Dan Erwin

HEY GEN Y: REWARD YOUR MENTOR!

Using a mentor is a two-way street.  Mentors are usually happy to give to you, but if you're smart you'll give something in return.  Although many mentors want little more than the opportunity to give back, or information you have about your world and your team, it's always wise to figure out what you can give back and take action.

Toddi Gutner, writing in the  Wall Street Journal about mentors for Gen Yers had a number of helpful suggestions.  She pointed out that you're much likely to get a mentor's support if you show that you understand the manager's pressures--especially in today's grim economy.  In addition, approach your mentor in a way that offers help.  "You can tell a respected manager that you admire his work and ask him to coach you on specific things like how to close on a big sales deal or how to engage colleagues on a project.  In return offer up a skill you have to help on a project he's responsible." 

With your GenY knowledge of technology you might also consider teaching your mentor how to use Twitter.  Or, set up a page for him/her on Facebook, or show him how to get the most out of LinkedIn.  Just remember, mentoring and networking run on reciprocity:  You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS, OR MISCOMMUNICATION?

If you think your colleagues don't express themselves well, even in very important settings, you may be right.  Indeed, most of us seriously overestimate our ability to communicate effectively.  Those of us in the discipline of communication have known that for years, but now comes a study demonstrating how great the potential for miscommunication really is. 

Boaz Keysar and Anne Henley, psychologists at the University of Chicago, studied 40 pairs of listeners and speakers.  The talkers believed that their intended meaning was understood  "most of the time."  That belief, like a lot of other so called "soft skill" beliefs, won't stand up to the scrutiny of research. 

The research showed that nearly half the time that speakers thought they were understood, they were actually wrong.  In 46% of the cases there was a breakdown--the listeners didn't get it.  What's most surprising is that the speakers were warned that the info that they were to  communicate was ambiguous.  "Even then, even though they were warned," the researcher said, "they still thought they managed to convey their intention with intonation."

Keysar suggested that this overestimation of communication effectiveness is indicative of the "illusion of control."  That's a phenomenon that's observed in numerous activities.  For example, lottery devotees often believe that when they select the numbers, they have a better chance of winning than when the numbers are selected randomly.  That's a false belief.

So what's a person to do to check out the effectiveness of his/her communication when the issue is important?  Here's where effective questioning can come to the fore.    Notice my adjective, "effective."  What that means can be clarified, hopefully, with a number of questioning examples.

"Did you hear me?'    Absolute waste of time and verbiage.  The answer is nearly always yes and means zip.

"Do you understand me?"  Nearly absolute waste of time and verbiage.  (It's just possible, though rare, that someone might respond in the negative and ask for further clarification.  Still, probably zip.)

"What did you hear me say?"  Nearly absolute waste of time and verbiage.  People can parrot and paraphrase without ever understanding the meaning or implications of a message.

The most effective means of checking a message is through what's called an "implication question."  After a message, you come up with a question like this:  "Based on my conversation, what do you see as the next two or three steps?"  You're asking a question re information you have not given, and asking them to draw some conclusions.  Then, by listening closely, you can tell whether or not they got the message.  If so, hurray!  If not, you've got to start over.

If you want to check your own understanding, use what I call the "reverse implication question" to validate your understanding.  You've thought through what you understood was said, and made some tentative conclusions.  So you respond with your own question: "Based on what you've said, here's what I think needs to be done. . . . What do you think?"  And let the speaker respond.  If he agrees, hurray!  If not, the two of you have got to go back to ground zero again.

If you look closely to my description of an implication question, you'll notice that I've dictated a "process."  That's why I refer to the process as a "language technology." 

So, what do you think?

MILLENNIALS AND FEEDBACK: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO GET CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK?

In an enlightening conversation with a 25 year-old finance worker this weekend, a number of reasons why it's so difficult to get useful--read, developmental--feedback were surfaced.  Millennials, perhaps more than any generation have brought the need for feedback to the fore.  Yet, again and again in various professional settings, I meet employees of all generations who are asking for more feedback from their managers, but not getting it.

Feedback is terrifically important.  There are plenty of studies showing that it''s nearly impossible to learn and grow without constructive feedback. 

Reflecting on that issue, I was reminded of an article by Jim Heskett of Harvard Business School on what to me is a related subject:  'Why don't managers think deeply?' 

Before I surface what my Millennial friend revealed, I'd like to summarize Heskett's researched conclusions.  One of the reasons execs don't think deeply is because they are effective at deploying other people's ideas.  But some suggest also that managers are not trained to think deeply.  Or, they've been rewarded for their previous success and that success serves as a roadblock to thinking and change.  The most frequently stated reason for lack of deep thinking is lack of time. 

Now notice the parallels with what my young friend suggests.  He started out with the notion that in his experience, a lot of managers don't know how to give constructive feedback.  They do not observe and analyze behavior.  (I'd add that many managers haven't been taught to observe and analyze behavior.  I'm quite willing to protect them, on that issue.)  As a consequence, when a person asks for feedback, the typical response is the generic stroke.  "You did a good job."  Useless for development or even skill confirmation.  My friend also suggested that he happened to know that some managers had had bad experiences with feedback, and didn't want to deal with the possible blowups.  In addition, he reminded me that first impressions are lasting, and that many managers may not look for progress.  In short, you're not liable to get developmental feedback because of your manager's failings.

Notice that all of the causes for poor feedback, like that of poor thinking, were laid at the manager's feet.  One of the most useful insights I've gained over the past century is that really constructive feedback comes best when an employee is thoughtful, concrete, focused, and specific in asking for feedback.  (I'd also suggest that some of the best managerial thinking comes when an employee takes a real problem, details it significantly, hands it to his/her manager, explaining why he can't resolve it, why it's a high priority, and sells it--but I'm not going there now.)  In other words, getting effective developmental feedback is a two way responsibility--not merely your manager's problem.  And it's going to take time to learn how to get it.

What my reasoning argues for is that getting really constructive feedback is just as much an employee's issue as a manager's. In effect, what I've found is that feedback is a two-way street--a responsibility belonging both to the asker and the giver.

So what keeps you from guiding the feedback input?  Some of the same issues your manager faces.  No training in asking for feedback, little successful past experience, not thinking deeply about how to ask for it, not understanding the content you need, and lack of analytical skills.

Surprise! Surprise!  I believe that the most effective process for getting truly constructive/developmental feedback is to coach it out of your manager.  Furthermore, given the history of managerial failure at feedback, I think that's reality.  If you're going to be successful, the shoe is really on your foot more than your manager's.  That's also the new employee contract.  It has crossed my mind more than once that the expecting managerial feedback is part of the old/traditional employee/employer contract.

"OK, Erwin," you're thinking.  "You've inveighed against advice giving without protocols and scripts in a previous post--but that's all this post has been--just advice.  What are you going to do about it?"  In the near future, I'm posting a new---free--white paper, well researched and redacted by clients that will include protocols and scripts for for feedback.  Watch for it!I'

I'd really appreciate your comments on this post!  It's a fundamental career development issue.

ON CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

Challenging conventional wisdom can be dangerous business.  By conventional wisdom, I refer to ideas or explanations that are generally accepted by the public--or even by experts--as true.  The term often implies that a belief has been accepted without being examined--although I don't accept that implication fully.  My proposed book, Brainware, clearly and obviously challenges the view that intelligence is innate and unchangeable--and shows how to apply the insights of neuroscience to personal development.  I point out that there is a plethora of studies rejecting the notion of innate inteligence--and that these studies are becoming mainstream science.   Still, I'd be willing to bet a hundred-dollar bill that 99% of the public believes that intelligence is inherited, genetic and unchangeable.

Yet, one of the more intriguing scientific findings for a nation that's dealing with a monstrous deficit and won't be in the black until god knows when, is that most innovation--a very important buzz-word, on which America is basing its capitalistic future--is the result of challenging conventional wisdom.  That's a fact not to be ignored.

But why does conventional wisdom usually win the day?  In a conversation with my son-in-law, a brilliant scientist, with every credential imaginable, grants and research success to back up his expertise, I have been warned that there are plenty of reasons it's difficult to shake conventional wisdom. 

Old dogma dies hard.  Once concepts are deeply embedded, a superstructure of assumptions and ideas grows around it.  Rejecting a dogma means that many ideas are now questionable, more research could be invalid, and that the reputation and contribution of many scientists might be questioned.

This is just as as true outside the field of traditional science.  Recently, in my attempts to learn about web marketing and commenting, I've been figuring out how much I can challenge conventional knowledge.  And so, rather than hew to a blogger's line, I have quietly added a small dissent to some of my comments--and on a few situations, a strong dissent.  

Commenting on a moderated blog is a smart way to get instaneous feedback--you don't get published.  I haven't drawn a firm conclusion yet, but what's clear is that if I differ with a blogger--and am challenging conventional wisdom, thus far, my comment is usually unpublished--a sample of 15-20 attempts.  And I scrupulously made certain that I challenged conventional wisdom on a site where I'd had published success with my previous comments. 

The experience has been instructive.  Some ideas have the power of a third rail.  They elicit immediate rejection.  I wasn't significantly involved in the experience, but Penelope Trunk's rant on--against--Christmas holidays received a mountain of comment.  I suspect she printed it all.  Congrats to you, Penelope.  Her blog was a flagrant rejection of conventional wisdom that we ought to at least think about.

But in my anecdotal research, I have been intrigued by more pragmatic issues that might be responsive to change.  For example, I don't think that the psychological paradigm should be applied willy-nilly to all kinds of personal issues in the work setting.  Indeed, my knowledge of reinforcement theory suggests that rather than resolving personal dilemmas, often the psych model reinforces those dilemmas.  Merit or bonus pay is another deeply held ideology.  And the notion of life/balance as so many hours of free time versus so many hours of work time elicits a great deal of noise, even though reality suggests that that is not a feasible approach.  Quality makes a lot more sense to me than quantity.

What's even more intriguing is that when the rubber hits the road, I get big consulting bucks out of challenging conventional wisdom.  And I'm not the only consultant that earns a living that way.  I suspect part of the reason organizations pay for my insight and processes is that when a profit-making firm comes up against conventional wisdom, it has to figure out how to change that wisdom--or go bankrupt.  Whereas, individuals can go with conventional wisdom for a long time--until it impacts their pocket book or their health.  Got some other ideas? 

   

 

 

PEOPLE SKILLS: AN IMPERATIVE, BUT DIFFICULT TO LEARN

In a special report from Knowledge at Wharton, the author revealed that although businesses have readily shouldered both the risk and expense of innovation to achieve competitive advantage, the economic crisis has created a significant funding difficulty.   Researchers and technologists are going to need a lot more than lab expertise to "keep the research funding spigots open." 

The surprising conclusion was that "the ability to communicate well and other 'soft skills' are just as important as technological expertise when it comes to selling new ideas to investors or senior management."  Although managers have given lip service to this notion before, rarely with such clarity.  One funding executive said that he "frequently sees entrepreneurs stumble because they lack such (communication) skills.  All too often, entrepreneurs come across as rude, dismissive and disrespectful to audiences."  As a result, entreprenurs often "infuriate the investment community." 

Another commentator echoed what had been said and added that, "business is all about relationships.  They (investors) need to like your idea, but they also need to like you."

And a portfolio director of Unisys said that innovators must become adept at "making the case for maximizing productivity and reducing waste."  All of that is going to require excellent communication skills, including, he added, the fine art of schmoozing.

Supporting this crisis-specific demand for communication skills is a much broader study.  In 2004 the Dallas Federal Bank reworked a study of the national talent hierarchy.  Although the findings emphasized the need for technological skills, the best paid workers and the best work opportunities continue to be for those who have both technology expertise as well as people skills.  Indeed, the hierarchy shows people skills at the top of the talent ladder both in terms of financial rewards and work opportunity.

It's a truism that whatever expertise you have, one of the best ways to provide career success, avoid obsolescence and maintain job security is through the ongoing development of productive communication skills.

However, the demands for new language technologies are outstripping the ability of most organizational trainers to provide them.  Indeed, research shows that very few workers or managers are as effective at communication as they think they are.  When employees and managers come face to face with demanding work settings, the language technologies to deal with the complexities of the new marketplace are usually missing.  Although colleagues, managers, human resource people, and trainers regularly offer relationship advice, it usually fails in its ability to significantly enable the development of productive communication skills.

Why doesn't advice work? 

When advice for communicating skills is given, it comes in the form of inferences--stated conclusions or advice about what should be done.  "You need to improve your presentation skills.  You need to manage your team more effectively.  You need to give better feedback."  Note that all that language is composed of advice.  Mere advice is never enough.  In order to learn to communicate more effectively, you're going to need specific protocols and specific, concrete scripts.  For example, in my white paper on questioning (How to ask questions and not be perceived as a dumb ass), I give specific situational protocols and scripts.  Here's just a single protocol and script from that paper on asking questions.

    Protocol: Qualifications of respondent: Identify and engage a manager with personnel knowledge.

    Script:  “I’ve come to you because Mary tells me that you know the senior research  personnel         and their expertise exceptionally well."

But you say to me, this is canned.  Yep.  You're exactly right.  We all learn language by imitation, and then gradually as we use it, we fine-tune and adjust for differing situations. 

In order for communication advice to be useful enough to enact, you've got to have someone lay out the theory:  "If you say such and such . . . , the following will happen."  Then the coach has got to be ready for questions, and give an example of the specific communication process with actual statements that illustrate what needs to be said and done--just as above.  An effective coach will also need to point out the values encapsulated in those scripts and protocols. For example, the above script values the knowledge of the respondent's network base and presumed abiity to make a contribution to the learner's needs. 

Can these skills be learned?  Absolutely.  And there are some smart ways to circumvent the lack of in- house coaching.  But, in order for them to "stick" they're going to need to be practiced, fine-tuned, and personally embedded.  That normally takes about 30 days of use, with 15 to 20 experiences--with feedback. 

The neuroscience of memory is very clear on learning new skills. Although a few practices will sensitize a neuron in the brain, it takes a great deal of practice and repetition to embed a skill permanently into the neurons.  Stickiness means practice, practice!  Thus my rule:  Work Smarter While Working Harder.  That may not be encouraging, but it's realistic. But remember also, the more you learn, the faster you learn, and the easier it gets.

ON CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

Challenging conventional wisdom can be dangerous business.  By conventional wisdom, I refer to ideas or explanations that are generally accepted by the public--or even by experts--as true.  The term often implies that a belief has been accepted without being examined--although I don't accept that implication fully.  My proposed book, Brainware, clearly and obviously challenges the view that intelligence is innate and unchangeable--and shows how to apply the insights of neuroscience to personal development.  I point out that there is a plethora of studies rejecting the notion of innate inteligence--and that these studies are becoming mainstream science.   Still, I'd be willing to bet a hundred-dollar bill that 99% of the public believes that intelligence is inherited, genetic and unchangeable.

Yet, one of the more intriguing scientific findings for a nation that's dealing with a monstrous deficit and won't be in the black until god knows when, is that most innovation--a very important buzz-word, on which America is basing its capitalistic future--is the result of challenging conventional wisdom.  That's a fact not to be ignored.

But why does conventional wisdom usually win the day?  In a conversation with my son-in-law, a brilliant scientist, with every credential imaginable, grants and research success to back up his expertise, I have been warned that there are plenty of reasons it's difficult to shake conventional wisdom. 

Old dogma dies hard.  Once concepts are deeply embedded, a superstructure of assumptions and ideas grows around it.  Rejecting a dogma means that many ideas are now questionable, more research could be invalid, and that the reputation and contribution of many scientists might be questioned.

This is just as as true outside the field of traditional science.  Recently, in my attempts to learn about web marketing and commenting, I've been figuring out how much I can challenge conventional knowledge.  And so, rather than hew to a blogger's line, I have quietly added a small dissent to some of my comments--and on a few situations, a strong dissent.  

Commenting on a moderated blog is a smart way to get instaneous feedback--you don't get published.  I haven't drawn a firm conclusion yet, but what's clear is that if I differ with a blogger--and am challenging conventional wisdom, thus far, my comment is usually unpublished--a sample of 15-20 attempts.  And I scrupulously made certain that I challenged conventional wisdom on a site where I'd had published success with my previous comments. 

The experience has been instructive.  Some ideas have the power of a third rail.  They elicit immediate rejection.  I wasn't significantly involved in the experience, but Penelope Trunk's rant on--against--Christmas holidays received a mountain of comment.  I suspect she printed it all.  Congrats to you, Penelope.  Her blog was a flagrant rejection of conventional wisdom that we ought to at least think about.

But in my anecdotal research, I have been intrigued by more pragmatic issues that might be responsive to change.  For example, I don't think that the psychological paradigm should be applied willy-nilly to all kinds of personal issues in the work setting.  Indeed, my knowledge of reinforcement theory suggests that rather than resolving personal dilemmas, often the psych model reinforces those dilemmas.  Merit or bonus pay is another deeply held ideology.  And the notion of life/balance as so many hours of free time versus so many hours of work time elicits a great deal of noise, even though reality suggests that that is not a feasible approach.  Quality makes a lot more sense to me than quantity.

What's even more intriguing is that when the rubber hits the road, I get big consulting bucks out of challenging conventional wisdom.  And I'm not the only consultant that earns a living that way.  I suspect part of the reason organizations pay for my insight and processes is that when a profit-making firm comes up against conventional wisdom, it has to figure out how to change that wisdom--or go bankrupt.  Whereas, individuals can go with conventional wisdom for a long time--until it impacts their pocket book or their health.  Got some other ideas?