ITLP Tuesday Readings

Dan Heath in today's Reading - "Want Your Organization to Change? Put Feelings First" - points out that typically when we want people to change, we try to teach them something. Sounds good, right? WRONG! According to Heath and John Kotter, knowledge rarely leads to change.

Heath observes that we know that obesity causes significant health problems but people don't generally eat better. Similarly, we know that texting while driving causes accidents, but that knowledge doesn't change behavior. And, we know that the warnings on cigarette packs - US: "Cigarettes release carbon monoxide" and Italy: Smoking kills" - don't seem to make a difference either.

So, it should not surprise us that knowledge alone doesn't lead to organizational change. John Kotter says most people see change as happening in three stages: First, you analyze the situation, then you arrive at a solution, and finally you change. And, not much happens! In Kotter's experience, it is still a three stage-process: "People SEE something that makes them FEEL something that gives them the fire to CHANGE. SEE-FEEL-CHANGE.

So, if you want people to change, they have to feel something first. The task of the change agent then is to go beyond designing the change to get those who need to change to feel that need and become sufficiently charged up to do something about it.

So, stop a moment and take inventory of your change initiatives. Are people feeling the need for the change?

Have a great week. . . . jim

Posted by Jim Hall at 11:48 AM | Permalink

Today's reading is from a short essay by Roger Schwartz. The article may be found in his newsletter Fundamental Change, but the highlights are provided here:

What do you owe the people who report to you? What are you accountable to them for?

An explanation of our reasoning. If you don't explain why you have made certain decisions, you may find your staff make up their own explanations. The result will be chaos, as everyone generates a different vision of your direction. Take the time to craft your vision statement, and explain why certain decisions are necessary.

Timely feedback. Schwartz suggests that if you have not given the feedback within a week of observing either something good that needs to be recognized or something ineffective that needs to be addressed, you have waited too long.

Identifying your contribution. Your direct reports are in a kind of partnership with you. Explain to them how their performance reflects upon you, and how your effectiveness can help them contribute.

What do you think you owe your direct reports?

Posted by Jim Hall at 9:04 AM | Permalink

Today's reading "How to Stop the Blame Game" is by Nathanael Fast, assistant professor of Management and Organization at USC's Marshall School of Business. It appeared in the May research blog of the Harvard Business Review.

Fast points back to the recent "grilling" of three oil company executives by U.S. Senate committees. He noted that the executives "fell over each other in attempts to shift the blame." And, that "No one was impressed."

Fast continues by noting that playing the blame game never works, that people who blame others for their mistakes lose status, and that they perform worse relative to those who own up to their mistakes. He also notes that resent research shows that blaming is contagious. Merely being exposed to someone else making a blame attribution for a mistake is enough to cause people to turn around and blame others for completely unrelated failures. All you have to do to "catch" the blame virus is to be exposed to someone else passing the buck.

He suggests five practical steps you can take to reduce the spread of this virus:

1. Don't blame others for your mistakes.

2. When you do blame, do so constructively. When you do blame, the goal is to learn from the incident, not to humiliate the person who made the mistake.

3. Set an example by confidently taking ownership of your mistakes.

4. Focus on learning.

5. Reward people for making mistakes.

We all make mistakes. Acknowledge your failure, learn form it, and move on. As Bill Clepsch says, "Fail fast" so you can get on to the solution.

Have a great week. . . . . jim

Posted by Jim Hall at 11:56 AM | Permalink

Today's reading comes from an Amy Gallo posting How to Handle the Pessimist on Your Team to the Harvard Business Review blog. Gallo is a writer, editor, and business consultant. Her writing on management issues regularly appears in the HRB BLOG. Earlier she was a consultant at Katztenbach Partners, a strategy and organization consulting firm where she was involved in the firm's research and thinking on the "informal organization."

The article begins by noting that dealing with a pessimist can be a frustrating and time-consuming experience. Bad news: Either ignoring or engaging negative comments may incite further negativity. Good news: By being proactive you can help the pessimist change his behavior and enable the team to achieve greater productivity.

Gallo suggests that there are three approaches that you might take:

1. Create awareness. Privately tell the offending team member how his comments are received. In doing this, you need to be "at least as positive as you are negative," according to Jon Katzenbach author of Wisdom of Teams.

2. Reposition negative statements. Don't let negative comments linger. Too easily they fester and kill the teams motivation. Ask the individual making the negative statements for clarification, for more information, to explain why he thinks the way he does. Use your best coaching voice and ask open-ended questions. You might ask them to follow their skeptical statements with "but" statements leading to alternatives.

3. Involve the entire team. Early on, set team norms and ask everyone to observe them and hold each other to the norms.

Gallo makes two closing points: Sometimes, it will not be possible to turn the continually disruptive individual around. It this is the case, for the team to function effectively, the individual must go. And, secondly, sometimes negative points of view can be well informed and based on solid reasoning. We need these dissenting voices to check our assumptions as they provide an added dimension to the team's work.

I hope that you don't have a habitual nay-sayer on your team. However, if you do, you might want to give this approach a try.

. . . . . jim

Posted by Jim Hall at 1:52 PM | Permalink

Today's reading comes from an Amy Gallo posting How to Handle the Pessimist on Your Team to the Harvard Business Review blog. Gallo is a writer, editor, and business consultant. Her writing on management issues regularly appears in the HRB BLOG. Earlier she was a consultant at Katztenbach Partners, a strategy and organization consulting firm where she was involved in the firm's research and thinking on the "informal organization."

The article begins by noting that dealing with a pessimist can be a frustrating and time-consuming experience. Bad news: Either ignoring or engaging negative comments may incite further negativity. Good news: By being proactive you can help the pessimist change his behavior and enable the team to achieve greater productivity.

Gallo suggests that there are three approaches that you might take:

1. Create awareness. Privately tell the offending team member how his comments are received. In doing this, you need to be "at least as positive as you are negative," according to Jon Katzenbach author of Wisdom of Teams.

2. Reposition negative statements. Don't let negative comments linger. Too easily they fester and kill the teams motivation. Ask the individual making the negative statements for clarification, for more information, to explain why he thinks the way he does. Use your best coaching voice and ask open-ended questions. You might ask them to follow their skeptical statements with "but" statements leading to alternatives.

3. Involve the entire team. Early on, set team norms and ask everyone to observe them and hold each other to the norms.

Gallo makes two closing points: Sometimes, it will not be possible to turn the continually disruptive individual around. It this is the case, for the team to function effectively, the individual must go. And, secondly, sometimes negative points of view can be well informed and based on solid reasoning. We need these dissenting voices to check our assumptions as they provide an added dimension to the team's work.

I hope that you don't have a habitual nay-sayer on your team. However, if you do, you might want to give this approach a try.

. . . . . jim

Posted by Jim Hall at 1:52 PM | Permalink