Tips from the Undercover Boss: What does "they" tell you?

If you're up for a bit of Reality TV (the kind that won't rot your brain or leave you feeling unclean and in need of a bathe), I'd suggest the series Undercover Boss. In the next few posts, I'll explain why. For today, let's look at the sinister use of "they" in organizations. 

I've lately become a fan of the American TV series, Undercover Boss*. Yes, it's "reality" TV but its redeeming quality is that it highlights the major and continuing disconnect in organizations between the folks who make strategy and the people who actually make it all happen every day.

Can you see your CEO mopping toilets?

In each episode, a TV crew follows the CEO of a major company while he poses as an entry-level worker to see what life's really like on the front lines of his own organization.

Leaving behind not only the C-suite but also their (usually large) homes, families and pampered lifestyles, the human side of each CEO is revealed. Each struggles to deal in his own way with his new transient reality of temporary, insecure jobs and moving around from one motel to another.

The situations are predictably hilarious, as these high-powered execs push mops, clean out horse (and human!) shit, try to keep up with the inhuman pace of modern assembly lines and, in more than a few cases are actually told: you're fired!

A whole new take on "bottom line"

What makes it good TV are of course the human interest stories that emerge as the Undercover Bosses learn first-hand what effect their decisions (often driven by cost-cutting and "efficiency") have on the daily lives of their staff.

The bosses also hear staff using phrases like "Head Office" and "Corporate" and "it's policy" as they do things that clearly don't work and often actually make their job a lot harder.

These employees (even if unwittingly) have the chance to "speak truth to power" and let the Big Boss know, in no uncertain terms, that there is a very real "Us versus Them" divide in the organization.

And in case you think that doesn't matter, read on...    


What "they" tells you, and why you should listen

In "They" have a lot to answer for Richard Branson writes:

A company's employees are its greatest asset, particularly in service-based operations where your people are your product. When a company fails to grasp this simple business tenet, the result is invariably an oppositional "us and them" divide between management and front-line staff.

Managers and business leaders should watch for this tendency. A company where the staff consistently overuses the word "they" is a company with problems.

If employees aren't associating themselves with their company by using "we," it is a sign that people up and down the chain of command aren't communicating – and if that turns out to be the case, you'll usually find secondary problems throughout the company, affecting everything from development to customer service.

Repairing an "us and them" environment is a cultural challenge that usually calls for greater employee involvement and improved internal communications from the executive suite to the shop floor. In my experience, middle management is a good place to look for the source of the problem. Feedback from up and down the chain often hits a wall in the person of a midlevel manager who has fallen victim to the "knowledge is power" syndrome.

Identifying such blockages and unclogging corporate arteries will bring huge payoffs.

Watch for my next post, which will include tips and practical ideas for handling these stubborn and unhelpful middle-management communication blockages!

Where you can find Undercover Boss

In Australia, full episodes are available to replay on Ten's website: scroll down in the right-hand window until you find Undercover Boss, then select from recent episodes.

Outside Australia, you can try YouTube or your local network's website. (In fact, if you're a reader and you find a link to episodes of the show, please be sure to share the URL in the comments below - thanks!)

* - big hat-tip to Andrew & Sascha Rixon in Melbourne for letting me know about the series

Visitor, Complainer, Customer for change - how aware and involved are your people?

Summary: This second post in the People and the Change Journey series tells you how to assess people's level of awareness, involvement and readiness to engage with change. Learn the differences in how Visitors, Complainers and Customers view change and how to "pace" your interactions with each to produce success.

What is "resistance" to change?

One time a senior executive I was coaching recounted how a change initiative had manifestly failed to take root among this team.

Punctuating the end of his story, he threw his hands up and said, "I don't get it! I TOLD them exactly what I wanted from them. What went wrong??"

I'm not trying to be tough on the guy. Faced with a need for action and urgent deadlines, he was just trying to get his point across ASAP. His choice of technique was, however, not very likely to produce success - a bit like the English-speaking tourist in Paris who SPEAKS EVEN LOUDER when the waiter doesn't understand the food order, or an exhausted mother who screams harder so her child will finally do as it's told.

When you're frustrated it's easy to conclude that the other person is being willfully stupid, rebellious and is intent on resisting you. But what if, like the French-speaking waiter in Paris, the other person literally doesn't understand what you're saying because you each have a widely different view of the situation?


Three views of change: VISITORS, COMPLAINERS, CUSTOMERS

Visitor

Someone who does not see any need for change

A Visitor believes things are fine just as they are and does not recognize that any problem exists. On the surface, Visitors can seem rather naive and may be in denial about the need for change: nope, everything's just fine here, thanks! Their agreeable nature is easy to mistake for engagement, when it may be just compliance, paying lip-service with no real understanding of the situation or what's required and expected of them.

Another class of Visitors are sometimes labelled as lacking in motivation, willingness and desire to cooperate. These employees are largely content to "just show up" and do the minimum required; disengaged and disenchanted staff also fall into this camp: well it's not down to me, is it?

Whichever the class of Visitor you encounter, they are united in one thing. In behavioural terms, Visitors are quite wary of the possibility that they might have to change something about themselves, most often because they simply don't see any reason for such change.

Complainer 

Someone with a problem but who does not (yet) feel the desire to take action

Complainers are impossible to miss: they are definitely aware that a problem exists...and seem determined that everyone else should know too. Given half a chance they will describe in excruciating detail just how bad it is, how they are suffering, moan, moan, moan, etc.

When offered suggestions on how to remedy their dire situations, a Complainer will reply: Wellll...I can't do THAT because of X and that other idea won't work either and I tried that already but those stupid people in (insert: accounts, marketing, engineering, senior management) never cooperate...Yes, but I can't...Yeah, but...Yeah, but....Yeaaahhh, BUT!

In behavioural terms, Complainers do not see any need to change their own behaviour. It's always someone or something else's fault and the need for change is located externally to themselves. They are great finger-pointers, masters of the "blame-storm."

What Complainers fundamentally lack is awareness that they themselves need to DO something about the situation they're complaining about. Though they clearly feel frustrated by their difficulties, they aren't (yet) ready to change. They will instead adopt the role of helpless victim. As a result Complainers are often labelled "resistant to change." In fact, they are not so much resistant as powerless: they actually feel they can do nothing, lacking the resources, skills, talents and attributes required to act.

Customer 

Someone who knows there is a problem AND is ready to do something about it

Customers for change are a delight to work with. A Customer for change sees there is a need for change, recognizes that he/she has a part to play in it and wants to do something about it. Customers, in short, are ready to roll up their sleeves and get down to creating solutions. You may safely give them direct tasks to complete and have confidence that they will accept the task and will find it useful.

In behavioural terms, Customers are clearly motivated to change their own behavior. They understand what's required of them, know what they want and accept that they need to work to get it.

Turning Visitors and Complainers into Customers

As a change agent it's useful to assume that people are doing the best they can with the resources and level of awareness that they have available to them at the time. The Change Journey often involves going to where people are in order to bring them along to where they need to be in order to succeed. To achieve this, try "pacing" people - meeting each different view of change according to its speed of moving forward.

VISITORS - Walking pace
Imagine a Visitor meandering along at an ambling pace with little awareness of any need for change and no urgency. If you meet them with a running pace and urge them to move faster, they're likely to ask, "Why?! What's the rush...?" If you grab an arm and try to pull them along to move faster, they're likely to respond by moving even more slowly. So when interacting with Visitors, it pays to remember the old adage: When it comes to people: fast is slow, and slow is fast.

Or put another way, Resistance leads to Persistence: the more you resist accepting the Visitor's reality (moving at a walking pace) the more that person will persist in the behaviour. Rather than being disappointed, impatient or frustrated with Visitors, you'll need to modify  your pace and find ways to engage with them at their own speed.

A useful technique is to highlight the strengths and positive characteristics that you notice the Visitor exhibiting. Remembering that your goal is to create an awareness of the need for change, you'll find positive feedback is far more likely to elicit an interested response than will criticism.

COMPLAINERS - Jogging pace
Complainers move faster than Visitors, however they often don't expend that extra energy in productive ways. The goal at this stage is to transition a Complainer into a Customer who knows there's a problem AND that they need to do something about it.

With Visitors your choice of language is important. See if you can reframe the Visitor's complaints about the negatives, barriers and obstacles they face into positive statements about things that they actually want to have happen - as goals for change and requests that  can be acted upon. To be clear: do not give a Complainer any tasks to complete. A Complainer's self-concept is often that of helpless, passive victim. The suggestion that he or she should act will often elicit a long explanation of why it's impossible to act, with lots of "Yeah, but" statements.

Rather than telling Complainers they need to act, enable them come to the conclusion for themselves. Use very passive, indirect language, "what needs to happen to improve the situation?" and assign them observation tasks: "what is happening that you want to continue to happen? What else?"

CUSTOMERS - Running (even Sprinting!) pace
It's worth mentioning as well that among Visitors and Complainers you may find "hidden Customers." Hidden Customers have goals that they want but may not be well-versed at expressing them or are simply stuck in the rut of avoidance and ineffectual whingeing about their situation. Again, pace yourself to the person's reality and help them to frame a goal that meets their preferences, helping them to become a Customer for change.

People will shift back and forth between the three states of Visitor, Complainer and Customer over time and in different contexts. Working with Customers is the ideal - then your task as change agent is to agree on the race, then point them in the right direction and just get out of their way!

Follow these tips to achieve success with your team and remember that sometimes when it comes to change: slow down in order to speed up!


Adapted from material by Stephen Covey, John Kotter and Fletcher Peacock in his book, Water the Flowers Not the Weeds.

Happy Chinese New Year: The Tiger

Gung Hay Fat Choy / Gong Xi Fa Cai

This weekend we enter the Chinese Year of the Tiger, year 4708 of the Chinese calendar and the third in the cycle of 12 years in the Chinese zodiac.

Today I want to wish all my friends, colleagues and clients throughout Asia and around the world a prosperous and healthy year ahead!


Goodbye to the Ox

Last year was the Year of the Ox, which was meant to bring prosperity through fortitude and hard work. It's usually a conservative year, one of traditions and values, of stability and growth where patience and diligence pay off.

Perhaps the first stirrings of economic recovery that we've seen at the tail end of the year have been a product of societies resetting their moral compass and looking to more conservative practices in the financial sector...?

Welcome to the Year of the Metal Tiger

Hot passion meets cold steel with the arrival of the year of the Metal Tiger. This combined sign signifies both the energy to begin activity and the determination to follow it through to the end.

Forget about last year’s slow plodding! Events set in motion now will pick up speed and continue until either the objective is attained...or the whole endeavour crashes and burns.

A character trait of high-spirited Metal Tigers is that they tend to jump to conclusions. To stay on the positive side of this energetic year, a useful corrective to this habit that we all exhibit on occasion is to ask lots of questions rather than making unfounded assumptions.

If you are in a leadership role this year, you may do well to remember the following:

In the past the best leader was the one with the best answers.
Today the best leader is the person who knows how to ask the best questions.

Tigers - powerful and proud...yet endangered

Even if you do not follow Chinese astrology, there is a crisis this year that is very real and that you can help to do something about.

The world's tiger population is under threat.

It is the WWF's goal to ensure wild tigers are no longer facing extinction by the next Year of the Tiger in 2022. You can help support their work to save tigers by making a donation.


.

Apprentice Final analysis, RWA: Effective Management

Summary: Management is usually defined as "getting work done through people." More to the point, I think it's "the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it" (paraphrasing former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower). In this final post of my series reviewing the personalities and behaviours of candidates on The Apprentice Australia I'll discuss how Effective Management cost the losers, decided the winner...and how it could have all ended very differently.


Leadership and Management

Increasingly it seems leadership is outpacing management as the focus of development for those people in an organization whose job it is to "get things done through people." Leadership is seen as sexy, management as necessary but...mundane.

So just what is the difference between the two? Some thoughts:

Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.
~ Warren G. Bennis (scholar, consultant, author)

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.
~Peter F. Drucker (management consultant, writer)

Management is about coping with complexity. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change.
~John P. Kotter (Harvard professor of Organizational Behaviour)

The renowned management theorist Henry Mintzberg at McGill University has lately published a book simply entitled, Managing. In a recent interview on the subject, he commented:

The narcissistic view of leadership [as the primary focus] has taken organisations off the rails. Leadership isn't better than management...I want people to realize that one component of management is leadership but there are lots of other components - information, action, how you involve yourself, how you connect, and all sorts of things.

The grand final of The Apprentice Australia provides a brilliant illustration of his point. In fact I think the most apt comment on management that sums up this week's episode is the following:

Good management is the art of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work and deal with them.
~ Paul Hawken (environmentalist, journalist entrepreneur)

Episode review - the Final Challenge

I've previously written about the Battle inside your Brain in which the emotional (limbic) and the rational (cortical) centres of your brain vie for control over your behaviours and actions.

I'm going to use that same concept to talk about the performance and behaviour of the three finalists, offering an interpretation of how each one's limbic Emotional Reactive style (ER's, also sometimes known as Survival Strategies) interplays and battles with his/her Adult Rational Type (ART).

Gavin's elimination
When asked what motivated him to want to be the apprentice, the pressure got the better of him and Gavin answered from his Emotional Reactive style as Performer/Achiever* by essentially saying how he wanted to succeed, to achieve and to have lots of money.

By contrast, Gavin has previously shown that he is master of the ART* of diplomacy, genuine charm and building relationships with people. Had his ART won the Battle inside his Brain, he might have said something like, "Mr. Bouris, I relish the opportunity to interact with a wide variety of people and help make them a success working together. I want to apply my knowledge of the law and my experience to build a business alongside you, where I'll be learning the things that I don't yet know about the business world from someone who's been there and done it successfully."

Gavin did not answer this way, and so it was obvious when the Boss revealed only two candidates were welcome on the final ride that Gavin would be the one to leave. His focus on his own personal success and achievement was noted and complimented, but he was eliminated because he failed to use his ART and show that he was a team player. Mark Bouris' final comment: "Gavin, we always get the best out of you, but you haven't gotten the best out of your teammates."


Why Heather lost
In the Boardroom Heather has consistently done a poor job presenting herself and giving clear reasons why she should be hired. At the start of this episode she rhymed off a list of adjectives about herself...but did not link them to any benefits. Moreover, many the things she affirmed were empty words that clearly don't reflect her actual performance to date.

I think this shows a pronounced lack of self-awareness. Her response to critical feedback (both in the past and later on in this episode) has not indicated a willingness to take the lesson; it's been self-justifying, flustered, defensive. These are both indicators of her Emotional Reactive style, the Perfectionist*. Faced with stressors and threats to her self-image that her limbic brain literally reads as life-or-death, Heather's Survival Strategy is to always be in control, always be right.

It wasn't always like this. Early days, Heather made frequent reference to ethics and integrity. At her best, then, her facility with the ART* of integrity, high standards and setting a clear course of action ought to have encouraged straight dealing in a team that's following a clear vision. Instead, victory in the Battle inside her Brain went too often to Heather's Perfectionist ER.

Context: granted, during this challenge Heather had to manage a team of the three most recent departees from the show (Sabrina, Mary-Anne and Gavin); granted, Sabrina had neither forgotten nor forgiven her previous differences with Heather, while Mary-Anne was true to type and swift to condemn Heather's decisions. The fact remains that neither Sabrina nor Mary-Anne had such bad blood towards Morello. That animosity had to have come from somewhere.

We got a reminder early in this task of where that animosity might have come from, as Heather reverted to a take-charge-and-keep-control style. As a result the atmosphere in Team Eventus was rancorous from the very start and only worsened as Heather progressively alienated her team over the course of the task. Despite this, in the Boardroom Heather claimed that in this task she had "let go of that stranglehold of control" that she'd previously insisted upon. I think her Perfectionist ER had her in such a grip, had made her so un-self-aware, that she genuinely believed that was the case.

The key moment of insight came when Heather said, "this task is about me winning the job as Apprentice." At that point it was clear to me that she would lose. She had misunderstood the nature of the task - the outcome of the task was the winner would become the apprentice, but the task itself was about managing a team of people to deliver an outcome - a task that she had failed virtually from the outset.

Heather's primary focus of being in control and being right was also in evidence when she several times expressed her motivation: "I will prove a lot of people wrong," and "I have so much to prove."

And so in the end we did see her passion, determination and desire to win. Her personal performance was impressive. As Brad Seymour commented, "she was an absolute machine - across about fourteen different tasks all at once!" He also observed: "a little more trust wouldn't have gone amiss." The verdict: Heather is a brilliant performer but not a team player and was ultimately unable to manage others. Mark Bouris' final analysis:

You get the job done, you're not out there for a popularity contest...but whilst you might get the job done, sometimes you leave a little bit of carnage behind, there's some hurt and...you might get the job done this time and in this challange, but in my game you've got to show up again the next day and the next day - everybody's got to work together.

Noting her lack of self-awareness and self-management, Mark Bouris asked her point-blank: "is it possible during the task that, in the moment you don't read it?" Meaning: you don't see the effect you're having on others, the chaos and carnage that's resulting? Asked further: "could you do what Morello does, sit down and hash it through with everyone?" Heather said, "Absolutely."

Yet she missed noticing the need to do it, missed noticing the effect it was having in the team she was meant to be managing, missed the point of the task itself...and for all these things she was judged as not up to the role of National Business Development manager - which I think was the right call.

Heather's only chance to win would have been to engage more in her ART of engaging others to rally behind a cause and lay out clearly the task at hand; instead her merciless Perfectionist ER caused her to do it all herself and alienate not only her team but The Boss as well.

Why Morello won
In his own words, "I was myself from week 1 to week 10." True to form, Morello employed his ART*, showing himself once again to be a Practical Problem Solver with a Democratic leadership style. He was happy to delegate responsibility to others, his teammates held him in high esteem and were pulling for his success, resulting in great team spirit and camaraderie.

Morello deftly managed the high-energy and strong-willed Carmen by matching her energy levels and steering her drive in positive, productive activity. He'd made good mates of Sam and Lynton from living in the Apprentice house together and while he sought their input, his was the ultimate say as project lead.

Where it nearly fell down for Morello was in moments of excitement and high energy, when his Emotional Reactive style of Adventurer/Fun-seeker got the better of him. When the Battle in his Brain tipped in favour of limbic response, he was constantly throwing out new/ bigger/better/more ideas for how things could be a show, a lot of fun, entertaining for all involved! In the Boardroom assessment he got his knuckles rapped for engaging in too much theatre and having just too many stories/themes/ideas going at the same time. Learning how to "know when to say when" will be useful discipline for this new Apprentice.


RWA - Effective Management

Morello succeeded because he was able to take his team through the Six Steps of Effective Management:

1. "Lay down the law." - It would seem that he clarified the roles, goals and expectations so that each person's individual efforts are contributing to the group objectives and goals. Doing this at the outset provides an underlying source of enduring continuity in the face of transition, change and even crisis periods to come.
   
   
2. "Talk it through with them." - by encouraging expression, his team members had the chance to say what they think and feel. Free expression like this may well cause conflict. That's normal and necessary. What is required is an agreed way to deal constructively with such conflict. As we've seen too often on other Apprentice tasks, unexpressed emotional reactions do not go away but instead go underground to fester and bubble up in unproductive ways at inopportune moments.
   
   
3. "We're going to make this big!" - With the emotional energy released in the previous step now ready to be put to practical use, this step answers the question "what's in it for me?" to tap into the passion and drive of each team member. This step is about getting things done, the achievement of aspirations.
   
   
4. "Guys let's get together on this" - The previous step unleashed each person's self-interested passion and drive for results. Now is the time to ensure there is a personal connection so that internal competition does not tear the team apart. Morello's personality suggests a sense of personal commitment to build authentic relationships between team members, who as we saw this week gladly go the extra mile for him...and for each other.
   
   
5. "Getting it done." - This step is about the actual step-by-step execution of the plans, adjusting resources, ensuring good information flow and adjusting on-the-fly to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.
   
   
6. "Here's the positive outcome." - Working with Morello you have no doubt that at the end of the task there's going to be celebration, a chance to talk about what people did well and highlighting contributions...all the kinds of things that look at the long term and serve to build lasting relationships.
   

By covering all six of these steps Morello unified his team with Effective Management. He was able to get his team members to do what he wanted them to do - because they wanted to do it and wanted him to win - and in the end he came out on top.

To find out more from tmc about the six steps of Effective Management and how to apply them in your own management style, contact me directly.


Your thoughts & opinions

I hope you've enjoyed this series of posts reviewing The Apprentice Australia. In this series I have enjoyed sharing my views on the candidates' personalities and behaviours, and sharing some of the tools/models that I use in my consultancy work to provide you with Real-World Applications.

Now the series is over, I'd love to hear your comments about the show, these posts, your experiences at work, or any other thoughts you'd like to share. Just click on Comments and you're ready to write!



*I will post an overview of the 9 Emotional Reactive ER styles in the near future, along with the 8 Adult Rational Types (ARTs). Watch this space!



Related previous posts:
Analysis of episode 1, RWA: Foundation & Force
Preview of episode 2, RWA: Conflict Management
Apprentice week 2 analysis, RWA: Giving/Receiving Feedback using Head & Heart
Apprentice week 3 analysis, RWAs: Team Leadership and Setting a Team Culture
Apprentice week 4 analysis, RWA: Coaching for high performance
Apprentice week 5 analysis, RWA: "The Relationship is the Customer"
Apprentice week 6 analysis, RWA: The FIT model
Apprentice week 7 analysis, RWA: Authentic Emotional Intelligence
Apprentice episode 8 preview: double trouble
Apprentice week 8 analysis, RWA: Effective Collaboration

Photo credit: Apprentice trio, Andrew Morello.
.

Apprentice week 8 analysis, RWA: Effective Collaboration

Summary: We know collaboration often brings greater benefits than competing or working alone. So how come we don't do it more often? The answer is simple: fear. This post reviews the combined episodes 8/9 of The Apprentice Australia and offers a Real-World Application (RWA) in how to overcome fearful states and promote effective collaboration.


Review of episodes 8 & 9
Taking both episodes together, we saw the remaining candidates exhibit many of their habitual behaviour patterns - with effects both good and ill.

Sabrina was fired in the first half of the episode for her poor conflict management ability and for the cardinal sin of fence-sitting. Faced with Mary-Anne and Heather's respective versions of self-assertion and the sparks that resulted, Sabrina seemed to just step back and keep herself out of the fray. Sabrina called them a pair of "bossy-boots" and stated that she found Heather "forceful" (with strong negative connotation) yet while the clear conflict and tension between her teammates had a negative effect on performance, she did nothing. Her response in the Boardroom on the conflict was: "I'm in the middle." To which Mark Bouris replied, "That's not a good place to be" and Sabrina exclaimed, "Oh!" in a small voice, unaware that her withdrawal and conflict avoidance would be her downfall.

This was a missed opportunity for her to engage with the other two authentically, perhaps to admit that she frankly didn't know what to do but that something needed to be done to address the conflict. It's hard to say what the result would have been, but often an honest admission and willingness to name the elephant in the room is enough to get people thinking differently. That Sabrina felt out of her depth was clear when in the Boardroom she added: "I think it takes character to step up and admit that you are not qualified to do something." She's right, and here I think we finally got a glimpse of the authentic Sabrina...but the timing was tragically too late and she paid the price.

Mary-Anne was this week's second departure, fired for a lack of collaboration and "mateship" with Morello on the Shopping Channel challenge. Having fair bowled Morello over to be Project Leader, her style as leader demonstrated poor judgement in product choice for him to sell and in failing to do for him as he had done for her: support a team member in a moment of difficulty.

Mary-Anne's strong focus on competence has in past weeks prompted her to put her hand up and take reponsibility straightaway when things have gone wrong (particularly on the Mudgee Pub Night challenge). This is to her credit, an example of her Pacesetting leadership style at work, with an expectation of competence and very high standards for performance. Where it falls down for her was shown this week, as Morello fell afoul of those same high standards by making a simple mistake, and was punished with laughter, isolation and embarrassment. For her intolerance, she got fired.

Heather was very assertive about how to do the band makeover in the first challenge in the all-girls team, then not assertive enough about how to run the teleprompting when paired with Gavin on second challenge, which invites consideration of just how well she works with female colleagues (from my recollection, most of her head-butting in past episodes has been in all- or majority-female teams). As I'd said in the week 8 preview, her take-charge, my-way-or-the-highway style produced conflict, which she showed she still has to learn how to manage. In the first challenge, having appointing herself the lead for two of the tasks, Heather once again overextended herself: she initiated a last-minute remix of the band's demo tape (the quality of which came in for harsh criticism by the music industry execs) and running dangerously behind schedule with the band's styling appointment.

Meanwhile in the Boardroom it took Heather a long time to back herself on the subject of her conflict with Mary-Anne. She practically needed to receive permission from Mark Bouris before stating her opinion on the matter. Based on the music execs' reaction to her presentation, I think she gets easily triggered by hearing advice and feedback (however constructive) and responds emotionally by trying to explain herself. In the final episode I think she'll place second; what costs her the victory will be inflexibly expecting things to be done her way, lack of awareness of her effect on others, and the combination of timidity at making a case for her value-add/reactivity towards advice that is actually meant to help her to develop and grow.

I looked to Gavin for some real changes this week and to my delight we were treated to a very different side of him in both of this week's challenges. After my plea last week for him let people in and be more genuine, I think he has shown us some authenticity. As with all new behaviours, it doubtless felt pretty strange for him and from the outside it looked a bit awkward, but full credit to him for stepping outside his comfort zone. The question for him in the final will be whether the pressure and the presence of previously-fired candidates will rekindle the old interpersonal dynamics and cause him to revert to game-playing. Even if he continues with his new-found authentic behaviour, it may be too little, too late to win the trust of the Boss and win the competition. A respectable third place and some invaluable and insightful life lessons will be his reward.

Throughout this competition it's been easy to think of Morello as the kind of guy you could easily work with: friendly, ethical, creative, practical and a cool head under pressure. Sure he's really high-energy and (as Gavin quipped this week) always needs to be the centre of attention, but for a guy his age those are unsurprising and not insurmountable traits. More to the point, we haven't seen from him either the shameless ego-tripping or the egoless "shrinking violet" behaviour that's been the downfall of other candidates.

To quote the saying again, people are most often hired on experience, fired on personality. I think Morello will be Australia's first Apprentice in what could be a case of someone hired for their personality in order to develop the needed experience. If so, well done to him for his perseverance and to his Boss for making a choice that's most likely to reap great developmental and performance results for them both.


Why it's so Hard to Collaborate: Three Kinds of Personal Fear

"We know the good...but do not do it."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche (attributed)

Throughout The Apprentice Australia series we've seen so-called "teams" tearing themselves apart during the challenges and particularly in the Boardroom. I've previously characterized this as a little more than a corporate dogfight pit.

In a recent post, Charles H. Green talked about Why it's so hard to collaborate, concluding that personal fear undermines collaboration. When you think about it, this makes sense and in this way The Apprentice rings true: with a format designed to foster infighting and trigger candidates into fearful, limbic responses, it reminds us in the audience of behaviour we've all experienced before in organizational setting. With this twinge of recognition (and the safe distance of impersonally watching it happen to someone else) the program hooks its viewers.

I want to suggest there are three main kinds of fear at work here:

1. Knowledge is power - triggered by strong feelings and emotions, intrusive/demanding people or situations, being surprised, broken confidences, dishonesty, out-of-control situations, and feeling inadequate or powerless, one fear response is, "I'll keep all the cards to myself, then I'll be the expert and everyone will have to rely on me." An example of this behaviour in the series was Lynton - nonemotional, positioning himself as the expert and being unwilling to collaborate with others. There were moments when Carmen displayed this behaviour ("I'm in it for me," power's all that matters, no team focus) and Mary-Anne too, for example when she was hard on herself for lacking the knowledge she thought she needed and displayed intolerance and impatience toward Sabrina and Morello when she thought they were incompetent.
   
   
2. Distrustful/What if...? - triggered by feeling helpless, out of control, in danger or potential harm, subject to pressure, and/or experiencing a lack of commitment, this second fear response is to constantly ask oneself "What if this happens? What if that happens?" while trying to keep oneself safe from entanglements or commitments - which looks from the outside like hanging back, being guarded and disconnected from others. We saw this behaviour primarily from Blake, totally hanging back and seeming noncommittal about most tasks, getting fired in the end because he was unable or unwilling to come forward. As discussed last week, Gavin and Sabrina have also at times hidden their genuine selves behind masks and game-playing.
   
   
3. Difficult/painful situations - triggered by frustrations, restraints, limitations, painful situations or feelings, boredom or routine, feeling dismissed, not taken seriously or unjustly criticized, this fear response seeks to avoid the situation entirely by shifting focus or substituting some other topic. Heather has demonstrated this by consistently avoiding feedback, by being unaware to come to grips with the negative effect her assertive (forceful) behaviour has on others and being unable to deal constructively with conflict. Similarly, Morello's laughing/joking personable style has the benefit of helping him avoid hardship, steering clear of tough situations.
   

Real-World Application (RWA): Effective collaboration

Charles Green's piece on collaboration ends with the following observation:

There are two simple approaches to lowering fear. One is to mitigate risk. The other is to stop being so fearful. The first one is getting most of the press; we need more of the second. [emphasis added]

To address each of the three most common fear reactions listed above, here are a few pointers:

1. Offer well-researched and detailed content, specific and fact-based; strive to reduce the emotional charge of content and depersonalize/be objective; conduct meetings and make announcements in appropriate, agreed-upon venues; make sure you include an open Q&A session for people to request clarification and details.
   
   
2. Build rapport before moving into content, then use clear statements of goals and intent with concrete specifics; give reassurance about the exact magnitude of problem to help people avoid catastrophizing/assuming the worst; create opportunities for people to play devil's advocate and challenge authority (don't dismiss this as "resistance" because there's often useful information to be gained from differing perspectives); communicate the underlying motives and reasons for changes; provide assurances of support and ongoing communication; where possible offer people options from which to choose; give suggestions early on to help people foresee positive outcomes.
   
   
3. Offer executive summaries and "quick overviews"; allow for expression of people's creative input (even if not strictly-speaking on track with the subject matter at hand); affirm people's competence and use a strengths-based approach to any training/developmental requirements; offer a variety of communication modes/channels (fast-paced, visual, interactive); validate people's experiences and perspectives; don't "pull rank" and try to enforce a change through command-and-control.
   

Building Bridges of Collaboration

People in organizations must continually deal with change. As a leader/manager, your challenge is two-fold: to face your own feelings and reactions to change and then to effectively lead your team through their own reactions (fear, anger, etc.)...and all this while doing your "day job" and delivering the tangible results that you're paid to make happen.

Managing fear and promoting collaboration requires you to know what to say and how to say it. When leaders add this to their already long list of tasks, it can seem a bit overwhelming.

That's where tmc can help.

As you build the bridge that will take you and your team from where you are to where you need to be, tmc can act as an invaluable support. You'll gain peace of mind knowing that structures and processes are in place to address the people issues associated with your change project. With this assurance, you'll be free to concentrate on delivering the work required of you, benefitting from the high performance and increased productivity that comes from a positive team environment.

To find out more contact me directly. We can have a conversation to explore your particular situation and context, helping you achieve clarity on where you are, where you need to be, and how to build the bridges that will get you there.


Note: For those of you outside Australia who wish to view the episodes of The Apprentice Australia that I'm discussing in this series of posts, you can find them on YouTube here. Meanwhile if you're in Australia you can see not only the episodes to date but also post-episode video diaries on the Nine website here.


Related previous posts:
Analysis of episode 1, RWA: Foundation & Force
Preview of episode 2, RWA: Conflict Management
Apprentice week 2 analysis, RWA: Giving/Receiving Feedback using Head & Heart
Apprentice week 3 analysis, RWAs: Team Leadership and Setting a Team Culture
Apprentice week 4 analysis, RWA: Coaching for high performance
Apprentice week 5 analysis, RWA: "The Relationship is the Customer"
Apprentice week 6 analysis, RWA: The FIT model
Apprentice week 7 analysis, RWA: Authentic Emotional Intelligence
Apprentice episode 8 preview: double trouble


Photo credit: Bridge

Apprentice episode 8 preview: double trouble

Preview of week 8: double-episode/double-firing

This week's two hour double-episode on Monday 16 November (21h30-23h30) will see two contestants get fired. At this stage I'll dare a few observations/predictions about how things might unfold.

I've already spoken about Gavin and Sabrina in a previous post - they need to come out from behind their masks before it costs them whatever connection they still have with others, notably Mark Bouris.

Of the two I think Sabrina is most at risk; while Gavin is fresh from his latest tongue-lashing in the Boardroom and will seek in week 8 to make amends, Sabrina may have gained false assurance as Team Eventus' victory last week papered over the real conflict between her, Heather and Mary-Anne and did not compel her to examine her own shortcomings as project lead. Either one could end up fired in week 8 - I think most likely Sabrina.

Mary-Anne
In a post early in this series of reviews I mentioned that Carmen and Mary-Anne shared a forceful directness:

Mary-Anne [...] was shut down peremptorily by Carmen during the first team meeting. [...] she will need to rein in her high-energy competitive nature to win people over rather than confronting them. Her intolerance for what she perceives as incompetence may also be a significant trigger resulting in punitive behaviour, even bullying. The early clash with Carmen (who shares a similar disposition) is a sign of things to come. Triggers: injustice, skirting the issues, others not taking responsibility for their behaviour, being blindsided, lack of truthfulness, feeling weak/vulnerable/uncertain/dependent, losing regard of people she respects.

With Carmen now gone we're seeing more of Mary-Anne's stroppy behaviour: seemingly convinced that hers was the one right way to do things, she showed both doubt and impatience towards Sabrina's competence as project lead during the art task. If she fails to rein in this aggressivenes and intolerance, she'll be fired in week 8.

Heather
On several occasions in projects now Heather has been quick to assert herself but looked panicked and almost wild-eyed whenever there she felt a (real or imagined) need to explain and defend herself. The result is she's often overextending herself and, when caught out, tries to skate through. Again, I'd previously written of her:

[...] the challenge will be for her to keep her energy focused and face difficult situations without getting thrown off course. If she does get triggered, watch for her to flip into quite punitive behaviour with a clear expectation of compliance with her rules for conduct. Triggers: dislikes difficult situations or painful feelings, mundane tasks and constraints or limitations, feeling dismissed or not taken seriously, unjust criticism - also, blaming/criticism, violations of team norms, lack of follow-through, lack of commitment (by her standards), deception and lack of integrity.

While these are unhelpful patterns, they've not yet been career-threatening for her. At this point I think she's begun to learn the lesson of not biting off more than she can realistically chew, though she's still got some development to do on things like difficult conversations and being willing to occasionally say, "I don't know."

The danger zones for her in week 8 will be a) getting caught up in a conflict which she fails to manage or b) ending up in the Boardroom and not presenting a convincing case for what value she can add as Mark Bouris' Apprentice. If she avoids these or, as has happened to date, other people mess up worse than she does, I tip her to make it into the final. I have trouble predicting that she'll win because I don't think we've seen enough ability yet; perhaps she'll be the dark horse who makes a last-minute charge for the post.

Morello
In contrast to Gavin and Sabrina, I think Morello's got authentic EQ and a lack of egocentricity that enables him to make a genuine connection with people. People are willing to forgive a lot because they genuinely like the guy - which has saved him thus far. Early on I wrote:

his approach seemed less focused on tangible results and more on being personable - essentially "hire me, I'm a good bloke and I'll do right by you." [...] In weeks to come he must show substance behind the warm personality. He may fall down on more strategic tasks if he fails to channel his abundant energy and good cheer into productive output. Triggers: dislikes difficult situations or painful feelings, mundane tasks and constraints or limitations, feeling dismissed or not taken seriously, unjust criticism.

To date none of these pitfalls has caused him serious dramas and I think both tasks in week 8 will favour his personable nature and huge ability to adapt on the fly. Though his age and inexperience mean he lacks the wisdom required for senior leadership, his people management and relationship-building skills are exceptional.

Were I to recommend him for a role, it would be to lead a team of people implementing a strategic plan - ensuring he has close guidance from a senior leader to act as internal mentor to build his grasp of strategic thinking, and a coach to help him develop his particular management style. (On the difference between coaching and mentoring, see here.) Of the remaining candidates, I think he would benefit most from the opportunity to be The Apprentice and I'm tipping him to not only be in the final but possibly win.

Let's see what happens!


Note: For those of you outside Australia who wish to view the episodes of The Apprentice Australia that I'm discussing in this series of posts, you can find them on YouTube here. Meanwhile if you're in Australia you can see not only the episodes to date but also post-episode video diaries on the Nine website here.
.

Apprentice week 6 analysis, RWA: The FIT model

Summary: Today's post reviews episode 6 of The Apprentice Australia and offers a Real-World Application (RWA) in the area of emotional self-management using the FIT model.

In business it's common to discuss rational and behavioural dimensions of day-to-day activity, yet what often gets overlooked is the emotional component. The past 2 weeks have demonstrated what a crucial part emotions can play, making the difference between success and failure.

This post will assess how poor emotional self-management cost Carmen her place in the competition. In the next post I'll discuss the emotional component of Gavin's defeat and how the continuing pattern of his emotional inauthenticity is costing him the confidence and trust of others.


Review of episode 6: Microsoft commercial

In brief, Carmen's team was derailed by chronic interpersonal conflict. Though they managed to make a good quality commercial and approximated some kind of celebration at the end of production, it was clear that a lot of unprocessed conflict remained.

The toxic residue of this tension was so evident during Team Eventus' presentation to the Microsoft executives that the latter simply concluded they could not work with them. The client's reaction to Team Pinnacle, by contrast, was "whilst the ad's not perfect, we can work with them." Emotional conflict buried Team Eventus in the end.

If you've ever been exposed - directly or after the fact - to this kind of conflict you know how draining it can be. The phrases used by Gavin and Carmen that I've summarized below will sound drearily familiar:

• I want to try to smooth things over
• You were grandstanding!
• You're paranoid.
• What's your problem?
• You need to calm down!
• You need to leave your ego at the door!
• That's just throwing some words to shake me up, I've dealt with people like you before, you won't let me finish, interrupt, no respect for me, no regard for my authority...

End result:

• "She's had a hissy fit...she clearly can't control her emotions."
• "I just can't work with him."

Gavin's style when under pressure (whether in conflict with other team members or under scrutiny from Mark Bouris in the Boardroom) is to put on a mask of attentive sincerity. It's a largely non-emotional stance; it's like he transforms into a social chameleon, saying and doing the things he thinks others want him to do and coming across like a performance/achievement robot. (In the review of episode 6 I discuss in more detail how I think this is hindering his performance and what he might usefully do about it.)

Carmen, meanwhile, was unable to manage her emotional reactivity and lost her cool in dealing with both Gavin and Sam and as a result her leadership was rated a failure. Mark Bouris' summary: "There's a huge difference between being passionate...and losing it."


Real-World Application (RWA): The FIT model*

Given the chance to offer Carmen some counsel on how to handle the clash of personalities and working styles in her team, I would have suggested The FIT model as a way for her to gain useful insight on the situation and decide how she wished to proceed.

FIT stands for Feelings, Intentions and Thoughts. The FIT model is a means to develop self-awareness of your own state in order to better self-manage, and is particulary helpful in situations that may provoke strong emotional responses.

I've lamented before that we have become quite sloppy in our use of language, and nowhere is that more evident than our misplaced statements about feelings. People routinely say "I feel you disrespected me" or "I feel very strongly that my option is the way to go."

The problem is, these aren't feelings. The first is a perception and the second an opinion or judgement. By labelling them "feelings" we mix them up with our emotions and, not surprisingly, make it practically impossible for other people to comment on these statements without taking it very personally.

It's vital to distinguish between thoughts and feelings and to get clear on what outcome you're actually seeking from a conversation or situation. So that smart question becomes: how FIT are you to have that conversation or address that situation?

Here are the useful distinctions that the FIT model introduces for you to consider:

Feelings/emotions - essentially: Mad, Sad, Glad or Afraid (as distinct from Thoughts, below)

Intentions - Wishes, hopes, wants, goals, desires, needs, expectations, requests, demands

Thoughts - Inferences, conclusions, judgements, evaluations, beliefs, assumptions, opinions, perceptions

While behaviour can be observed and thoughts explained by what we say, much of what happens emotionally for us cannot be readily observed by others. If you don't have any awareness of your emotional state and likely reactive points then heaven help the person you're interacting with, for whom these things are invisible!

The FIT model is therefore a ready-reckoner to work through the tangled mix of feelings, thoughts and intentions - both for yourself and what you imagine might be happening for the other person.

Used effectively it helps to defuses tensions, as you clarify your intent and realize where opinions and judgements may carry excessive (and unacknowledged) emotional charge.

I've written previously about a highly effective language style that helps depersonalize such tense situations and get better outcomes that everyone feels good about.

When I've worked with teams where deep-seated and longstanding conflict was stinking up the room like a dead cat under the table, I've made good use of tools and models like these to get just the shift in perception that was needed to help people make real progress.

Self-awareness is key to self-management and once people used the FIT model to separate out the feelings from the thougths and intentions, they were able to better manage the strong emotional reactions and bring some really useful, adult behaviour to what had previously been like a bunch of quarrelling kids in the boardroom.

tmc can help your team manage interpersonal tension as your people clarify their intentions, their thoughts, and the language they use to talk about them. The result: a team that achieves the high performance you expect, on a sustainable basis.

To find out more today, contact me directly and let's have a conversation about your situation.

Note: For those of you outside Australia who wish to view the episodes of The Apprentice Australia that I'm discussing in this series of posts, you can find them on YouTube here. Meanwhile if you're in Australia you can see not only the episodes to date but also post-episode video diaries on the Nine website here.

Related previous posts:
Analysis of episode 1, RWA: Foundation & Force
Preview of episode 2, RWA: Conflict Management
Apprentice week 2 analysis, RWA: Giving/Receiving Feedback using Head & Heart
Apprentice week 3 analysis, RWAs: Team Leadership and Setting a Team Culture
Apprentice week 4 analysis, RWA: Coaching for high performance

Apprentice week 5 analysis, RWA: "The Relationship is the Customer"

*FIT model adapted from Fontaine/Bauman, John Wallen & Miller, Nunnally, Wackman and Saline.

Photo credits: Carmen's photo from her corporate website.
.

Apprentice week 3 analysis, RWAs: Team Leadership and Setting a Team Culture

Summary: This post reviews episode 3 of The Apprentice Australia and offers Real-World Applications (RWAs) on integrating new team leaders and building a strong team culture.


Review of Episode 3

This week saw a trade in team leaders, so the "boys team" Pinnacle was led by Amy and the "girls team" Eventus by Gavin. The end result was a victory for Gavin's team, which made nearly triple the profit of Amy's team and resulted in Amy's elimination. This week I'll talk about some interesting personality matchups of "like with like" in both teams, about Amy's departure, and comment on the Boss himself, Mark Bouris.

Like with Like: Personality and character matches this week

This week's task was to create, market and sell a new flavour of savoury pie. There were three interesting matches made of "like with like" personality and character:

Carmen & MaryAnn
During the production process Team Eventus had only two people making the pies which meant progress was slow. With just one pie machine in the factory, Team Pinnacle couldn't get their pies made until Team Eventus finished. Carmen sought to maximize her team's pie production and put Team Eventus at a huge disadvantage by monopolizing the machine until the final production deadline had passed, while her partner MaryAnn wanted to put a cap on their pie production to give Team Pinnacle a fair go and get their pies made. Carmen's response: "No, we're not going to do that! What were you thinking?"

Later in the Boardroom Diane Stone said Carmen and MaryAnn were a "super-cohesive team" and for the most part they were, thanks to their shared behaviour of forceful, charge-ahead action that had ironically set them at odds in episode 1. The contrast between them in this case, though, was that MaryAnn is better at connecting with other people (she has better access to her Heart) while Carmen is exclusively task-focused and loses all perspective of the other people involved (she relies primarily on Head). We see this in particular during the sales at the market, when Carmen, never having tasted one, said Team Eventus' pies were "tough and gristly, made with the cheapest cuts of lamb to save money" and when confronted by Blake said simply, "We're in this to win!" and "You need to go in hard and aggressive - there are no rules!" This attitude would come back to haunt her in the Boardroom, though I think not nearly as much as it should have done (of which more below).

Sabrina & Gavin
In her post-show diary Sabrina said simply, "Gavin gets me and I get Gavin." These two are almost identically matched in both personality and character. You can imagine being on their team would be a lot of fun, so long as things were going well. If things get tough, however, which in this case would mean: reputations on the line and appearances at stake, Sabrina in particular needs to be mindful of the Boardroom warning she received about trying to relativize Carmen's clearly unethical behaviour (see below). Otherwise this week's task let the two of them focus on their strengths: persuasiveness in getting free marketing materials and wooing people with charm as when they were selling pies from the van at Darling Harbour. Getting a late start and having a whole load of unsold pies in the van suggests that a focus on practical outputs remains a development point for them both. Look for more fun and a continued focus on the team dynamics from this duo in weeks to come.

Heather & Amy
Due to illness Heather did not figure highly in this week's episode, but in an aside at the very end she pronounced her deep admiration for both Amy's gutsiness and ethical behaviour. It seems these two are quite well matched in personality and character as well, though at this point we won't see this develop any further.

That someone as focused on ethics and integrity as Heather would speak so highly of Amy gives us an insight into Amy's behaviour in the Boardroom. Amy remarked straight off that it was "nice to be on the side not attacking each other," a reference to all-female group dynamics in Team Eventus to that point. When her team's loss was revealed she did not relativize or waffle: she immediately put her hand up and took reponsibility. Later in her exit interview she said simply, "if we failed as team it's because I've failed them."

I think Amy is actually being too hard on herself. Some development coaching I'd offer her during the task would have been: don't be intimidated by the blokes in Team Pinnacle, continue to swiftly address problematic behaviour (like Sam's moodiness at the outset) to assert authority as project lead, and to nominate a loyal and responsible lieutenant like John, whose quiet leadership came to the fore this week.

Nevertheless, Amy's accountability is to her credit. I'd expect it will serve her well in the real world as she continues to grow her Melbourne-based recruitment company. But that same accountability proved to be the kiss of death in the "one-strike-you're-out" world of the Apprentice Boardroom.

This poses an interesting question for Mark Bouris: two weeks running he's insisted that he wants people to take a stand, that he has no time and no place in his organization for "shrinking violets" who sit on the fence. Then when presented with someone who takes steps up to take responsibility, he says "I applaud you for putting your hand up"...and fires her, claiming that her accountability "left me nowhere to go."

However this was not the most serious error in judgement that I think Mark Bouris made this week. Carmen beamed with pride in the Boardroom as she took credit on behalf of her and MaryAnn for the marketing of the pies in the organic market as "home made". In fact the pies were factory-made and while early on Diane wondered aloud if this presented a possible "Trade Practices problem" Carmen cheerfully said, "in this case, perception is reality." This is not a clever case being made of the added value of perception since every other comment Carmen made clearly indicates her sole focus was winning and maximizing profit. This is someone who just doesn't get it.

And Mark Bouris' response as business leader and future Boss? Though this was "a clear case of being deceptive...[and] you don't play around with things that aren't correct in terms of your marketing" he concludes: your conduct was a "technical breach, which we will overlook on this occasion."

A fish rots from the head down

It's as if the names Enron, Andersen, WorldCom, Bear Stearns, AIG, Adelphia, Parmalat, Tyco, Cendant, Putnam Funds (and the list goes on...) have taught us nothing at all. As if the GFC hasn't produced serious questions about the pursuit of profit/shareholder value above all else and about how business people are trained in elite institutions.

If the top man in an organization fails to model the values that are expected of his reports and team members, there's not much hope that those values will take root. So again, this week Mark Bouris made two errors in judgement:

1. He eliminated the one person who's thus far shown leadership and accountability exactly the kind of behaviour he's said he expects and wants.
   
   In my view it should have been Sam who left; his body language in his video diary was moody and downcast, saying "If I'm still here next week," his behaviour was tetchy and his actions were mostly fence-sitting - all of which Mr Bouris has said he doesn't need. He wasn't just out of his depth in this task, I'm afraid he's in too deep overall and through no fault of his own - he simply lacks the life experience needed to better manage his emotions and tap into his gifts in stressful business settings.
   
   
2. He's overlooked clear breaches of ethics and of good old Australian "fair go" sportsmanship.
   
   In my view, Team Eventus ought to have had their profit decreased by the amount of whatever fine would normally apply for deceptive trade practices and/or had a penalty applied for unethical conduct.

Of course we need to bear in mind this is not reality, this is TV. Below are the number of hits on each person's Episode 3 video diary (including Amy's exit interview) on The Apprentice Australia website. The figures tell the tale - the audience loves a good scrap:

Amy - 3538
Carmen - 768
Blake - 565
Gavin - 331
Sabrina - 272
Heather - 202
Sam - 195
Morello - 176
John - 146
MaryAnn - 145

(figures current as of time of writing this blog post)

Real-World Applications (RWAs): Team Leadership and Setting a Team Culture

There was confused leadership this week, from both project leads suddenly leading new teams and from Mark Bouris whose contradictions and errors in judgement send mixed messages.

How does your organization clarify the leader's expectations of their team and create a team culture that sets team members up for success and high performance from the very start?


RWA#1: "Leader-Team Foundation" session puts you on course for success

In the US Navy when a new Captain assumes command of a ship there's a recognition that you can't simply swap one Captain out and a new one in. Each Captain has his own personality and leadership style and each ship has its own culture and way of doing things. Navy vessels are considered to be on war footing every time they leave port, placing servicemen and women in harm's way on a daily basis and leaving no margin for error or misunderstanding between Captain and crew. The Navy manages these leadership transitions with a formal process called a New Reporting Relationship (NRR) session, which provides some useful tips for the business world.

Similarly, a new leader in an organization can engage in a facilitated process to manage his/her leadership transition, in the form of a Leader-Team Foundation session. This helps make explicit the nature of the leader's new leadership style and expectations of the team.

Some typical goals from a Leader-Team Foundation session:

• Clarify a new leader's vision, mission, and goals for the group as well as expectations of his/her direct reports.
• Inform the group of the leader's preferred leadership style and decision-making approach.
• Begin/continue to install explicit productive behavioural norms in the group.
• Alert the leader of concerns, barriers, issues and strengths facing the team.
• Expedite the development of the new team (in the “forming stage”) by learning about each other and promoting clear, open communication.

Desired outcomes of a Leader-Team Foundation session:

• Understand the leader's vision, goals and expectations for the team.
• Provide the new leader with the information needed to make sound and efficient decisions while setting priorities, policies and procedures.
• Clarify the role of each team member in relationship to the new leader and each other.
• Clarify concerns, priorities, and expectations of all members.
• Identify and discuss dilemmas and challenges facing the group.
• Identify mutual needs and identify actions needed to move forward.
• Discuss any constraints facing members or the group to take such actions.

RWA#2: "Team Culture Foundation" session creates high-performing teams

Whether a team is newly-formed or already existing, get your team pointing in the same direction with a facilitated Team Culture Foundation session. The session involves individual reflection, interviews and group dialogue aimed at finding answers to the following questions and, where differences arise, agreeing on ways to resolve them - both now and in future:

• What's the timeline of the team and where are we now?
• Who are the heroes and villains of the past?
• What are the five rules - spoken or unspoken - that you remember from first joining this team?
• What are the team rules?
• Who makes those rules?
• How are they enforced?
• How easy or hard is it to change them?
• How does this team interact with the rest of the organization?
• What are the three most helpful team patterns?
• What are three least helpful patterns?
• What are the behaviours that are banned/encouraged in our team?
• How do we induct new people into the team?
• What's our team's value proposition?
• Is there an agreed code of conduct for our team?
• How can we track how we're doing as time progresses - do we have regular check-ins?

Note that you can add the Heart element as well, for example with a 500-Word Story Exercise (details of which in a future post).

For details on how tmc can help you to run facilitated Leader-Team Foundation and/or Team Culture Foundation sessions, email me.


Note: For those of you outside Australia who wish to view the episodes of The Apprentice Australia that I'm discussing in this series of posts, you can find them on YouTube here. Meanwhile if you're in Australia you can see not only the episodes to date but also post-episode video diaries on the Nine website here.


Related previous posts:
Analysis of episode 1, RWA: Foundation & Force
Preview of episode 2, RWA: Conflict Management

Apprentice week 2 analysis, RWA: Giving/Receiving Feedback using Head & Heart

With materials and insights from Jack Fontaine & Jean Baumann; Peter Burow.
Amy & Sam photo credit: www.news.com.au

.