photo by pattyequalsawesome
Sometimes you run across derivatives of the same idea from multiple sources and it gets you to stop and listen.
Two recent examples have come from Netflix and Miles Davis.
Ultimately, it’s about how best to maintain a leadership position by enabling those around you to explore new boundaries. Leading and corralling rather than managing.
Netflix has posted a rather lengthy, but worthwhile slide show about their culture and how they work. They put it best by asking their managers to provide ‘context, not control’ (slides 76 - 84). In essence, describe where you want to go, not how you want to get there.
And The Miles Davis Story (as relayed by a friend) explored Miles’ proclivity to assemble talented musicians, set the mood for the evening and then walk around the stage as they do their thing. His job was to capture each individual’s wandering explorations and create something cohesive out of it. Sometimes it worked brilliantly. Often it didn’t. But his purpose was to create something that hadn’t been felt before. To do that you have to be willing to try things that don’t pan out.
It takes a unique type of person to be able to lead in this manner.
It’s no wonder that people who are at the top of their game are attracted by this environment. If you’re looking to set the direction for your industry then it’s a leadership style worth considering.
photo by becominggreenblog
Dan Pink’s recently posted TED talk makes a convincing argument for why extrinsic, if-then rewards are detrimental to our businesses. If you need an 18-minute break then you could spend your time in far worse ways.
If you don’t have 18-minutes then the gist is:
Extrinsic rewards / contingent motivators limit thinking and block creativity. Extrinsic rewards do work to narrow focus and work well when solution is known. But right brain, conceptual abilities are what are needed in our knowledge-based workplaces today and these are stunted by if-then rewards.
His evidence is partly a study in which people were given a box of tacks, matches and a candle and were asked to attach the candle to the wall so it did not drip on the table. The solution requires some literal ‘out of the box’ thinking. Two groups were given the challenge. One was told their time would help establish group norms and the other was given a monetary incentive to complete it in the fastest time possible.
The result? Those who were given the if-then incentive completed the problem three and a half minutes…slower.
The incentive narrowed their focus and limited their creativity.
Chances are the team you’re leading isn’t building widgets and being asked to push buttons and pull levers faster. Your team operates within a changing marketplace where the solutions to success are not always obvious.
If you want to look good yourself then you need the mental horsepower of your entire team to find the solution. Providing a bigger carrot isn’t going to help. Rather you need to figure out if your team members even like vegetables.
Intrinsic motivation, according to Pink, comes from three things. He only defines the first in his talk so I’ll go out on a limb and color between his lines on the latter two. Those three are:
I’d also like to throw in a fourth which may be a derivative of ‘purpose.’ I’ll call it ‘potential.’
Far too often we succumb to the ‘inherent truths’ that turn out to be just not true. Social science has a lot to offer us in the business world if we’re willing to challenge our beliefs and listen. Let us start here.
Turn your people loose with what matters to them, work hard to align company and individual goals, give them the support they need to fulfill the goals and help them reach their potential.
photo by elevate printing
John Maeda’s recent post on the Harvard Business blogs discusses the value of being critiqued. Two things stood out to me. First, how the concept of feedback (aka crits) is entrenched in the supposedly emotionally-based art world and yet the supposedly emotionless, fact-based business world does everything possible to avoid annual reviews. Second, was the fact that the business world has no idea how to constructively give feedback. (The latter likely follows from the former, of course.)
So…a few thoughts on how to start turning that ship.
Feedback often fails to motivate because we unintentionally make the conversation human. Seriously. We make evaluative judgments about the other individual rather than framing the conversation around their goals. Though the content of the conversation is about the individual and their actions you want to be able to disassociate the individual from the process as much as possible. You also need to make it apparent that you’re working to the same end point without placating or making unproductive comments in order to ’soften the blow.’
It’s far easier to be critiqued by others when you know they have your interests in mind. This is the subtle difference between being a coach and being a manager.
Know what motivates (why one works). Know each individual’s goals (where they want to be). And know how to talk to them in a way that gets heard (what springs them to action).
Not knowing these will likely lead to a brilliant failure. It may not be immediately apparent, but the individual will likely shut down in the short-term and need time to bounce back. That process can be long and if not properly managed, irreparable. If you don’t already know the answers to the above a good starting point for giving feedback would be to start the conversation with the first two questions. If you know the answers, start by reiterating them.
Giving feedback is incredibly hard. Nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news. Yet, most people want to be able to take some credit for helping others succeed. Mentally shift how you think about this activity and it will get a little easier. And your team should become more productive.
photo by annadriel
A recent Towers Perrin post reveals a conversation the author had with former NFL coach Tony Dungy. Football is known for its gruff, abrupt, in-your-face style of ‘leadership,’ but Tony Dungy was far from that. He succinctly states his philosophy to leading and getting the best from his players three points (from the post):
- His parents were both teachers and they believed that it was their responsibility to make every student an “A” student. But not every student learns the same way, so you have to tailor your style to each individual to bring out the best in them.
- You have to make each player on the team understand that the good of the team is greater than that of any individual, and that you can only be successful as a team.
- You have to earn your players’ trust — this is foundational to the first two. They have to trust that your coaching and advice is what is best for them and for the collective team.
I like this for several reasons:
First, if your leadership style is inflexible and you see people as cogs in the wheel then you dramatically limit the field of potential individuals who could excel in the job. Finding good people is hard, why should we further constrain ourselves?
Secondly, you are limited by the boundaries of your own imagination and thought process. If you only know one way to go about things then you won’t be open-minded to new, potentially better approaches.
Further, by acknowledging that people are unique you are connecting with them on a very personal level. In order to motivate you have to know them. That connection is usually a two-way street. By taking the time to understand someone you’re proving you care about them. Reciprocation is then difficult not to grant. You wind up getting a lot more effort in return.
Finally, you don’t want your people to compete with each other too much. That devolves into a race to the bottom. It is far easier to push another down than it is to lift oneself up. Putting the team first means that you won’t reward pushing others down in order to shine.
photo by jspace3
Thanks to Lijit I can see what folks are searching for when they arrive. “What Employees Want From Their Jobs” has been hitting the top of the charts frequently lately so here goes:
It depends.
Horrible answer, but people are all working for different reasons. The best employers try to get to the bottom of what indviduals want rather than looking at their workforce as a single entity. I’d recommend you start by asking them. Ask them repeatedly and don’t accept their first few answers. Most people haven’t actually thought much about this. Press them. Then ask again.
So contrary to what I just said, I’m going to try drawing some broad generalities as a starting point.
A job is a lot more than a paycheck, a bowl of M&Ms and health insurance. Intrinsic rewards are far more meaningful and lasting. If you see your team as more than cogs in the wheel and want to build a sustainable business then focus on what those intrinsic rewards are for each individual.
Copyright ©2008-2009 RoundPegg Inc.