everyone. They are not particularly visible to managers, who may look at things from above and have no real idea of ​​what is happening at the different company levels.The fifth barrier to change is the fear of the unknown. This fear can be beneficial, as it can prevent us from taking unhealthy risks. But this is only valid if we observe our anxiety and use it as a warning tool in decision-making. If, instead of us managing this fear, it seats in the driver's seat - something else happens - we find ourselves where the fear itself will take us in the worst-case scenario. It is only natural in this case that we have no desire to take action for change.The fifth barrier can be overcome by objectively looking at the different change scenarios - optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic. Then, the fear of the unknown gives way to something with denser contours, such as a plan of action with concrete measures to go through change.There are undoubtedly many other barriers that block change at the individual and team levels. What can be useful in realizing or going through change is to stop the forced pressure, the abrupt and emotional change of priorities, the constant exchange of arguments why the change should happen, and the pursuit of deadlines.Instead of forcing and pushing, one can stop and pay attention to the real barriers blocking change at the moment.      1) What is the most significant barrier to change for you? 2) Who is responsible for removing the barriers to change in your team? ---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He---Book "Barriers to Change - How Managers Overcome Them Together with Their Teams" - https://amzn.to/2Qi8qGP

Nostalgia Hinders Change | Episode 026 One thing that can stop the wheel of change is nostalgia. There is such a mind trap, in which we remember all the wonderful moments from the past. In the present and the forthcoming change, we see mostly the negative ones. There is a term for this. It's called "declinism." It is a compensatory mechanism of our mind to deal with the present by idealizing the past. This creates a sense of stability from the past. But there is also the negative side effect of artificially sweetened nostalgia.   The emergence of nostalgia for the old days in the teams means two things:   1) People are already of pre-retirement age;   2) People are bored at work. The work environment is the same. There are no working incentives to engage. That doesn't mean there's no enough work. On the contrary. There is a lot of work, but monotonous one;   If both things are combined - people are elderly, and their work is monotonous, it is only natural that the people are nostalgic about the past. Hence the resistance to change. Junior managers may think that making changes in such cases is done with firing people. This is a quick but not sustainable solution. Sustainable change in teams does not happen with a change OF people, but with a change IN people. The fast firing of people is more of a sign of managers' leadership deficits. Of course, there are exceptions. The next question is: "What can bring about a change in people to bring about a change in companies?". The answer is a little above in the text. We cannot change the age of people. But the incentives for change in work can change. From there, to change the attitude towards change.   1) What is the healthy relationship between nostalgia and fantasy?   2) What do you need to change to maintain a healthy relationship between nostalgia and fantasy? First in yourself? Then in the team?  ---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He

Change Support | Episode 025The Sioux Indians say that even the best warrior cannot lift the smallest stone with one finger. Similarly, in teams, managers are the hinge and the supporting hand that must make sure that the team can lift every stone in the way. To successfully go through change, managers need to provide support to their team with at least three things: 1) Clarity of purpose2) Flexibility in plans3) Transparency in communication The main concerns of people when starting a change are related to uncertainty. The above three things address these concerns precisely by continually reminding the goals, showing flexibility in the plans according to the actual situation, and full transparency about what is happening. These three actions reduce the feeling of insecurity and focus on things that can be controlled. Then, when people feel insecure about change, their instincts will trigger doing the familiar. But faster and with more dedication. This is a mistake.In these moments of change, there is a need for the people in the teams to be comfortable with the discomfort. To begin gradual changes in their actions. Even at the cost of inconvenience. Without being tempted to go back to the old ways of working.Going back to doing things the old way, but faster, harder, and more dedicated, will only sabotage change. It will increase frustration. The typical mistake when communicating during a change is that managers only share when they have good news. This can create a vacuum of uncertainty and confusion when there is a lack of communication for a long time, when "there is nothing to communicate." The truth is that psychological safety is created by creating predictability. Predictability is rendered through regularity in communication - every day.There are three essential things in real estate - location, location, location.There are three essential things in teamwork during a change - communication, communication, communication.    1) On a scale of 1 to 10, how clear are the company goals for you personally? 2) On a scale of 1 to 10, how clear are each team member's goals individually?---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He

What Determines the Negative Feedback to Be Motivating? | Episode 024           One of the primary motivators of the people in the teams is getting positive feedback. The main demotivator is getting negative feedback. Sometimes, receiving negative feedback can have a strong motivating effect.         The real question here is: What determines if negative feedback is motivating?         Negative feedback is in abundance during change, from clients, colleagues, other managers, etc. So, if managers support their people to use it as a motivator instead of a demotivator, it can significantly affect people's work - both emotionally and rationally.          Some people say that negative feedback can positively affect them if it is given in the right way - well-intentioned, balanced, on time, etc. Others say that any negative feedback has a highly motivating effect if it is provided by a professional or a respected person. Here I think of Dr. House. He almost always points out the poor performance of the people in his team. To this, he adds outright insults, garnished with sarcasm. Despite the constant bombardment of other doctors with negative feedback, Dr. House has a kind of charisma that attracts and keeps people around him. He doesn't keep them until they retire, but he keeps them anyway. It turns out that if people work with a person they respect for their outstanding technical expertise, receiving negative feedback from that expert can be motivating.         In the above two examples, people accept negative feedback as motivating if something from the external environment meets their previous expectations. Here, the feedback is adequately provided, or a respected expert gives it. However, this attitude puts people at a significant disadvantage. One in which they depend on someone else to motivate them. It's like outsourcing your motivation to a third party. Such a party that probably does not care whether or not you are inspired at your work.         Let's return to the source of motivation where it belongs from the very beginning - in the person himself. Not in someone else's expertise. Not in other people's skills for giving feedback. Only in the person himself.         Now, the crucial question becomes a little more guiding. It is:   What in each person turns negative feedback into motivating?         Before you continue reading, take some time to answer this question for yourself.What makes negative feedback motivating is the way one looks at it. Does he see it as external advice on how to improve his work? Or he sees it as an accusation that he is not doing well and is not up for the job. Of course, if it is the first way, things are not taken personally, and one can become even better at what one does. If we look at the feedback in the second way, then any negative feedback will be a reason for self-doubt and excuses.          Here, the good thing is that how a person looks at feedback does not depend on someone else, but only on the person himself. But to look at it requires, first, parking the ego. Then the desire for development. Then, the desire for actual change. Nothing more.         Here is an exercise you can do to accept negative feedback in a motivating way over time. Get negative feedback that applies to your colleagues, regardless if the feedback is written or oral. Take this feedback, which applies to another person, and see which part of it might be valid for you. You know very well that this feedback is not for you. But if you recognize something that may apply to you, it may be an idea for your improvement.         To make the exercise even more interesting, you can get your team together and have everyone give negative feedback to a random colleague on one sheet of paper. Then take all the sheets and shuffle them without seeing their contents. Then, let each person get a sheet of paper that does not apply to him but read it as if it were written just for him. This exercise will help people not to take the negative feedback too personally. But to accept it with desire and willingness to change.          1) Which negative feedback you give to your colleagues is also valid for you?          2) What will change in your daily work if you apply the negative feedback you give others to yourself?---Book "Cold Shower for Managers: Empower and Inspire Your Team with Your Humility and Accountability by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/2Ka23CU---Book "Park Your Ego: Face Your Bullsh*t and Own It" by Plamen Petrov on Amazon - https://amzn.to/38VW3He