Author: ACEC

  • How an Executive Coach became a Trusted Leadership Advisor from the perspective of both the Coach and the Executive

    Karol M. Wasylyshyn

    Leadership Development Forum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    An in-depth case study is used to illustrate the transition senior consultants can make from the role of executive coach to a role conceptualized by the author as trusted leadership advisor (TLA) in long-term engagements with senior business executives. In this engage- ment, spanning several years, the client ultimately became CEO of a global entity. Factors addressed in the case include the client’s development issues, his progress, and the challenge of his simultaneously making developmental progress while managing a difficult boss and understanding how the company culture in some ways exacerbated his leadership issues. A number of key practice factors are specified as potential guidance for practitioners already working or aspiring to work with CEOs and other senior business leaders. These factors, embedded in the application of an integrated practice model, include how the TLA guided and conceptualized the engagement, useful tools including written summaries and construc- tive triangulation, and the management of multiple roles.

    Read more…

  • Coaching the Uncoachable Executive

    How do you help leaders who don’t want help?

    by Steve Albrecht

    View original publication on Psychology Today

    If we take the idea that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink to the business arena, how do companies help their leaders improve their performance or behavior, through coaching, when they don’t think they need it?

    I work with two types of employees when it comes to coaching; pick the one you’d rather be in the room with. One says, “I’m so glad you’re here! I know I’ve got some rough edges, some blind spots, and I need to improve the way I communicate with my staff and my boss. We have a lot to talk about and I want to get right to work.” Chance of success: high.

    The other type says, “I don’t know why you’re here or I’m here. It’s probably because one of my team got hurt feelings and complained. Maybe my style is a bit rough, but I get things done. Besides, the clients love me and I make this place a lot of money. Can we get on with whatever this is? I have a lot of work to do.” Chance of success: poor to middling.

    For help with this thorny issue, I spoke with Jordan Goldrich, COO of the San Diego-based executive coaching firm, CUSTOMatrix. He holds an LCSW license and the Master Certified Executive Coach (MCEC) designation, from the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches. Jordan is also a Talent Management Executive with Executive Core, an international Executive Coaching firm.

    When it comes to coaching the executive who doesn’t want to participate in the process, Jordan says, “Most executives who don’t want to be coached are referred by their managers for coaching for several reasons. They’re very valuable because of their technical knowledge or business expertise, but their interpersonal style creates a negative impact on their key stakeholders, direct reports, and superiors. Or, they are part of a leadership development program, where everyone must have coaching, and they don’t want it because they are legitimately too busy, don’t trust or respect the coach, or don’t believe it will be valuable for them.”

    He also sees them having either a lack of insight or a skewed view of their impact on their firm and the people in it. “They’re genuinely not aware of the impact they’re having on others,” he suggests. “Or they recognize they’re having a negative impact but can’t believe their impatience, frustration, anger, and even sarcasm with others is more of a problem than the lack of production, late deadlines, fuzzy thinking, and lack of accountability of the people who are complaining. In addition, many don’t believe they can control their behavior.”

    It’s interesting to note the mindset that Jordan Goldrich sees in these executives and senior leaders who are seen as abrasive. They believe they are like warriors, achieving a level of success in overwhelmingly complex strategic roles.  He says, “They believe they are not being recognized for their contribution. They may even feel they are being disrespected.”

    These internal challenges can manifest in significant hurdles for Jordan as a coach. He says of the abrasive leader as a coachee, “They believe that the request to change is part of a politically-correct culture where, as one executive said to me, ‘Kids are not allowed to play tag because being it will harm their self-esteem.’”

    Their coach must help them uncover their own intrinsic motivation to change. In other words, find a reason they would change this behavior even if they were not getting pressured to change. If the coaching is successful, they conclude that they should change because they want to be more consistent with their own core beliefs and values. He says, “Many I have met are sincerely religious people. Or, they may change because they recognize they want to win or achieve even greater things than they already have.”

    In many situations, Jordan finds self-assessment instruments can help coachees with their insight. He says, “Assessment instruments provide a wealth of information to coachees in an economical way. Their self-ratings on specific items deepen their understanding of their own motivations, personality style, communication style, decision style, and influence style. The assessment reports and our debriefs can combine to create new options for behavior changes. I typically use two self-assessments, plus a 360 evaluation, which may include my interviews with key stakeholders. Since I’m certified in these assessments – Myers-Briggs, FIRO-B, California Personality Inventory, Workplace Big 5, Conflict Dynamics Profile, DISC, and the Hogan Personality Inventory – they are part of my coaching tool kit as well.”

    So, with serious internal and external obstacles in the coachee’s path, how does he prove success? Coaching, like other soft-skills improvements, may not have an obvious immediate benefit, but more of a behavioral and performance shift, which could appear over a span of weeks or months. Obviously, business owners and C-level executives don’t always have a lot of patience for the slow-and-steady route to the improvement approach. Jordan uses subjective evaluations, like feedback from internal customers, peers, superiors and other stakeholders; if the coachee is achieving goals and meeting deadlines; and even employee turnover is a measure.

    Poorly-performing employees sometimes leave under the coachee’s “new and improved” leadership approach because they can no longer hide behind the formerly abrasive behavior of their manager.

    The coaching process is going to benefit those who participate fully. The challenge in all behavior and performance change is getting coachees to leverage their own intrinsic motivations to change. Then they are able to see the wisdom of good ideas, positive suggestions, and the need to embrace them, whether they initially like the coaching intervention or not.

    Dr. Steve Albrecht is a keynote speaker, author, podcaster, and trainer. He focuses on high-risk employee issues, threat assessments, and school and workplace violence prevention. In 1994, he co-wrote Ticking Bombs, one of the first business books on workplace violence. He holds a doctorate in Business Administration (DBA); an M.A. in Security Management; a B.S. in Psychology; and a B.A. in English. He is board certified in HR, security, coaching, and threat management. He worked for the San Diego Police Department for 15 years and has written 17 books on business, HR, and criminal justice subjects.

  • How new CEOs can boost their odds of success

    By Michael Birshan, Thomas Meakin, and Kurt Strovink

    View original publication on Mckinsey

    A data-driven look at the link between the strategic moves of new CEOs and the performance of their companies highlights the importance of quick action and of adopting an outsider’s perspective.

    The success of CEOs is deeply linked to the success of the companies they lead, but the vast body of popular literature on the topic explores this relationship largely in qualitative terms. The dangers of these approaches are well known: it’s easy to be misled by outliers or to conclude, mistakenly, that prominent actions which seem correlated with success were responsible for it.

    We tried to sidestep some of these difficulties by systematically reviewing the major strategic moves (from management reshuffles to cost-reduction efforts to new-business launches to geographic expansion) that nearly 600 CEOs made during their first two years in office. Using annualized total returns to shareholders (TRS), we assessed their companies’ performance over the CEOs’ tenure in office. Finally, we analyzed how the moves they made—at least those visible to external observers1 —and the health of their companies when they joined them influenced the performance of those companies.2

    The results of this analysis, bolstered by nearly 250 case studies, show that the number and nature of the strategic moves made by CEOs who join well- and poorly performing companies are surprisingly similar. The efficacy of certain moves appears to vary significantly across different groups of companies, however. What’s more, the sheer number of moves seems to make a difference, at least for CEOs who join poorly performing companies. Also, external hires appear to have a greater propensity to act.

    These findings have important practical implications for new CEOs and the boards that hire them: focus early on a few bold moves well suited to the context of your company, and recognize the value of the outsider’s perspective—whether or not you are one.

     

    Surprising similarities

    The starting point for analysis was a group of nearly 600 CEOs who left S&P 500 companies from 2004 to 2014 (identified in the annual CEO Transitions report produced by Spencer Stuart, the global executive-search and leadership-consulting firm).3 For each CEO’s first two years, we gathered information—from a range of sources, including company reports, investor presentations, press searches, and McKinsey knowledge assets—on nine strategic moves that chief executives commonly make.

    We expected that CEOs taking the helm at poorly performing companies, feeling compelled to do something to improve results, would have a greater propensity to make strategic moves than those who joined well-performing organizations. To learn whether this idea was true, we looked at how each company had been performing relative to its industry counterparts prior to the new CEO’s arrival and then subdivided the results into three categories: well-performing, poorly performing, and stable companies.4 When we reviewed the moves by companies in each of these categories, we found that new CEOs act in similar ways, with a similar frequency, whether they had joined well- or poorly performing organizations. CEOs in different contexts made bold moves—such as M&A, changing the management team, and launching new businesses and products—at roughly the same rate.

    Contextual contrasts

    Although new CEOs transitioning into companies that have been performing well and CEOs transitioning into companies that have been performing poorly make similar moves with a similar frequency, that doesn’t mean those moves are equally effective. We measured the performance of companies by excess TRS over a CEO’s tenure. At companies where chief executives made strategic moves early on, we found striking contrasts between organizations that had been performing well when the new CEO took charge and those that had been performing poorly:

    • Organizational redesign was correlated with significant excess TRS (+1.9 percent) for well-performing companies, but not for low performers.
    • Strategic reviews were correlated with significant excess TRS (+4.3 percent) for poorly performing companies but were less helpful for companies that had been performing well.
    • Poorly performing companies enjoyed +0.8 percent TRS when they reshuffled their management teams. But when well-performing companies did so, they destroyed value.5

    We recognize that excess TRS CAGR does not prove a causal link; too many other variables, some beyond a CEO’s control, have an influence. But we do find the differences that emerged quite plausible. It stands to reason that troubled companies would enjoy special benefits from major overhauls of management or strategy. Organizational redesigns are challenging for all companies and may, in some cases, be premature for organizations in significant flux.6 Also plausible was the finding that cost-reduction programs appear to improve a company’s TRS relative to those of its counterparts for both well- and poorly performing organizations, though the effect is strongest for weak ones.

    A final point on context is that the bar for top performance varies significantly by sector. In some, such as investment services and automotive, the TRS CAGRs of top-performing organizations with new CEOs are more than 16 percent above those of their industry counterparts. In other sectors, such as media and telecommunications, a CEO’s company must outperform the market by only a few percentage points to be classed in the top quintile. The implication is that new CEOs seeking to calibrate their starting points and to prioritize strategic moves should look beyond top-level performance metrics to understand what it will really take to beat the market.

    Bold bouncebacks

    We also sought to compare the number of major moves that new CEOs made in parallel at well- and poorly performing companies. Well-performing companies had no discernible pattern. But in poorly performing ones, CEOs who made four or more strategic moves at the same time during their first two years achieved an average of 3.6 percent excess annual TRS growth over their tenures. Their less bold counterparts in similarly bad situations could claim just 0.4 percent excess annual TRS growth.

    These findings are in line with earlier McKinsey research7 showing how difficult it is to reach higher levels of economic profit without making substantial strategic or operational shifts. That has also been our own experience working with new CEOs on turnarounds.

    Outside views

    When the time comes to appoint a new CEO, corporate boards face a difficult question: promote an executive from within or choose an outsider? We turned our own lens to this issue and found that the performance of outsiders and insiders differed significantly. Externally appointed CEOs have a greater propensity to act: they were more likely to make six out of the nine strategic moves we examined. The size of the gap in frequency—in other words, the chance an external CEO would make a particular move minus the chance an internal CEO would do the same thing—was much greater for the moves external CEOs opted to make.

    External CEOs almost certainly have a leg up when it comes to bold action. They are generally less encumbered by organizational politics or inertia than their internal counterparts. They may also be more likely to take an outside view of their companies. It’s no coincidence, in our view, that the strategic moves that have the largest gaps in the propensity to act include some of the most far-reaching ones: organizational redesign, for example, or geographic contraction.

    Poorly performing companies are more likely to appoint external CEOs, and corporate performance tends to revert to the mean. But the TRS edge of outside hires was substantial: over their tenure, they outperformed their internally promoted counterparts by a margin of more than five to one—on average, a 2.2 percent excess TRS CAGR, compared with 0.4 percent.

    Clearly, this performance differential is the result of multiple factors, and it’s important to note that new CEOs need not come from outside companies to cultivate an outsider’s mind-set—or to be successful in their role.8

    While our results are averages across multiple organizations and industries, they do suggest a few principles for new CEOs:

    • Adopt an outsider’s mind-set. On average, external hires appear to make more moves during their early years. This doesn’t mean that insiders are the wrong choice for boards. But it does suggest that it’s critical for insiders to resist legacies or relationships which might slow them down and that approaches which help insiders adopt an outsider’s mind-set have great potential. Equally, there is value in having outsiders who can lean into the boldness that their status naturally encourages. Some executives have done so by creating new ways to assess a company’s performance objectively—for example, by taking the view of a potential acquirer or activist investor9 looking for weak spots that require immediate attention. Others have reset expectations for the annual allocation of resources, changed the leadership model and executive compensation, established an innovation bank, and looked for additional ways to bring an external perspective to the heart of the leadership approach.
    • Don’t follow the herd. On average, new CEOs make many of the same moves, regardless of starting point. They will do better, however, by carefully considering the context of their companies and leveraging more scientific ways to assess their starting points. For instance, some new CEOs take stock of the economic-profit performance of companies relative to that of their peers and, in light of the starting position, assess the odds that potential moves will pay off.10
    • When you’re behind, look at the whole playbook. On average, CEOs taking the helm at underperforming companies do better when they make more major strategic moves, not fewer. That doesn’t mean they should try to do everything at once, but it does suggest a bias toward boldness and action. Plan a comprehensive set of moves that will significantly improve your company’s performance, and make sure that you aim high enough.11

    New CEOs take the helm with a singular opportunity to shape the companies they lead. The best ones artfully use their own transition into the CEO role to transform their companies. But this window of opportunity doesn’t last long. On average, an inflection point arrives during year three of a CEO’s tenure. At that point, a CEO whose company is underperforming is roughly twice as likely to depart as the CEO of an outperforming one—by far the highest level at any time in a chief executive’s tenure. During this relatively short window, fortune favors the bold.

     

  • Closing the gender pay gap

    View origianl publication on White & Case

    The landscape for gender pay gap reporting is shifting fast, and multinational corporations face a maze of new obligations in the different countries in which they operate. This myriad of legislation and regulation poses practical and operational challenges.

    There is no one standard international approach and there are big differences in the types of data that will need to be collected, how the information is reported and published, and penalties for failing to comply.

    Those that fall foul of the rules could—depending on the jurisdiction—face fines or the risk of being named and shamed, with all the reputational damage that could bring.

     

    Equality and pay

    Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show gradual progress is being made towards equality. But according to PwC’s Women in Work Index 2017, on average, women still earn 16 per cent less than men.

    The causes of the pay gap are deep-seated, often linked to women working in less remunerative sectors, taking career breaks and filling more part-time roles, and form part of a broader debate about equality involving not just the sexes, but also race and social mobility issues.

    The mounting evidence that closing the gender pay gap can have a beneficial effect on an individual company’s performance and the broader economy is driving a wave of new legislation as governments respond to the need to tackle gender pay inequalities. For some, addressing the pay divide has been a longstanding priority, while others are playing catch-up.

     

    Scandinavian countries that have advanced family-friendly policies with a wide range of support mechanisms for women in the workplace are often held up as a light of how things can be done well. In the private sector, tech companies have been at the forefront of the debate. Facebook and Microsoft announced that they had closed the gender pay gap on US Equal Pay Day in 2016.

    Understanding the numbers

    Approaches to gender pay reporting vary vastly between countries—from minimal legislation in Japan to wide-ranging and complex requirements in France, and it is vital that companies understand the legal requirements of each jurisdiction in which they operate. The laws in the country of their headquarters, which drive strategy across the business, may be very different from those in other countries where the business employs personnel.

    Thresholds for employee numbers covered by legislation differ, from 10 in Sweden to 500 in certain cases in Germany. In the UK, where new laws on gender pay gap reporting come into force in April 2017, the threshold is set at 250 employees per company (not in aggregate across a group of companies)

    Large corporations will meet the trigger points in many countries in which they operate. But common themes and methodology for collecting and analysing data will apply regardless of the country in which such obligations may occur. The first step in the process is to decide which group of individuals will be responsible for co-ordinating the complex exercise of gathering and monitoring data. The team will likely be led by a senior HR professional and will include representatives from many departments including payroll, HR, benefits and legal. A board-level director may be required to take overall responsibility for the process due to the high sensitivity of the data involved.

    A year ago, Dow Jones, the US-based news and information company, carried out a group-wide pay equity review, covering not just gender but also minority groups, which has laid out some of the groundwork for meeting legislation in the UK and elsewhere.

    “For a multinational organisation like ours, a lot of practice comes from outside the UK, so it wasn’t just a policy-driven decision for us,” explains Meredith Van Eeuwen, EMEA HR director at Dow Jones. “This was a global push: a top-down initiative paired with transparency, openness and a cultural change.”

    For many companies, compiling the raw data from various parts of the organisation will be a major task in itself. Even defining which employees are included is not straightforward. In the UK, for instance, some types of casual staff and contractors are counted while agency workers are not.

    There is also no single definition of ‘pay’, and the concept of what constitutes ‘pay’ can vary not just between countries and companies, but even between different functions in an organisation. Does it mean basic hourly pay, or does it also include overtime and bonuses? If bonuses are awarded as shares or options, should they be included when they incur a tax charge? And what about non-cash benefits and allowances, such as cars and travel, childcare and parental leave? These are fundamental issues that need to be clarified on a country-by-country basis.

    Getting the message right

    Collating the figures is only part of the process. That’s when the hard work begins. By trawling through the figures and looking across the business and different territories, companies should seek to uncover discrepancies and provide explanations. For example, in some organisations, the divide might be because of the high proportion of women in administrative jobs compared to a higher proportion of men in senior management roles.

    Geography can also play a part, not just between different countries but also within them. London salaries are typically higher than in the UK regions and this could skew the figures if management roles—dominated by men—are concentrated in the capital and administration is done elsewhere. In the US, for instance, rules on pay data that come into force in March 2018 also demand information about job category, sex, race and ethnicity. This requires a sophisticated system for analysing job grades and categories, but it is only by going into this level of detail and drilling down into the data that companies can draw out an understanding of the results and explain any discrepancies.

    One of the main reasons that women’s pay lags that of men is a difference in work-life patterns that sees them spend more time out of the workforce.

    Women also make up a higher proportion of part-time workers whose pay is generally lower than that of full-time colleagues. Scandinavian countries score highly on gender pay gap rankings because there is a relatively high number of women in full-time work, which in turn is a reflection of affordable childcare that helps women get back into the workforce.

    Bridging the gap

    However, as important as ‘why’ the gap exists is what steps an organisation will take to address the gap as part of a wider HR strategy, says Matthew Moth, founding partner of strategic communications consultancy Madano.

    “Organisations must think hard about the levers that they can use to drive change over time, as it will be tracked, says Moth. “This may be quite different from sector to sector, but will include areas such as recruitment policies, training, education, tools to understand the impact of decisions on gender pay gaps and communication tools to help employees return to work more easily.” Wholesale industry changes may also be necessary to create balance in sectors where there is a heavy gender bias, he adds.

    There are serious potential risks for those who ignore their reporting obligations. In some countries, there are legal consequences for failing to comply. The US can impose penalties, France has already fined companies for not meeting existing obligations and in certain circumstances, companies that fall foul of the rules can find themselves barred from bidding for public sector contracts. The UK legislation will oblige companies to publish their gender pay information annually and advises that they also issue a narrative explaining the results. And while there are no specified penalties, the publication of results opens the potential for naming and shaming poor performers.

    Deciding how to present and manage the messaging of gender pay gap reporting for a wide range of audiences is very important. Sophisticated companies will see the value in providing a narrative that brings the raw data to life for existing and prospective employees, stakeholders, other businesses and the wider community.

    Companies should see gender pay gap reporting as an important tool to look at the data across different locations, business units, subsidiaries and even management levels.

    Many organisations will likely go beyond simply meeting specific legal requirements, seizing the opportunity to gain a better understanding of their business and to improve performance. It will also provide a valuable blueprint for addressing other issues around diversity, equality and social responsibility, and a key benchmark by which companies will be judged. Armed with the data and the narrative, companies can apply the adage ‘what gets measured gets managed’ and absorb the results into their HR processes.

    There is a growing awareness that a gap on a CV from a career break can slow pay progression. Google’s policy of basing salaries on the market rate for a job rather than an applicant’s previous salary has meant that women enjoy bigger pay raises on joining the company than male counterparts.

    In January 2017, Philadelphia became the first US city to ban employers from asking for applicants’ salary history.

    There are big variations in what information is made public. Where the results are made public, companies will be able to benchmark themselves against their peers, not just in their pay gap performance, but in the way that they present the results and the narrative. They should go beyond offering an explanation for any discrepancies and set out plans to address the causes.

    The wider business case

    The impact of these reports could be profound. It is easy to understand why a woman faced with two similar potential employers would choose the one that has the most compelling evidence and narrative of its willingness to tackle the gender pay gap.

    “Whether or not companies are doing it because they are bound by law, they should think strategically about what they hope to get out of the process and start communicating that internally and externally,” Van Eeuwen advises.

    “This is a much bigger issue than how a company is perceived internally right now and a generation is coming through that will see this as a major issue when it comes to the recruitment process.”

    Indeed, gender pay gap reporting should be viewed as one measure in the wider agenda—not simply the end in itself, says Moth.

    “It is not thinking about how year one will ‘appear’ once you have crunched the data, but how that performance is going to track over time and the measures that you are implementing to shift that performance year-on-year towards your goal,” he says. “It is about creating a framework into which gender pay gap reporting fits.”

    For some organisations, it may make sense to create a three-year horizon for change and then demonstrate how performance is evolving annually, suggests Moth.

    “Other initiatives can be completed in shorter time frames, for example an education programme about unconscious bias, but the size and complexity of the organisation needs to be considered,” he cautions.

    In an age when companies are highly sensitive about their corporate and social responsibilities, a carefully written statement setting out an action plan will be valued by suppliers and clients who want to be seen to be dealing with partners that adopt an ethical approach.

    It will help monitor recruitment, pay and career progression and, where necessary, develop policies such as setting gender diversity targets, introducing gender-balance interview panels and eliminating unconscious bias in salary reviews and promotions.

    If companies want to tackle root causes of the gap, they should look at ways of helping women to return to work more quickly through support for childcare, improved provisions for shared parental leave and opportunities for flexible working. It will not solve the problem overnight and may not eliminate the divide entirely, but the gender gap reporting exercise will give senior management a vital tool for measuring progress.

  • Emotional Intelligence Has 12 Elements. Which Do You Need to Work On?

    by Daniel Goleman and Richard E. Boyatzis

    View original publication on hbr.org

    Esther is a well-liked manager of a small team. Kind and respectful, she is sensitive to the needs of others. She is a problem solver; she tends to see setbacks as opportunities. She’s always engaged and is a source of calm to her colleagues. Her manager feels lucky to have such an easy direct report to work with and often compliments Esther on her high levels of emotional intelligence, or EI. And Esther indeed counts EI as one of her strengths; she’s grateful for at least one thing she doesn’t have to work on as part of her leadership development. It’s strange, though — even with her positive outlook, Esther is starting to feel stuck in her career. She just hasn’t been able to demonstrate the kind of performance her company is looking for. So much for emotional intelligence, she’s starting to think.

    The trap that has ensnared Esther and her manager is a common one: They are defining emotional intelligence much too narrowly. Because they’re focusing only on Esther’s sociability, sensitivity, and likability, they’re missing critical elements of emotional intelligence that could make her a stronger, more effective leader. A recent HBR article highlights the skills that a kind, positive manager like Esther might lack: the ability to deliver difficult feedback to employees, the courage to ruffle feathers and drive change, the creativity to think outside the box. But these gaps aren’t a result of Esther’s emotional intelligence; they’re simply evidence that her EI skills are uneven. In the model of EI and leadership excellence that we have developed over 30 years of studying the strengths of outstanding leaders, we’ve found that having a well-balanced array of specific EI capabilities actually prepares a leader for exactly these kinds of tough challenges.

    There are many models of emotional intelligence, each with its own set of abilities; they are often lumped together as “EQ” in the popular vernacular. We prefer “EI,” which we define as comprising four domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Nested within each domain are twelve EI competencies, learned and learnable capabilities that allow outstanding performance at work or as a leader (see the image below). These include areas in which Esther is clearly strong: empathy, positive outlook, and self-control. But they also include crucial abilities such as achievement, influence, conflict management, teamwork and inspirational leadership. These skills require just as much engagement with emotions as the first set, and should be just as much a part of any aspiring leader’s development priorities.

    For example, if Esther had strength in conflict management, she would be skilled in giving people unpleasant feedback. And if she were more inclined to influence, she would want to provide that difficult feedback as a way to lead her direct reports and help them grow. Say, for example, that Esther has a peer who is overbearing and abrasive. Rather than smoothing over every interaction, with a broader balance of EI skills she could bring up the issue to her colleague directly, drawing on emotional self-control to keep her own reactivity at bay while telling him what, specifically, does not work in his style. Bringing simmering issues to the surface goes to the core of conflict management. Esther could also draw on influence strategy to explain to her colleague that she wants to see him succeed, and that if he monitored how his style impacted those around him he would understand how a change would help everyone.

    Similarly, if Esther had developed her inspirational leadership competence, she would be more successful at driving change. A leader with this strength can articulate a vision or mission that resonates emotionally with both themselves and those they lead, which is a key ingredient in marshaling the motivation essential for going in a new direction. Indeed, several studies have found a strong association between EI, driving change, and visionary leadership.

    In order to excel, leaders need to develop a balance of strengths across the suite of EI competencies. When they do that, excellent business results follow.

    How can you tell where your EI needs improvement — especially if you feel that it’s strong in some areas?

    Simply reviewing the 12 competencies in your mind can give you a sense of where you might need some development. There are a number of formal models of EI, and many of them come with their own assessment tools. When choosing a tool to use, consider how well it predicts leadership outcomes. Some assess how you see yourself; these correlate highly with personality tests, which also tap into a person’s “self-schema.” Others, like that of Yale University president Peter Salovey and his colleagues, define EI as an ability; their test, the MSCEIT (a commercially available product), correlates more highly with IQ than any other EI test.

    We recommend comprehensive 360-degree assessments, which collect both self-ratings and the views of others who know you well. This external feedback is particularly helpful for evaluating all areas of EI, including self-awareness (how would you know that you are not self-aware?). You can get a rough gauge of where your strengths and weaknesses lie by asking those who work with you to give you feedback. The more people you ask, the better a picture you get.

    Formal 360-degree assessments, which incorporate systematic, anonymous observations of your behavior by people who work with you, have been found to not correlate well with IQ or personality, but they are the best predictors of a leader’s effectiveness, actual business performance, engagement, and job (and life) satisfaction. Into this category fall our own model and the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory, or ESCI 360, a commercially available assessment we developed with Korn Ferry Hay Group to gauge the 12 EI competencies, which rely on how others rate observable behaviors in evaluating a leader. The larger the gap between a leader’s self-ratings and how others see them, research finds, the fewer EI strengths the leader actually shows, and the poorer the business results.

    These assessments are critical to a full evaluation of your EI, but even understanding that these 12 competencies are all a part of your emotional intelligence is an important first step in addressing areas where your EI is at its weakest. Coaching is the most effective method for improving in areas of EI deficit. Having expert support during your ups and downs as you practice operating in a new way is invaluable.

    Even people with many apparent leadership strengths can stand to better understand those areas of EI where we have room to grow. Don’t shortchange your development as a leader by assuming that EI is all about being sweet and chipper, or that your EI is perfect if you are — or, even worse, assume that EI can’t help you excel in your career.

     

  • How swapping life stories can make you a better leader

    Professor Nigel Nicholson on why executives should explore their own timeline and take interest in other people’s experiences
    By Nigel Nicholson

    View original publication on London Business School

    Did you ever tell someone your life story? If so, it was most likely when you were in the first warm flush of a new romance, with you and your beloved bonding by swapping narratives. Over the years, you’ve no doubt given friends and family edited highlights of the steps in your life journey. But it’s less likely that you’ll have told one or two attentive listeners whom you scarcely know the full story: the what, why and how of your journey to now. What would it feel like to do this? Why would your audience possibly be interested?

    You might be surprised on two counts. First, by the emotions you experience when doing this exercise. Second, by the positive impact your narrative has on your listeners, no matter how “ordinary” you think your story is. I see these effects regularly on the Biography Workshops I run for executives; the experience turns out to be remarkably powerful for both teller and listener.

    Let’s begin with the teller. Before you start talking, you’ll have drawn a Life-Line that maps out your key dates, events, relationships, roles and feelings over time. The mere act of doing this can be startling – you begin to recall sequences of events half forgotten. You see the drama, the highs and the disappointments with fresh eyes and are struck by how much has changed, including feelings that seemed indelible at the time. You’re also struck by how good eventually came out of what seemed like a disastrous situation, or how you slipped into negativity while scarcely aware of what you were doing.

    The landscape of your life is not proportional – some big things seem very distant while others continue to loom over you. Doing this exercise gives you a remarkable new perspective; part helicopter view and part re-immersion into the tangle of your past. The new perspective comes from the now and from your view of the future. It raises questions and clarifies choices.

    Some of these questions are important reflections for now and the future. You may find yourself asking, ‘Have I been making the same kind of mistakes repeatedly? What big decisions did I take too carelessly? What have life’s troubles taught me? How might I have undervalued these people or those processes? What might I have overvalued? What have I neglected that will help me in future? What have been the constant factors – visions, driving beliefs and reliable relationships – that have helped steer my course? What choices have come from the best part of me?’ These are important questions. The Life-Line exercise gives you an unparalleled opportunity to reflect and generate new plans and purposes for the next chapters of your story. In many cases, it’s a tool for thinking anew about legacy, an issue that looms larger as the years pass.

    Second, the listener. What effect does it have on them to hear your story? Far from being bored, judging you or failing to understand, you find people are drawn into your perspective, especially if they have similar backgrounds and experiences. This is a real eye-opener for cross-cultural insights. We often judge others and make snap judgements about their motives in ways that make us feel good about ourselves, without taking the time understand them. This exercise makes that kind of mental laziness difficult. It’s hard to judge when drawn into someone else’s narrative. You’ll more likely feel sympathy for the hard things that happened, understand their emotions and wonder how they coped with life’s challenges.

    Being a listener in this context is a gift as it allows us to do one of the things that self-centred humans find so hard: ‘decentring’. Self-centredness is the inevitable consequence of our strong sense of personal identity and the limitation of our vision. Yet, I find time again when coaching and consulting that we can transcend that limitation using our minds. Empathy – sharing someone else’s feelings – is easy with people we love but harder with those we don’t. It’s especially difficult with people who we have nothing in common with. They may come from a completely different background or culture; or we may not trust or like them much. Decentring – seeing the world from another person’s perspective – is unlike empathy. It’s more analytical, allowing us to understand the inner and outer forces that bear down on others. It’s almost easier to decentre with strangers and enemies. We can take friends and family for granted but tend to be more cautious with strangers and enemies.

    Empathy is easier with people we like or respect, as we find them. Decentring really helps as a “cooler” analytical process on the left side, but comes into its own as a really special technique on the right side of the line. It’s not easy, but there are various exercises I use that can help people decentre. The Life Line exercise is a superhighway to decentring. It is a vivid demonstration that it almost impossible for you not to develop a deeper understanding of how others really think, feel and act if you decentre.

    Deep insight into other is not just therapeutic. It is essential in management and leadership. It’s a powerful tool for negotiation, alliances, managing difficult people and outmanoeuvring those who might be obstructing us. With enemies, it can replace fear and anger with a more dispassionate intelligence, making it a tool for smart and humane Machiavellianism – know thine enemy!

    In summary, the Life Line provides us with two powerful benefits. One is to give us a fresh perspective on the relationship between the past and the future, and find renewal of purpose in the present. The second opens an escape hatch from our self-centred vision, giving us a deeper understanding of what it means to be another, different and remarkable human being.

  • How to Build an Onboarding Plan for a New Hire

    Managers are often so driven to recruit talented workers that they neglect to think about what will happen once the new hire arrives ready to work. Big mistake.

    By Peter Vanden Bos

    View original publication on Inc.

    With the economy on the upswing, many growing companies are starting to go after talented new employees. That means a lot of first days on the jobs, and lot of time and money to spend while new staffers get up to speed. What if you could shrink the time it takes for an employee to reach his or her full potential?

    That’s the promise of a growing trend in human-resources management called onboarding; its advocates describe it as a comprehensive approach to bringing on new hires that goes beyond simple orientation. Onboarding plans are intended to make new employees familiar with the overall goals of a company and support them as they embark on early projects all in an effort to achieve the perception of success (and productivity) quickly. The ultimate payoff is to reduce turnover and encourage workers to stay with an organization for a longer tenure.

    ‘It’s really about calculating the cost of hiring new workers to the business,’ says John Sullivan, former chief talent officer for Agilent Technologies and a professor of management at San Francisco State University. ‘Companies need new hires to be productive and, at a small company especially, every employee counts.’

    Here’s a look at how your company can set up an onboarding process to shorten the learning curve for new hires.

    Onboarding a New Hire: Plan Ahead

    Think onboarding begins on an employee’s first day? Wrong. A successful onboarding program actually begins during the recruitment and hiring process, says Erin Perry, director of client solutions at Pinstripe, a recruiting company based in Brookfield, Wisconsin. An onboarding process is linked to and in some ways starts with the employer brand that you create to attract people who are the right fit for your company’s overall goals. ‘If you’re a high tech organization that has a cool brand and that uses social media and talks about innovation when you’re advertising to attract new associates, that’s great,” Perry says. “But if on a new hire’s first day you hand them 15 different forms to fill out, your employment brand message has just died.”

    Experts suggest you begin the orientation process before a candidate is formally hired by including ample information about your workplace and your culture in the Careers section on your website. ‘The orientation should begin at the first click of the mouse when someone first goes on the company’s website, so by the time the person comes in for the interview, they already know quite a lot about the organization,’ says Richard Jordan, a business coach who has been responsible for reshaping the recruiting and orientation process at a number of technology firms. That way, you are more likely to attract candidates who are more engaged with your company’s goals and culture and are more likely to become highly productive employees.

    A new hire will surely be required to fill out a lot of new paperwork, so why not get a head start? Many companies choose to send necessary legal forms along with a formal offer letter. You can also send an employee handbook ahead of time, so that new staff members aren’t overwhelmed with information on the first day.

    HR software and other related applications can also be deployed ahead of time. Automated systems are especially useful because onboarding requires the involvement of multiple departments within a company, all working together to welcome and engage a new employee, to make him or her feel as comfortable as possible from Day One. The right technology can help coordinate various individuals and tasks by taking care of paperwork electronically, or sending notifications alerting IT support staff to configure a new hire’s laptop and BlackBerry.

    Technology can also be an effective way to socialize your new hire into your company’s organizational culture, Perry says. On a company Intranet, you can make available to a new hire multimedia such as video and podcasts that state your company’s overall strategic goals, talk about your company’s values, and provide employee testimonials. As a bonus, these videos can feature company leaders, which will help introduce key players, cutting down on the endless name game that typically happens on an employee’s first day.

    Dig Deeper: How to Improve Your Hiring Practices

    Onboarding a New Hire: On the First Day, Nail the Details

    The prospect of the first day on the job is nerve-wracking. New hires are eager to impress their new bosses. So, if they don’t know where the photocopier is or how to use it, chances are they aren’t going to ask, and will waste time trying to figure the little things out for themselves. And if you throw a bunch of information at them, chances are they’re not going to remember most of it. With an effective onboarding program, you should aim to present basic information in an easy-to-digest fashion, so that a rookie can turn to the more demanding aspects of his or her job.

    The way to do that is to consider the small, logistical details that add up to a sense of comfort and familiarity one has in a workplace. This is good not just for a new hire’s peace of mind, but also for the overall health and well-being of your business. ‘If a person is new and doesn’t know how to use the phone system and accidentally hangs up on a potential client, that client is not going to care that they were new,’ says John Sullivan. ‘They’re just going to be angry.’

    Here’s a list of things you should have ready by the time your new hires walk in the door:

    • Send out an e-mail to everyone in the office so they’re prepared to welcome a new employee.
    • Get the new worker a security badge if he or she needs one.
    • Provide a name plate on his or her desk or office door as a tangible sign that you’ve prepared the space.
    • Set up the computer.
    • Configure the new employee’s e-mail accounts.
    • Provide guides for any necessary software he or she will be using.
    • Set up his or her phone system, and provide instructions for using voicemail.
    • Have a stack of business cards waiting.

    And here’s a list of questions you should answer for the new employee voluntarily:

    • What should he or she bring? (Telling them to bring two forms of ID to verify paperwork is a good idea.)
    • Where should he or she park?
    • Who should he or she ask for in the lobby?
    • Where are the restrooms?
    • Where is the copy machine? (And how does it work?)
    • Where is the cafeteria?
    • Who should the employee talk to if he or she has additional questions? (It’s a good idea to assign a co-worker or a hiring manager as a mentor to check-in with the new hire throughout at least the first week.)

    A new employee’s immediate supervisor should also be present on the first day. ‘The worst thing you can do is have new hires show up when their immediate supervisor isn’t there for three or four days,’ Sullivan says. ‘It’s like getting married and not having your spouse on your honeymoon.’

    Dig Deeper: Mastering a New Employee’s First Day

    Onboarding a New Hire:  Individualizing the Process

    Unlike a traditional first-day orientation, where an employee generally spends a good chunk of time signing forms for Human Resources and reviewing the policies of the organization, onboarding is intended to be a multi-faceted approach. And while the list of things to consider for a new hire’s first day applies to pretty much any employee, that doesn’t mean you should forget about the unique needs of each individual. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    For example, different people prefer different management styles, so why not ask a new employee from the start how he or she wants to be managed? ‘Onboarding is a performance-based, customized approach,’ Sullivan says. ‘Why don’t ask you upfront what is the best way to manage you?’

    A more personal element to the process can engage new employees, giving them the ability to identify their personal goals with the overall success of the organization. Ari Weinzweig, CEO of the Zingerman’s Community of Businesses, a group of food specialty businesses in Ann Arbor, Michigan, still personally teaches an orientation class to new staffers. ‘By taking the time to teach the orientation, the clear message that comes across is that we value them and their work so highly that the head of the company is willing to sit with them to go over things,’ he says.

    Make sure a new staff member understands how he or she can individually contribute to the company. Explain to the employee how your performance appraisal system works, so he or she won’t waste time on things that don’t matter, and can quickly begin to work on key objectives. If you make a custom onboarding plan, ‘you’re leaving the individual with the impression that employees are very important assets to the organization, chosen from among many candidates, and that their talent and potential is recognized,’ Jordan says. ‘You want to make sure you develop their career path within the organization.’

    How vested an employee feels to a company also has to do with the social relationships he or she makes with co-workers. An onboarding process should consider those relationships and facilitate them from the very beginning. Organize a lunch on the first day with the new employee’s team or department the new employee. Or try giving your new employee a week’s worth of gift certificates for lunch, so he or she can take a colleague to lunch each day.

    Dig Deeper: How Hiring Rituals Build Company Culture

    Onboarding a New Hire: Following Through on Your Plan

    On-boarding doesn’t end on the Friday of a new employee’s first week on the job. The process should continue over the span of several months and, during that time, it is essential to solicit feedback from all constituents. A good way to do that is to assign a recruiting manager to keep track of the new hire’s first few months on the job, Jordan says, because that individual will already have developed a relationship with the employee.

    ‘I’m a big believer of surveying at every step of the process,’ Perry says. She suggests surveying at the end of the first week and at the close of each of the employee’s first three months, asking different questions at each stage. Begin with questions about the recruiting process, how the first day met the employee’s expectations, and whether they are struggling with any issues related to technology. Then, start asking whether the employee has the necessary tools to complete his or her job and, finally, begin asking about an employee’s strategic goals. You want to learn how engaged or connected the new hire feels to the organization.

    You also want to make sure someone is accountable, preferably a line manager who realizes the cost savings to the business if a new employee gets up to speed quicker. You want managers to be very aware that you are measuring productivity through metrics. Make sure employees actually are becoming productive and, if they are not, figure out what is going wrong. Continually fine-tune how you onboard employees to make sure you can maximize the benefits of the process.

    Once you’ve done that, you can begin to establish a general checklist of what you want to cover when you’re onboarding. Even within that structured plan or process, make sure you leave room for those personal touches. ‘Your employees are going to get orientated whether you plan for it or not,” Perry observes. “But if you do plan it, it’s a lot more likely to be successful.”

     

  • 5 Habits Of Effective Introverted Leaders

    5 Habits Of Effective Introverted Leaders

    [Photo: Flickr user John Alexis Guerra Gómez]

    View publication at Fast Company

    Introverts can be quiet changemakers. Here’s how they can adopt their leadership style in a world that won’t shut up.
    By Trina Isakson 4 minute Read

    Leadership is often associated with words like “charisma,” “power,” “outgoing,” and “confident.” As a result, introverted and quiet changemakers may have difficulties envisioning what their leadership looks like.

    But core aspects of leadership, such as those described by transformational leadership researchers James MacGregor Burns, Bernard M. Bass, James Kouzes, and Barry Posner, and by Good to Great author Jim Collins, reflect ideas that are in total alignment with quiet changemakers, and you don’t need to be in a position of authority or have a formal leadership role to practice these leadership characteristics.

    Here are a few practices that introverts–whom I refer to as “quiet changemakers”–can adopt to strengthen their leadership:

    1. Good leaders treat those around them as individuals.

    They learn the interests and preferences of their colleagues. They engage in two-way communication. Quiet changemakers can excel through our preference for one-on-one or small-group communication. Through these individual interactions, we learn about our colleagues more deeply in a way that positively impacts our relationships.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I know much about my colleagues outside of work?
    • What do my colleagues and I have in common? Difference?
    • Which parts of their jobs do my colleagues love/hate?
    • What skills do my colleagues have that they don’t have a chance to share in their jobs?
    • How do my colleagues work best?

    2. Good leaders provide opportunities for others to demonstrate their thinking and knowledge.

    They provide space for intellectual discussion. They ask others to provide advice. They provide opportunities for people to show off their knowledge. Quiet changemakers can do well because of their enjoyment of conversation with just a few people on topics of shared interest. They can be good listeners and allow other people to spend more time talking. They can share work or ask for advice in ways that allow other people to shine in their areas of expertise.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Who knows more than me in an area I’d like to improve in? What advice can I ask of them?
    • What projects am I working on that others may be interested in getting involved with?
    • Who would be interested in joining me about a discussion on ________?
    • Are there opportunities for my colleagues to lead mini-professional development lunches so that we can learn from each other?

    3. Good leaders are good role models.

    They follow through on commitments. They have strong characters and are consistent in their beliefs. They offer to help for the good of the team. Quiet changemakers can practice this aspect of leadership by knowing their values and contributing to a positive overall environment.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Does my current workload allow me to follow through on all commitments?
    • Do my values align with those of the organization?
    • Are my interactions with others generally positive, or do I focus on the negative or gossip too much?
    • Do I help others and provide others the opportunity to help me when times are tough?

    4. Good leaders focus their energy on the big picture.

    They ensure that work aligns with the mission and values of the team. They help keep people focused on the end goal. Quiet changemakers naturally take time to reflect on their purpose and that of the organization.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I understand how my work and that of my colleagues connects the purpose of the organization and can I communicate that to others?
    • Am I able to communicate how our work positively impacts society?
    • What aspect of my organization’s work really invigorates me?
    • Who in my network would also enjoy talking about the bigger picture of our organization’s work and/or the type of work I contribute to the movement?

    5. Good leaders are both strong-willed and humble.

    They are driven to achieve a purpose, but aren’t interested in taking all the credit or blaming others for failure. They are strong yet reflective. Quiet changemakers are naturally interested in reflection, enjoying time alone thinking. And as introverts often overthink past interactions, we may be at risk for overly blaming ourselves when things don’t work out, so we also need to give ourselves a break once in a while.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I know what I want to achieve in my role?
    • Who else can I credit for my successes?
    • What have I learned from past failures and missteps, and how can I share that learning with others?
    • Am I spending time on my purpose? Or are my personal issues getting in the way of success?

    Leadership as a concept or something to aspire to can be alienating to many. If you don’t have a job that involves supervising others or have natural skill as a charismatic public speaker, it can be hard to see yourself as a leader. But by practicing many of the qualities of leadership that align with being a quiet changemaker, leadership is accessible for the introverts among our movements, too.