Tag: Business

  • California is cracking down on the gig economy

    The state Assembly just passed a bill that could give Uber and Lyft drivers basic labor protections for the first time

    By Alexia Fernández  Campbellalexia@vox.com

    California just took a major step in rewriting the rules of the gig economy.

    The state Assembly passed a bill Wednesday that would make it harder for companies to label workers as independent contractors instead of employees, a common practice that has allowed businesses to skirt state and federal labor laws. The bill will now go to the state Senate.

    Hundreds of thousands of independent contractors in California, ranging from Uber and Amazon drivers to manicurists and exotic dancers, would likely become employees under the bill.

    That small status change is huge. These workers would suddenly get labor protections and benefits that all employees get, such as unemployment insurance, health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, and a guaranteed $12 minimum hourly wage. It also means companies are fuming about the added cost.

    The California bill, known as AB5, expands a groundbreaking California Supreme Court decision last year known as Dynamex. The ruling and the bill instruct businesses to use the so-called “ABC test” to figure out whether a worker is an employee. To hire an independent contractor, businesses must prove that the worker (a) is free from the company’s control, (b) is doing work that isn’t central to the company’s business, and (c) has an independent business in that industry. If they don’t meet all three of those conditions, then they have to be classified as employees.

    That is a much clearer — and stricter — standard of proof than the vague guidelines under federal law. And it’s one of the biggest challenges yet to the profit model of Uber, Instacart, Postmates, and other tech companies that rely on a small army of independent contractors. Uber would likely have to reclassify tens of thousands of drivers in California as employees — something Uber drivers have been fighting for in court, unsuccessfully, for years.

    “Big businesses shouldn’t be able to pass their costs onto taxpayers while depriving workers of the labor law protections they are rightfully entitled to,” San Diego Assembly member Lorena González wrote on Twitter after members voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill she helped write.

    California businesses have been panicking over the possibility of the bill passing. The state’s Chamber of Commerce and dozens of industry groups have been lobbying for exemptions, and a long list of professions were excluded from the bill: doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, insurance agents, accountants, engineers, financial advisers, real estate agents, and hairstylists who rent booths at salons.

    Industry groups argue that these professionals are true independent contractors, with their own businesses and power to negotiate work contracts. Lawmakers agreed. After all, the purpose of the bill is to shrink income inequality by helping workers who employers are most likely to exploit. Uber drivers are the loudest in that group.

    Ride-sharing apps have done everything to keep drivers as contractors

    When Uber drivers went on strike across the world earlier this month, much of their frustration had to do with their lack of power as independent contractors.

    Uber’s profit model, like all others in the gig economy, depends on all the money saved from skirting US labor laws.

    By classifying drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, Uber doesn’t need to pay certain taxes, benefits, overtime, or minimum wages to tens of thousands of drivers. As self-employed contractors, drivers don’t have a legal right to form labor unions and negotiate contracts either.

    Uber drivers have spent more than six years fighting the company in court, saying they’ve been intentionally misclassified. They argue that drivers should be considered employees because the company has so much control over their workday, including strict rules on their vehicle conditions, what rides they can take, and which routes to take.

    Uber has fought back, maintaining that drivers are not employees because they set their own schedules and provide their own cars.

    So far, the issue has not been resolved, at least not at the national level.

    Last month, Uber settled the main court case with 13,600 Uber drivers, agreeing to pay them $20 million, but without changing their status as independent contractors. The other 350,000 drivers who were part of the initial class-action lawsuit had signed mandatory arbitration agreements, so a federal judge is requiring them to pursue their cases in a private forum, where they are less likely to win their case.

    But it would be hard for Uber to pass the ABC test if the California bill becomes law; driving people around in cars is a central part of the company’s business.

    Any challenge to the drivers’ status as contractors threatens Uber’s bottom line, which is another reason the bill is so significant

    Uber has been upfront with investors about the risk of a labor revolt. In a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Uber acknowledged that giving drivers the same legal rights as employees would “fundamentally change” the company’s financial model:

    If, as a result of legislation or judicial decisions, we are required to classify Drivers as employees … we would incur significant additional expenses for compensating Drivers, potentially including expenses associated with the application of wage and hour laws (including minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest period requirements), employee benefits, social security contributions, taxes, and penalties.

    So it’s unsurprising that Uber is not happy about a law that would force the company to hire drivers as employees.

    As employees, gig workers would have a safety net for the first time ever. The changes from the bill would also benefit the state of California, which estimates that it loses $7 billion in tax revenue each year from companies that misclassify employees.

    Misclassification happens more often than you think

    Even though it’s impossible to get precise data on how often employers misclassify their workers, there’s no doubt that it’s a big problem. The IRS, the Government Accountability Office, and the Inspector General for Tax Administration have repeatedly raised concerns about how often employers do this.

    The deputy inspector general for audit at the Treasury Department wrote in a 2009 memo to the agency’s head of enforcement:

    There are employers who deliberately misclassify workers to cut costs and to gain a greater competitive edge. These employers avoid paying their share of employment taxes as well as other expenses such as workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and other benefits. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors and not incurring the related costs can give these employers a competitive advantage over employers who treat their workers as employees.

    In September 2011, the IRS and DOL agreed to work together to share information to prevent misclassification and report on their progress each year.

    In 2017, a long-awaited report was published by the Government Accountability Office, analyzing government efforts to combat tax fraud. The report summarized findings from an IRS audit of 15.7 million tax returns from 2008 to 2010. It turns out that about 3 million of those returns involved misclassification, adding up to about $44.3 billion in unpaid federal taxes that were later adjusted.

    Since then, little progress has been made. In December, the Treasury Department said misclassification is still a “nationwide problem” and that the IRS and Labor Department are not doing enough to address it.

    California’s bill is the biggest effort yet to fix the problem.

    A court ruling changed everything

    A 10-year-old lawsuit in California paved the way for AB5. In April, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of workers in the case, called Dynamex Operations West v Superior Court.

    Workers for a document delivery company called Dynamex Operations West were seeking employment status. The drivers for the delivery service first brought their case over a decade ago, arguing that they were required to wear the company’s uniform and display its logo, while providing their own vehicles and shouldering all the costs associated with the deliveries, and thus should be classified as employees, not independent contractors. (Amazon drivers recently sued the company for similar reasons).

    In May 2018, the state’s highest court agreed with Dynamex drivers. The ruling essentially created the ABC test as precedent, but it only relates to workers seeking minimum wages and overtime pay. The case didn’t address workers’ compensation benefits. It didn’t clarify which workers are entitled to rest and meal breaks, or who has a right to paid parental leave and other guaranteed benefits.

    Many states use some version of the ABC test, but usually just to determine whether someone is entitled to unemployment benefits. Only New Jersey, Vermont, and Massachusetts use the standard to enforce all state labor laws.

    Under federal law, there is no clear standard. The federal courts and the US Department of Labor decide who has been misclassified by weighing multiple factors, including how much control the company has over the worker and how central their work is to the company’s operations.

    If passed, California’s AB5 bill would reflect a major turning point in the post-recession economic expansion. California has the largest state economy in the country and is home to the Silicon Valley tech industry — which means its lawmakers have outsized influence in national politics. The bill could lead other states to take similar action.

    “Here we are in a great economy and yet most working people have no money saved,” Caitlin Vega, legislative director for the California Labor Federation, told me. “[Companies] are doing this because they can, they’ve gotten away with it.”

    Democrats have a veto-proof super majority in California’s Senate and General Assembly, so there’s a good chance that AB5 will become law, making it harder for those companies to get away with misclassifying their workforce.

    Correction: A previous version of this article stated the wrong date for the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court. It was in May 2018.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/30/18642535/california-ab5-misclassify-employees-contractors

  • Retail today: Are Corporate Executive Coaches Ready to Coach C-suite Executives?

    Retail today: Are Corporate Executive Coaches Ready to Coach C-suite Executives?

  • When the Weight of a Decision is Keeping You Up at Night…

    When the Weight of a Decision is Keeping You Up at Night…

    Most of us find it easy to make a decision when faced with a right versus a wrong option. We were educated to know the difference between right and wrong in most cases, and through experience our minds were shaped to know how to make such a decision.

    There is clearly a right way to do things because doing it any other way would be wrong. As leaders, we tend to experience these types of situations on a daily basis. And, for the most part, we do quite well in removing obstacles, selecting the best options, and getting things done. However, most of us were not equipped to deal with situations that actually present two equally right options.

    The challenge in these situations is deciding which right thing to do because choosing one means we cannot chose the other. When faced with a right-AND-right choice, we are more likely to avoid making a decision altogether. Relying on the simple rule of “do what feels right” school of personal ethics won’t resolve your dilemma. Moreover, not making any decision doesn’t mean that the situation goes away or vanishes completely. In fact, the opposite is true. It creates a bottleneck, with work piling up because mandates cannot be completed on time due to your indecision. And try as you may, you cannot avoid these situations. It sort of feels like an unwanted traveling companion moving with you wherever you go. The weight of that decision lies solely with you, and only you can decide. No one else.

    So what’s ‘the thing’ about situations that ask you to choose one good option over another good option? Fundamentally, they require you to consider all aspects of the situation in light of personal and organizational values concurrently since the decision you will ultimately need to make will not only shape your character, but also the fabric of your organization.Throughout your professional career, the weight of these situations is experienced slightly differently.

    During the early years, the right-AND-right scenarios tend to touch upon personal integrity. Choosing one option versus another one usually means you compromise something that is of value to you. The pull is between one set of responsibilities over another: “Do I say ‘yes’ and realize I cannot do that anymore? If I accept this, it means I need to give up that!” The qualitative nature of the pull is essentially about you.

    As you gain in scope of influence and accountability in your line of work, these situations of right-ANDright tend to take on a different, more complex flavor. Now, your decisions are not purely personal. The consequences of your decisions can send ripple effects throughout the organization. Everyone is watching you carefully, and noticing if what you said is what you will do. Your decisions can also impact whether others will follow your lead or not: “If I decide to act on this, how will others interpret our corporate rules? By making this decision, who in my group will be mostly impacted? By saying no to this, will others feel I wasn’t being fair?”

    These decisions do define your leadership future as people notice the incongruence in how you hold yourself and others accountable to what you said was important to you, to the team, and to the organization. Finally, and perhaps the most challenging of situations are those that impact networks of relationships outside of your organization. These relationships have legitimate claims, but you cannot satisfy them all. Obligations to one network may be in conflict with another, for instance. Complicating this decision-making process is the stake you claim personally.

    Your own personal values and views may be in direct opposition to any one stakeholder group and what they are responsible for. In his seminal book, entitled, “Defining Moments”, Joseph Badaracco (1997) takes a deep dive into these situations. Suffice to say that there is no exact science or fast-easy approach. Making decisions in right-AND-right situations calls for prudence and awareness of our own moral compass. It demands that we select one option knowing that it factors out all future opportunities and possibilities linked with the other option. Organizations, for their part, ought to encourage managers to value the decision-making process for its inherent complexity, and not just push for ANY decision to be made.

    Moreover, when a decision is well-researched (not just rationalized) and thoughtful, it should be seen as ONE good decision even if it leads to an outcome that was not wanted. Otherwise, you risk creating organizational cultures where decisions are only made in right-versus-wrong situations, and those that present leaders with right-AND-right options are avoid ed altogether.*** Not too long ago, I shared the following three rules with a young aspiring student who was faced with aright-AND-right scenario. My intention was to help her notice that she was indeed facing a situation that she had never encountered before, and that the choice she made today meant eliminating some future directions.

    Embedded in my strategy was to have her ease into this part of young adulthood and not fear such situations as she is bound to experience more in her adult life.Three Rules to a Happy Life:

    1. Never be too proud to change your mind. The sign of a strong leader is one who changes her decision as new information emerges.

    2. Never go for easy. You have one life. Make it matter.

    3. Even after you have carefully considered your options and how each one factors in and factors out possible pathways, flip a coin and name the two sides. If the toss lands on one side that represents the option you chose, and you feel the need to flip again, you have your answer.

    Final words:I’ve encountered countless leaders faced with right-AND-right situations who in the moment, needed an impartial person to help them through the decision: Someone completely separate from their company and usual circle of trusted advisors who although held in high esteem, still tended to have some sort of bias. They have acknowledged that a simple phone call to a professional coach, outside of their structured leadership and mentorship programs, was the game-changing difference. This my friends, was the AHA! moment I had in founding Grand Heron International – for on-demand coaching, for anyone, anywhere, facing a situation where they feel stuck and unable to move forward. I’ve been there, I’ve seen others there and chances are, you’ve been there in your professional life too.

    Remember: Stagnating in indecision is never an option. There are ways to help you see beyond the horizon.

    By Mirella De Civita Ph.D., PCC, MCEC President & Founder of Grand Heron International https://grandheroninternational.ca/

     

  • The coaching space: A production of power relationships in organizational settings

  • The One Voice Holding You Back Could Be Your Own

    We act on the things we tell ourselves. Here’s how to make that internal dialogue work for you (your clients).

    As I work with clients to help them become the leaders they want to be, I often find that the singular thing holding them back — or pushing them forward — is what they tell themselves.

    Take, for example, my client Carissa, a high-tech professional on the path to a leadership position. Carissa has a promising career. She holds a Harvard MBA. Her company has flagged her as a high-potential leader and enrolled her in a robust leadership program.

    During our first coaching session, I asked Carissa what she’d like to work on. “I constantly self-sabotage,” she replied. “I put myself down all the time and I don’t see my own worth.”

    This ongoing internal dialogue affects how she presents herself at work. When Carissa facilitates meetings, she uses self-deprecating phrases like, “I’m not an expert,” “I’m not sure if this is right,” and “I may be wrong.” This language immediately tells her audience, “I don’t believe in myself. You shouldn’t either.”

    Carissa’s internal dialogue affects her non-verbal communication, too. When she’s not leading a meeting, she tends to sit in the back of the room, out of sight, sending the message that she does not belong. Even though her education, experience, and performance more than prove she does.

    There are many cultural, sociological, and personal reasons behind the things we say to ourselves. But one thing is universally true: Our internal dialogue can become so powerful that it can change the way we live our lives.

    The story you tell yourself can hold you back, or it can power you to move forward. Here are some strategies to help you change your story.

    1. Identify your story. Many of us are not aware of our internal dialogue. The first step is figuring out what we’re telling ourselves, and making sure it’s helping, not hurting. What do you say to yourself after a success? After a failure? How do you approach high-stress situations — do you build yourself up, or tear yourself down?

    2. Develop a growth mindset. According to researcher Carol Dweck, there are two types of mindsets — a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. People who hold fixed mindsets believe their talents and abilities are permanently in place, inflexible to change. On the other hand, people with growth mindsets focus on the future. They believe their talents and abilities can grow and develop. Our internal dialogue can reflect a fixed mindset (“I’m just not good at public speaking”) or a growth mindset (“With some practice, I’ll be a great public speaker.”)

    3. Think in the “now.” People often place conditions on their happiness or readiness for success — “I’ll be happy when I get a different job,” or “I’ll be confident at work once I have enough experience.” This type of thinking may focus on the future, but it is limiting. It keeps us from living in the moment, from taking the experience, knowledge and confidence we have now and using it as fuel for growth.

    4. Treat yourself with respect. Before you engage in internal dialogue, ask yourself, is this something I would say to a friend? A colleague? A family member? If it’s something you wouldn’t say to someone you respect, don’t say it to yourself. The inspirational George Raveling, Nike’s former Director of International Basketball, said it best when he said: “Most relationships come with an expiration date. The most important relationship you will ever have is the relationship you have with yourself.”

    5. Be intentional. In his book “Triggers” executive coach and author Marshall Goldsmith describes a set of questions he asks himself at the end of each day. The questions start with the phrase, “Have I done my best” as it relates to health, relationships, and professional matters. For example, “Have I done my best today to build positive relationships?” Think if there are any areas of your life that can benefit from specific, intentional self-messaging. Replacing negative, self-sabotaging internal dialogue with questions like these can lead us on a more proactive, positive path.

    6. Meditate with a mantra. Marshall’s questions are intentional. Another way to integrate a daily intention is through meditation, specifically with a mantra that focuses us in a positive direction. Deepak Chopra has authored many of my favorite mantras, including “Everything I desire is within me” and “I move through my days light-hearted and carefree, knowing all is well.”

    As I meditate, I use these mantras as reminders of my intention, reminders that as I change my internal dialogue — my own story — I change my life.

    Published on: Sep 17, 2018 Inc.com https://www.inc.com/maya-hu-chan/the-one-voice-holding-you-back-could-be-your-own.html?cid=search
  • How You Need to Balance Belonging with Standing Out

    How You Need to Balance Belonging with Standing Out

    by Liz Guthridge, MCEC | Jul 7, 2018 | Blog | 0 comments

    Superstars, rock stars, and heroes who save the day have fallen out of favor in many organizations.

    Now we’re encouraged to celebrate team players who cooperate, collaborate, and play well with others.

    They combine their brainpower to deal with the complexity surrounding us. (Yes, it’s a VUCA–volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous—world.) More brains are better than one as it’s impossible for one person to know all the answers, or even pose all the key questions.

    Yet, we still need to pay attention to and honor individuals and their personal contributions.

    Any time we ignore an individual’s “superpowers” or even a person’s unique characteristics, we turn a blind eye to our humanity. As a result, we’re doing a disservice to individual team members and the team as a whole that can hurt individual as well as team performance.

    Here’s why individual recognition is so important. We humans have two competing social needs—the need to belong and the need to stand out from the crowd. Or in a work setting, stand out on the team.

    Scientists have a name for this dynamic duality: optimal distinctiveness.

    Becoming aware of this 27-year-old concept is the first step to improving individual performance and creating more inclusive, better performing teams.

    The second step is finding the optimal balance between homogeneity and uniqueness. This is challenging, not only for an individual, but also for team leaders and especially organizational leaders.

    The upside of belonging gives you as a team member purpose, meaning and clarity. Let’s say you’re proud to be a member of a special project team that’s tackling a vital organizational issue, such as expanding services to new customers, including animal owners.

    On the downside, you don’t want your group membership to crush your personality or silence your distinct voice, especially when you have a strong point of view. For instance, what if you don’t have much passion or compassion for one of the new customer niches, such as exotic animal owners?

    For some individuals, getting and staying in equilibrium with certain groups can be a continual challenge.

    As a leader, you may need to make an effort to achieve optimal distinctiveness for your teams or organization unless the duality is baked into your organizational DNA.

    For instance, consider Airbnb and Planned Parenthood. Both are built around group belonging and individual uniqueness. Airbnb hosts offer up their personal homes to guests. In Planned Parenthood’s case, stand-alone affiliates around the United States provide reproductive health care and other related services to local patients. These affiliates represent the Planned Parenthood brand as they adjust their delivery to fit their local community.

    For leaders in other types of organizations, here are three suggestions for working toward applying optimal distinctiveness:

    Embrace inclusion, recognizing that it affects everyone. As the neuroscientists say, if you aren’t actively including people, you’re accidentally excluding them. The human brain interprets ambiguity as a potential threat, which can make people feel they don’t belong and you as a leader may not care about them. From a practical perspective,

    as a leader you can make people feel included by being clear in your words and actions that they are members of the group and play an important role.

    Remind them of the group’s purpose.

    Keep them regularly informed.

    Help them and others find common ground as they work.

    Encourage them to speak up, reinforcing that it’s a safe place. (For more about the importance of psychological safety and inclusion, check out Why you need safety for a high-performing culture.)

    Get to know team members as individuals and treat them according to the platinum rule. This means treating people the way they want to be treated.

    For example, if they prefer private recognition over public recognition, write them a handwritten, personal note to thank them for their contribution instead of asking them to stand up to be applauded at a public meeting.

    In other situations, be curious about their interests outside of work, such as entertainment preferences, hobbies and family, and ask about them.

    And support them in bringing their whole self to work and expressing their individuality.

    Champion volunteer issues groups, rather than employee resource groups. As background, the traditional employee resource groups, such as women’s groups, African-American Groups, and LGBTQ groups, heighten the differences among individuals in the workforce. This can lead to two detrimental effects. Those who don’t fit the group membership criteria feel excluded. (This has contributed to many white males feeling they’re being left behind in diversity initiatives.) Also, research has shown that identity groups can act as an echo chamber for individuals, perpetuating self-stereotypes, such as women feeling they lack confidence.

    By contrast, volunteer issue groups, such as teams working to protect the environment, further education, or address customer concerns, give interested individuals an opportunity to contribute their unique gifts for a good cause and work with others who share their interests.

    Yes, there’s pressure between belonging and maintaining individual identity. However, it’s a healthy tension that contributes to our humanness. And if individuals and leaders make an effort to strike a balance both as individuals and teams, they can achieve amazing things together.

    How do you balance belonging with standing out?

    Resource: https://connectconsultinggroup.com/how-you-need-to-balance-belonging-with-standing-out/

  • How To Use 360-Degree Feedback For Executive Coaching

    Executive coaching has been on the rise for decades as a strategic investment in human capital. When well-designed and delivered, coaching has been found to be one of the most effective approaches for developing senior leaders and enhancing the performance of their teams and organizations.

    One of the most important components of executive coaching is the 360-degree feedback that the coach gathers for coaching participants about their strengths and development needs, how they are perceived, and what they need to do in order to achieve a higher level of performance and positive impact. Feedback can be gathered via automated online surveys or one-on-one interviews.

    The first decision for coaching participants, their managers, and the coach is whether to collect data online or through in-person, video conference, or telephone interviews, or some combination thereof. Online 360s are more convenient and less costly, but, if correctly formulated and well-structured, interviews can help provide additional context and information. Sometimes an executive coach can use both, and follow up on a previous online 360 or performance review by interviewing designated feedback providers, in-person when possible, and via video conference or phone for those who are traveling and/or who work in different locations.

    Once the approach has been decided on, the next decision is who should participate. The list of feedback providers should generally include anyone who has enough familiarity with the coachee’s work to be able to contribute useful observations and suggestions. The list should also be inclusive rather than exclusive, and should include all of the coachee’s direct reports, peers, and managers. It’s important to take organizational politics into account when drafting the 360 list: internal or external constituencies, such as customers or counter-parties, may also have helpful feedback to provide, and inviting them to participate can send a positive message, indicating that the coachee cares about their views and feedback. In order to ensure that the feedback providers will have a balanced perspective, there should be no sample bias, wherein only those who have positive (or negative) things to say are invited to participate. As far as process is concerned, it’s generally best to have coachees draft the initial list, and then run it by their boss, and possibly even HR, for refinement and approval.

    In advance of doing the online 360 or conducting the interviews, it’s important to define who will see the feedback reports, either in full, edited, or summary form, and to clarify whether comments will be given “verbatim” in the feedback providers’ own words, or whether the coach will offer filtered/paraphrased feedback. Generally, we recommend that verbatim comments get shared in the report in order to include the most direct feedback. However, it should be clear to everyone who participates in an online or interview 360 that their verbatim comments will be shared, and in the case of an online 360, it’s useful to provide feedback providers with a sample report so they can see how their comments will be reflected in the report. We also suggest that the online or interview-based 360 should be shared in full, but only with the coaching participants themselves, as this increases the comfort that people have in being open and honest in the feedback that they provide without concern that tough feedback and/or specific criticism will somehow end up in the coachee’s “file.” However, once participants have received the full report, they should be willing to share a summary of insights gained, and/or developmental plans made, based on the feedback in order to ensure that they will be (and feel) accountable for making progress based on the report. Regardless of which option is chosen, the choice needs to be made and communicated before the interviews are conducted, so that parameters are fully clear in advance to all participants, and they know exactly how, and with whom, their feedback will, and will not, be shared.

    Once a consensus has been reached about the list of 360 providers, and who will see the report, the next step is drafting the questions that will be asked. If a standard online 360 will be used, it can be helpful, at times, to include a few additional context-specific questions, including open-ended questions, to gather more relevant information for the coachee. The boss and the coaching participant will likely be interested in each other’s preferred additional open-ended questions, as these questions will reveal their respective priorities and goals for the coaching program. If the boss wants to ask questions about executive presence or presentation skills, that is a signal to the coachee that the boss believes that those areas are relevant and improvable. If the coachee wants to ask what he or she needs to do in order to get promoted, that informs the boss that getting a promotion is a current goal or expectation for the coaching participant.

    It’s important to achieve consensus between the boss and the coachee about how broadly or narrowly to focus the questions, whether or not to include questions about the individual’s role and organizational constraints, whether to ask about potential future roles for the coachee, and whether or not to ask the same, or different questions to different people. Every question will also send a signal to participants about the coaching participant’s (and potentially the boss’s) coaching concerns and priorities, so it’s important to also consider organizational politics in drafting the questions in order to make sure that they are conveying the right messages. As with the participant list, we recommend that the coaching participants first draft the list of questions and then ask their boss (and possibly HR as well) for any edits, additions or changes.

    For interview-based 360s, here are some open-ended questions that we find helpful as a starting point:

    • How would you describe Jane’s leadership and management style?

    • How would you describe Jane’s communication and collaboration style?

    • What are Jane’s strengths?

    • What are Jane’s areas for development?

    • If you could give Jane one piece of advice, what would it be?

    • If you could make one request to Jane, what would it be?

    If the boss and organization are open to it, the coach can also ask contextual questions like:

    • What organizational factors or changes outside of Jane’s department present challenges and opportunities?

    • What organizational factors or changes inside of Jane’s department present challenges and opportunities?

    • What leadership suggestions do you have for Jane and her department to be more successful in the future?

    • What organizational suggestions do you have for Jane and her department to be more successful in the future?

    After all of the above decisions have been made, the next step is for participants to email their feedback providers about the upcoming interviews (or online 360). Sharing the questions in advance can have the dual benefit of giving people time to prepare their answers in advance, and also providing reassurance that everyone will be asked the same questions in the interviews. Furthermore, gaining alignment about the timing and logistics of the interview-based or online 360, including the list of participants, the questions that will be asked, and the confidentiality and reporting parameters can help set up the process for success. When the coach asks the most topical and timely 360 questions of the right sample of feedback providers, the answers will enable the coach to provide the most specific, relevant and useful feedback to coaching participants who can in turn utilize it to develop their skills and professional capabilities. Often, the process of selecting feedback providers, drafting questions, and deciding on timing, logistics and parameters can itself be an important learning opportunity within the overall coaching process. When it comes to 360-degree feedback, the questions (and the process of the coachee achieving consensus with his or her stakeholders about how the questions will be asked, of whom, and how and with whom the report will be shared) can be as important as the answers to those questions.

    In brief, although it can be laborious and complex to get it right, there is no better source of evidence for an executive’s reputation, and no better way to enhance their self-awareness, than through 360s.

    Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a Professor of Psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the Chief Talent Scientist at ManpowerGroup

    Resource: https://www.forbes.com/sites/discoverpersonalloans/2018/04/16/5-expenses-small-business-owners-face-and-how-to-cover-them/#7b2e98456fd5

  • High-Performing Teams Need Psychological Safety. Here’s How to Create It

    “There’s no team without trust,” (….”and no tribe without trust and direct feedback” cb) says Paul Santagata, Head of Industry at Google. He knows the results of the tech giant’s massive two-year study on team performance, which revealed that the highest-performing teams have one thing in common: psychological safety, the belief that you won’t be punished when you make a mistake ...”or speak your truth”…cb). Studies show that psychological safety allows for moderate risk-taking, speaking your mind, creativity, and sticking your neck out without fear of having it cut off — just the types of behavior that lead to market breakthroughs.

    Ancient evolutionary adaptations explain why psychological safety is both fragile and vital to success in uncertain, interdependent environments. The brain processes a provocation by a boss, competitive coworker, or dismissive subordinate as a life-or-death threat. The amygdala, the alarm bell in the brain, ignites the fight-or-flight response, hijacking higher brain centers. This “act first, think later” brain structure shuts down perspective and analytical reasoning. Quite literally, just when we need it most, we lose our minds. While that fight-or-flight reaction may save us in life-or-death situations, it handicaps the strategic thinking needed in today’s workplace.

    Twenty-first-century success depends on another system — the broaden-and-build mode of positive emotion, which allows us to solve complex problems and foster cooperative relationships. Barbara Fredrickson at the University of North Carolina has found that positive emotions like trust, curiosity, confidence, and inspiration broaden the mind and help us build psychological, social, and physical resources. We become more open-minded, resilient, motivated, and persistent when we feel safe. Humor increases, as does solution-finding and divergent thinking — the cognitive process underlying creativity.

    When the workplace feels challenging but not threatening, teams can sustain the broaden-and-build mode. Oxytocin levels in our brains rise, eliciting trust and trust-making behavior. This is a huge factor in team success, as Santagata attests: “In Google’s fast-paced, highly demanding environment, our success hinges on the ability to take risks and be vulnerable in front of peers.”

    So how can you increase psychological safety on your own team? Try replicating the steps that Santagata took with his:

    1. Approach conflict as a collaborator, not an adversary. We humans hate losing even more than we love winning. A perceived loss triggers attempts to reestablish fairness through competition, criticism, or disengagement, which is a form of workplace-learned helplessness. Santagata knows that true success is a win-win outcome, so when conflicts come up, he avoids triggering a fight-or-flight reaction by asking, “How could we achieve a mutually desirable outcome?”

    2. Speak human to human. Underlying every team’s who-did-what confrontation are universal needs such as respect, competence, social status, and autonomy. Recognizing these deeper needs naturally elicits trust and promotes positive language and behaviors. Santagata reminded his team that even in the most contentious negotiations, the other party is just like them and aims to walk away happy. He led them through a reflection called “Just Like Me,” which asks you to consider:

    • This person has beliefs, perspectives, and opinions, just like me.
    • This person has hopes, anxieties, and vulnerabilities, just like me.
    • This person has friends, family, and perhaps children who love them, just like me.
    • This person wants to feel respected, appreciated, and competent, just like me.
    • This person wishes for peace, joy, and happiness, just like me.

    3. Anticipate reactions and plan countermoves. “Thinking through in advance how your audience will react to your messaging helps ensure your content will be heard, versus your audience hearing an attack on their identity or ego,” explains Santagata.

    Skillfully confront difficult conversations head-on by preparing for likely reactions. For example, you may need to gather concrete evidence to counter defensiveness when discussing hot-button issues. Santagata asks himself, “If I position my point in this manner, what are the possible objections, and how would I respond to those counterarguments?” He says, “Looking at the discussion from this third-party perspective exposes weaknesses in my positions and encourages me to rethink my argument.”

    Specifically, he asks:

    • What are my main points?
    • What are three ways my listeners are likely to respond?
    • How will I respond to each of those scenarios?

    4. Replace blame with curiosity. If team members sense that you’re trying to blame them for something, you become their saber-toothed tiger. John Gottman’s research at the University of Washington shows that blame and criticism reliably escalate conflict, leading to defensiveness and — eventually — to disengagement. The alternative to blame is curiosity. If you believe you already know what the other person is thinking, then you’re not ready to have a conversation. Instead, adopt a learning mindset, knowing you don’t have all the facts. Here’s how:

    • State the problematic behavior or outcome as an observation, and use factual, neutral language. For example, “In the past two months there’s been a noticeable drop in your participation during meetings and progress appears to be slowing on your project.”
    • Engage them in an exploration. For example, “I imagine there are multiple factors at play. Perhaps we could uncover what they are together?”
    • Ask for solutions. The people who are responsible for creating a problem often hold the keys to solving it. That’s why a positive outcome typically depends on their input and buy-in. Ask directly, “What do you think needs to happen here?” Or, “What would be your ideal scenario?” Another question leading to solutions is: “How could I support you?”

    5. Ask for feedback on delivery. Asking for feedback on how you delivered your message disarms your opponent, illuminates blind spots in communication skills, and models fallibility, which increases trust in leaders. Santagata closes difficult conversations with these questions:

    • What worked and what didn’t work in my delivery?
    • How did it feel to hear this message?
    • How could I have presented it more effectively?

    For example, Santagata asked about his delivery after giving his senior manager tough feedback. His manager replied, “This could have felt like a punch in the stomach, but you presented reasonable evidence and that made me want to hear more. You were also eager to discuss the challenges I had, which led to solutions.”

    6. Measure psychological safety. Santagata periodically asks his team how safe they feel and what could enhance their feeling of safety. In addition, his team routinely takes surveys on psychological safety and other team dynamics. Some teams at Google include questions such as, “How confident are you that you won’t receive retaliation or criticism if you admit an error or make a mistake?”

    If you create this sense of psychological safety on your own team starting now, you can expect to see higher levels of engagement, increased motivation to tackle difficult problems, more learning and development opportunities, and better performance.

  • Superpowers for Leaders

  • 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.