Dan Erwin

GEN-Y FEEDBACK: EVALUATIVE OR DEVELOPMENTAL

If there’s one thing the professionals of Generation Y want, it’s feedback.  They are changing the workplace. Bred for success and raised on technology, they are making managers rethink how to deliver feedback.

 

Current methods show a qualitative difference in feedback.  Most feedback emphasizes past performance, while a small amount emphasizes future possibilities.  According to Linda Richardson, there are two different languages in feedback.

 

Evaluative feedback is what most people think of when they hear the word "feedback."  It's the kind of feedback managers used to get in a performance review--a focus upon previous perrformance.  From the past, however, effective bosses will point out successes and identify developmental opportunities.  Too often though, the singular purpose of feedback is to make certain that the receiver clearly understands the picture of his/her past work performance, which, not surprisingly, regularly turns to blame.

 

Developmental feedback is very different.  Rather than looking retroactively, it looks to the future.    It emphasizes what "we" (the coach and the person being coached) can do to improve on the past and build needed skills and competencies for the organization as well as for the receiver's career.  Furthermore, developmental feedback and coaching doesn't occur in the boss's office.  It happens regularly in the corridors and hallways of the organization.  Developmental feedback helps professionals improve because it helps them understand the obstacles they face--and assists them in removing those obstacles.  Really, it answers two questions:  what do we need to improve, and how will we go about that task?

 

So, are you receiving evaluative or developmental feedback?  To be sure you get the latter, you may need to coach your coach.  As the current economy makes clear, you must have the initiative to ensure you grow.  And make no mistake about it, developmental feedback is absolutely essential to creative thinking, new ideas and personal and professional success.

 

I'll devote a future white paper to coaching your coach on giving developmental feedback.

SO NOW YOU'RE A NEW MANAGER: 3 SIMPLE RULES FOR FEEDBACK

Be sure to check out my post for new managers at www.slackermanager.com.   This is the third of six posts for new managers.  Phil is posting them each Wednesday.  Last week was 3 Keys to Successful Delegating, and today's will be on the art of feedback--3 simple rules for giving feedback.

POLITICAL FOIBLES, WORK FOCUS AND CAREER MANAGEMENT

A month ago I heard David Brooks comment that the American public pays way too much attention to human foibles.  Recently the Wall Street Journal argued the same case.

AT LAST!  It's been 40 years since I gave much attention to a politician's foibles, especially when the person was near genius policy-wise, and the country needed his or her expertise.  Richard Nixon, a documented dissembler, eventually had to go because of the Watergate Scandal, yet his contributions to international relations are among the greatest of the 20th century:  successfully negotiated a cease-fire with Vietnam, opened the People's Republic of China and initiated detente with the Soviet Union.  

In my mind, significant expertise that benefits the the public community usually trumps personal foibles.  Inevitably, therefore, I had no difficulty admitting that Bill Clinton was a sexual jerk with a zipper problem.  And as far as I was concerned, that was his problem, not worthy of censure, impeachment or discussion.  His expertise in many areas of national importance was impeccable--and the nation as a whole would have been better off if Clinton's sexual peccadilloes had been ignored.  As David Gergen, advisor to three Republican presidents, has since pointed out--on many policy issues Clinton was a genius.  Gergen points specifically to a convocation at CalTech in which Clinton delivered the single best speech on science and technology of any president in memory.  Clinton's knowledge of science and technology have been sorely missed during the past administration--and the nation has suffered as a result.  

Joe Queenan's recent article, In Praise of Transgressions, romps through the manipulations of Wall Street bankers, the failings of Tom Daschle, MIchael Phelps, Timothy Geithner, Nancy Killefer, and the infamous Alex Rodriguez.  Queenan suggests that the attention to unseemliness is overwrought, that the attention to human foibles is more therapeutic for the American public than useful, and that we all need to lighten up. 

I can't agree more.  I keep thinking about the lost intelligence of Nancy Killefer and Tom Daschle (whatever your politics), and am at least warmed that Geithner was slipped in before his personal tax foibles became public.  Geithner, for example, has an exceptional understanding of macro-economic systems and economic policy--a set of skills perhaps irreplaceable.  The loss of Geithner would have left a significant void in national decisionmaking expertise and likely put our economy in a still more difficult position. 

Queenan reminds us of our lack of proportion and balance, when he recounts how Reagan proved long ago that that "you could get them (the public) to blow their stacks by recounting a dubious anecdote about some conscienceless welfare queen on the south side of Chicago who was jobbing the public out of a few grand."  Research on personal bias consistently demonstrates that we are readily misled by vivid, dramatic accounts resulting in conclusions and behaviors that thoughtful consideration would reject. 

In a hilarious episode of Boston Legal, Alan Shore educates Denny Crane on the vicissitudes of Schadenfreude--the human tendency to take spiteful, malicious delight in the misfortune of others.  But Schadenfreude, as Alan rightly tells Denny, is much, much more than that.  A Stanford professor has shown that when we see others fail, it sometimes causes a chemical to be released in the brain which actually causes us to feel pleasure. 

In other words, we can be made suckers by the foibles of others.   My point is that it's easy to get waylaid by vivid, emotionally frustrating depictions of people.  The opportunities for ranting about human foibles will never go away.  Nearly every business has dissemblers, womanizers--and the same of the female sex, those with questionable financial ethics and narcissistic manipulators.  Furthermore, the notion that honest people behave honestly, and dishonest people behave dishonestly, has been shown to be consistently false.  We all commit our own foibles.  Recognition of this makes it possible for us to be more tolerant and compassionate for our own errors.  And that recognition can be liberating, enabling us to focus in laser fashion on our own values and priorities.

And so, like Queenan, I believe that our work world--and we also--will be much better off if we lighten up on the foibles of others.  When we're watching industries crumble, Wall Street firms disappear and unemployment spike, we need to stay focused on our own careers and the overarching work priorities.  It ought to be clear that we have enough requiring our attention--complex business problems needing resolution, and processes mandating the invention of new solutions--without getting caught up in malicious delight over the actions of others--ethical or otherwise.     

FOIBLE:  a shortcoming in personal character or behavior

NETWORKING WITH UPMO.COM

Check out the new site at www.upmo.com.  Swell design.  More significantly, they've got their finger on the importance and processes of networking.  Their product center has a superb piece of research on the impact of networking on career advancement.  Although it's a truism that everyone should build, maintain and develop their network, only the idiots are not networking in this recession--no matter their job situation.

GEN-Y, QUESTIONING AND CONVERSATIONAL LEADERSHIP

During a Black History Month speech, Attorney General Eric Holder said that when it comes to racial issues, America is "essentially a nation of cowards."  This is certainly not a perspective that the public or white America might have held, much less articulated.  Furthermore, I suspect that though many in Black America agree with the statement, it's language that few Blacks have entertained.

The conversational strategy.

For the sake of this blog, I'm not interested in the substance of his speech--whether his statement is true or false.  Instead, I want to look at the underlying conversational strategy.  The strategy--in a more moderate form--is very useful for business issues.  

One of my clients, who now understands that all productive conversation is strategic, recently commented that the members of her firm would be surprised to learn that nearly all talk has an underlying strategy--or process.  However, if you had gone to my high school, you would recognize at least one simple conversational strategy--introductions.  We were taught how to introduce one person to another--a man to a woman, or a young person to a much older person.  As a high schooler, these strategies were new to me--and based on situations I've observed, most adults are unaware of them today. 

We were given the exact language and strategy.  "Mary, I'd like you to meet John."  It's inappropriate to say, "John, I'd like you to meet Mary."  The strategy responds to gender.  Still further, the correct approach between elders and youngers goes like this:  "Dr. Adams, I'd like you to meet my son John." 

Sixty years after my high school speech class, you may chuckle.  But today, we understand at a still deeper level that all talk--all conversation--is strategic.  We understand that though conversation is an art, it is also a technology.   

The research.

Holder's statement is an exaggerated example of conversational strategy that has been studied numerous times.  Experimental research has demonstrated that a unique opinion offered to a group stimulates more innovative solutions to a problem.  Evidently, just hearing a very different perspective challenges the mindset of those that hold a uniform or majority opinion. 

Talk radio has made it very, very clear that Holder's statement deeply challenges the majority opinion.  It was no surprise that Rush Limbaugh called his remark, "inexcusable." 

In a well-managed business process (not Holder vs. Limbaugh), a different perspective fosters what's called creative abrasion--conflicts that produce energy that can be channeled into new ideas, products and services.  Unique statements or questions that challenge mindsets can bring a great deal of value to the organization.

When mindsets are outdated or limiting.

In today's economy, where learning and innovation are absolute necessities, mindsets are often limiting.  Learning and innovation require a challenge to outdated mindsets.  Sales people often face difficult mindsets--mental models--in potential clients.  For example, your firm has developed a new product for a competitive market.  You engage the potential client in conversation, and she tells you that they're staying with their old firm.  Why?  "They have twenty years of experience."  Now what do you say?  That response is a turn-off.  Do you just walk a way from the conversation?  And lose the sale?  The research offers a real key to future success.

In most settings when you ask permission to "get more insight into . . . " or "talk about.  . . ," you'll get an opportunity to take the conversation further.  And, if you can ask questions that present a different perspective on the issue of experience, you may have a sales opportunity.   Here are a few at the simple level:  "When you use the word experience, what are you referring to?"  "What specifically does experience offer you and your firm?"  Or, an even more direct, "why is experience so very important to you?"  Looking at these questions in print doesn't grab you.  But just try them on face-to-face with a client and you'll see the eyes raise, the attention focus and the client's gray matter whirling.  The potential client didn't expect those questions--and now you have a situation that has become a learning opportunity--for both of you.

Is this gutsy?

Because of social insecurity or fear, most business people are liable to avoid situations like this.  BIG MISTAKE!  In a sales setting, what you really want is to understand the client's values.  You want to understand what's beneath his/her desire for experience?  You want to know what the client thinks experience brings to the party.  Accessing those deep-rooted commitments will always require courage.  The language of experience is familiar, recurring and deeply lodged in most people's mind.  Its sacredness makes it a perfect mindset to challenge.  And even if the potential client rejects your overtures, the questions and insights have set him/her up for future interactions.  He/she will never be able to think about experience in the same way again. 

Based on the questioning that I've done, my conclusion is that experience often means very little.  Does the person have 20 years of growth and expertise, or merely one year of expertise multipled twenty times?  What's the quality of that experience?  How well thought out is a client's perspective on experience.  These questions often reveal experience as an overstated shibboleth. 

Furthermore, I know two very important negatives about experience that mitigate its supposed values. 

Research demonstrates clearly that most people stop learning after they gain competency in their field of business--usually four to six years after college graduation.  They learn little to nothing after that.  So if a client tells me his vendor has 20 years of experience, I'm dubious about the quality of that experience.  I want to know why the potential client has stuck with a vendor for years and years.  I suspect that it's a lot more than a vendor's experience that's gluing the two together.  And if I can identify the glue, it's quite possible I can make a better contribution to that potential client's need.

Second, I know that people with a lot of experience are often close-minded, unaware of changes in the field, and tend to ignore situational differences.  If your architectural firm has built 35 firehouses over the past twenty years--using two or three different models--your firm is liable to use the same two or three models for their future business.  The failure to upgrade one's ideas, innovate and adapt to the new client is  palpable.   That frustrating consistency of those with deep experience has brought General Motors and Chrysler to their knees--perhaps to bankruptcy.  Rather than being valuable, successful experience often creates blinders.

This same questioning process makes for awesome learning, creativity and innovation.  Admittedly, it's spooky and scary to use effective questions.  Yet, without such questioning, the status quo turns to concrete.  And remember, "status quo" is Latin for the mess we're in.

HOW TO SELECT A BOOK

Many of my clients and friends regularly ask what books I'm reading. When I respond, they usually want a run-down on the book, its main ideas, whether it's got some "good stuff," or "new stuff," or not relevant to them.

For example, "I'm currently recommending Jonah Lehrer's, Proust was a Neuroscientist.  What Lehrer emphasizes is the relationship between science--specifically neuroscience--and the artists. Using the works of a diverse group that includes Proust, Stravinsky, Walt Whitman and Virginia Woolf, he demonstrates that when it comes to understanding the brain, the artists got there first. It's a fascinating idea that many great scientists freely admit, even though that''s rarely seen in print." That's how I usually recommend a book.

Early in my career, I had one bright engineer who used to hand me a book he was certain I would like, tell me to keep it, but let him read it after me. Why? Because he wanted to read all the notes, comments, exclamation points and parallels that I typically point to when I'm reading. On occasion, he'd ask me why I wrote such and such. And a discussion would ensue.

Part of the reason people want to know what I'm reading is that I stay up on a number of subjects--and they trust my selections.

That being the case, I'd like to share my way of choosing non-fiction books--including business, politics, cultural,behavioral and other works.

First, when I pick up a book at my local bookstore, I check out the endorsements on the back page. Of course, I have a long reading history, so it's a rare book in my field of interest which wouldn't have at least one endorsee that I recognize--for good or ill.

Then I take a few seconds to read the table of contents to see what that can tell me. If there are acknowledgments, I want to find out what resources were used. Sometimes that's helpful, sometimes not.

After that, I usually go to the preface. When none is available, I take a quick look at the first chapter. Usually by the time I've read the first three or four sentences, I'm beginning to make my decision because the best authors will set up the major ideas in the initial paragraph or two.

As an example, I've distilled the basic issues from Lehrer's first eight or ten sentences.

"I used to work in a neuroscience lab. We were trying to figure out how the mind remembers, how a collection of cells can encapsulate our past. . . . The work felt profound. Mysteries were distilled into minor questions. . . .The truth seemed to slowly accumulate like dust.  At the same time, I began reading Proust. . . . All I expected. . . was the opposite of scientific fact. But once I got past the jarring contrast of forms. . . .I began to see a surprising convergence."

I was hooked.

Still, I usually want to check the book's conclusion, especially if I'm not certain about the book. Lehrer's conclusion begins: "In 1959, C. P. Snow famously declared that our two cultures--art and science--suffered from a "mutual incomprehension." He went to a most knowledgeable writer and drew telling conclusions.

That's how I've selected books for 35 years or more and my method hasn't failed me yet. Additionally, if it's business, politics, culture or society, I'm interested in the bibliography. Since I'm pretty skeptical about most people's opinions--including my own--I want to know what critical tools were used and whether or not there's related empirical research. Clients know that when they ask me an important question, I'm liable to respond with something like this: "This is what I think. . . or this is my guess, but I don't have any research supporting this notion." On other occasions, when I'm aware of related research, I will respond with: "There's plenty of research indicating that. . . ."

Are there secrets to selecting a book that I've been missing out on? Did I divulge any secrets you weren't aware of?

3 KEYS TO EFFECTIVE DELEGATING

Read my post for new managers on Slacker Manager today and in the coming Wednesdays. 

GEN-Y, STREET SMARTS AND COMMON SENSE

"We need to rethink what training is necessary for Generation Y, because what used to be common sense isn't common sense anymore."  --Lindsey Pollak

Lindsey's insight to Gen-Y cries out for a response.  But first, her language needs to be adapted to corporate America.  In business-speak, common sense is called street smarts, as in, "that guy has a lotta street smarts.  He really knows how to work the system."  Street smarts is a sub-category, a specific kind of smarts--the umbrella term--as in, "that guy has a lotta smarts.  He can fix just about any sales problem."  At its core, the term smarts refers to different kinds of problem-solving abilities.

Dorothy Leonard, the Harvard Business School prof, has a book on still another form of smarts:  Deep Smarts.    Deep smarts is profound expertise in a business speciality that makes for exceptional and unique problem-solving abilities, as in, "that guy has deep smarts.  He's a genius at strategic thinking, no matter how serious the problem. 

These are three different intelligence codes--languages that Gen-Yers need for most organizations.  They signal to the other generations that you know what the hell's going on and how to get it done.   To summarize, I think of street smarts this way:  it's the competency to successfully and effectively navigate the environment so that you can achieve your person and organizational objectives.

Street smarts is not a formal discipline.

As I indicated earlier, street smarts--common sense--is a different kind of intelligence.  Street smarts is what the academics call know-how knowledge, rather than know-what knowledge.  Most business is all about know-what knowledge.  Companies have compiled all kinds of know-what business knowledge:  information on marketing, marketing research, manufacturing, finance, even, god forbid, derivatives--those messy instruments that turned the global finance system into a disaster.  If you dig deep enough in any of the areas I've listed, you'll find all kinds of codified and collated information.

But if you start digging to find out about your organization's street smarts, you'll get little to nothing.  It's not just that street smarts has never been collated like, say, customer buying habits at the local supermarket, but by its very nature street smarts is hard to capture.  It resides in the unconscious or the semi-conscious.  Inevitably, the person that supposedly has a lot of street smarts know-how can't totally tell you all she knows.  Street smarts is weird, fuzzy and messy knowledge when contrasted with other kinds of knowledge. And frustratingly, most people don't know when they don't have street smarts.  But what's important about street smarts is that it provides both your company and you, as individuals, a clear competitive advantage.

Why is street smarts so important for Gen-Y?

Most people start out in their career thinking that their business or technical skills are key to their success.  That's a half-truth.  Your ability to manage the underlying, hidden, social system of the organization is ultimately far more important than your business skills.  It's this system that makes it possible for you to access the resources, the technical smarts, the team and management support, and to get buy-in for your own work projects.  Indeed, the system of street smarts lets you know what you can and can't do, what you can say and can't say.  It will also lay out the "rules" for success and failure in an organization.

Quite a few years ago, I had a number of development projects at a major food company in the Upper Midwest.  One client's interview list of people for personal feedback included a recently hired marketing vice-president from New York.  In addition to the feedback, my client asked me--with a twinkle in his eyes--to see what I thought about how long the VP would last at this company.  I knew what he was asking.  Some East Coast staffers don't last long in the Upper Midwest because they lack the necessary antennae to manage the Minnesota system.  There is nothing wrong with the New York style--in New York.  But, the New York style in Minnesota is a recipe for trouble because of the extreme differences in cultural rules.  Your ability to assess those rules and adapt determine your success.

The New York marketing vice-president was terminated in seven months.  He never was able to develop the relevant street smarts.  And he never knew why he was really terminated . . . because no one knew how to tell him the truth.  It's unusually difficult to talk about street smarts and make it a valid rationale for termination.

In coming days, I'll lay out some clues to help you understand your organization's street smarts.

THE MARKETPLACE, THE NEW ECONOMY AND THE CRASH

Initially, what my clients buy is my service of highly customized development.  First and foremost, execs are after feedback from their significant colleagues--and I learned years ago how to get that.  From that I can build a picture of the strengths they bring to the party--usually a bit of delicious surprise in that for most execs--they didn't realize what in their toolkit and character was most appreciated.  Then we work at strategic developmental issues--they almost always know what those are.

As time goes on (I work with a client for at least a year), the conversations move in unanticipated  directions.  "What do you think about. . . ?"  I'll never forget my amusement at the CFO of a Fortune 100 company who asked me what I thought about the firm's marketing strategy.  I told him I had no training in marketing and didn't know beans about it.  "Nonsense," he replied, "tell me what you think."

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that although my clients and I have an assumed delivery contract about my services--and I do intend to meet those objectives--the real contract is far broader and more diverse.  Most clients want to know a lot about things that have little to do with my contracted service.  It was a surprise to learn that they wanted to know what I thought about such diverse topics as politics, religion, sex, economics, prostate cancer and culture.  By the time they've become an exec, most professionals are sponges, soaking up info anywhere they can get it.  Of course, that makes me a happy camper, because I have diverse interests--and the learning is a two way street.

So on weekends I intend to take my clients' example and write briefly about a topic that only obliquely relates to career development.   I hope it will nudge my readers to perhaps think differently about something of personal, national or even cultural importance.

Although most of my clients read Businessweek, Fortune and the Economist, a few read the New Yorker and the Atlantic.  The latest issue of the Atlantic (March 2009) has an article by Richard Florida, the urban studies theorist who has made a name for himself writing about geography and the creative class. Here, Florida weighs in on "How the crash will reshape America" with relevant insights.

What's especially useful about the article is his discussion of how global crises transform the landscape.  The crash of 1873 and the Depression upended the geopolitical order, hastening the fall of old powers and the rise of new.  Similarly, he suggests that the subprime debacle has probably ended suburbanization--and its sprawling growth.  Home ownership rates will probably go down--and that's an important good, because it means that the population becomes more nimble.  A mobile economy requires a nimble population.  Not exactly conventional wisdom, eh?  So government policies should encourage renting, not buying.

A second notion--that the coming decades will see even more clustering of output, jobs and innovation in a "smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions"--has been touched before.  Florida concludes, however, that we (government and business) need to encourage growth in the regions and cities that are talent-attracting:  pleaces like Silicon Valley, Boulder, Austin and the North Carolina Research Triangle.  Interesting argument! 

Pragmatically, how useful is this info?  For Gen-Y?  It sure as hell makes a difference whether you decide to work in St. Louis or in Austin.  And I'm not talking about climate.  It's very important as you make post-college moves to think about where you can best develop your training and talent, where the opportunities for the future lie, and what the culture can provide for your progeny.  Gen-Yers will probably have three to five vocations and work for 15 or more companies in their lifetime.  So a bit of strategic thinking about geography and career are useful.  If you're smart you'll not make returning to the same neighborhood where you grew up an important priority.  We didn't--we grew up in the Detroit area in its heyday--but we moved on, checking out a number of places.  Our daughters didn't end up where we settled (Minneapolis), either.  Smart move.  After all, the phone is cheap and an airline ticket doesn't set you back that much.  The March Atlantic should be at the newstands this weekend.

GEN-Y, PROBLEM SOLVING, INFERENCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

Over dinner, a Gen-Y friend recently engaged me in conversation about his decision-making processes.  He was giving consideration to a stretchwork opportunity in another division of his firm, and had asked his boss about the matter.  Although his boss was very supportive, she had suggested that transferring into another department was dangerous in a recession--he might be the first to be laid off, should the firm decide to cut back. 

"I suspect that she may be right."  He had drawn a single conclusion that, based on my own experience, was merely one of a number of possibilities.  However, he had learned from his coaching and asked an all-important question:  "what other inferences could I have drawn from that experience?"   He recognized that it's the inferences (the conclusions) he draws that will determine whether or not he takes that stretch opportunity.

Checking your inferences is fundamental to career success, but it's a new skill for many professionals.  So what's the best way to check your inferences?  Suppose that you pick up today's newspaper and read that a certain economist says that the nation will be out of the woods by the end of 2009.  That's the conclusion that he's drawn.  Your first question should always be:  "On what facts did he base that inference?  Reviewing his article, you note that his primary fact is that the stock market has gone up 143 points during the past week.  He mentions no other facts.  Any thinking reader will recognize that a lot more determines economic success than the stockmarket .  The commentator's conclusions are suspect.

But notice what I've done to evaluate his conclusion.  I simply asked what facts did he have to support his conclusion?  An argument with his conclusion is  a waste of time without looking at the facts behind the conclusion.

The truth of the matter is that our reasoning is usually secret to us.  We don't inevitably ask about or think about the facts behind our conclusions or inferences.   Yet, when it comes to relationships, drawing inferences is something we do all the time.  "My boss doesn't like me.  My boss plays favorites.  My boss will support this project."  Put it into the category of friends.  "Joe is really a smart guy.  Joe is a good listener.  Joe will do the right thing."  If you were counting, you can see that I've listed six inferences.  Are any of them true enough to make short-term or long-term predictions?  It always depends on the facts.

For effective problem solving and decision-making, you will want to pay close attention to the inferences or conclusions you and others have drawn.  If they will determine your action, you'll be smart to go up-river to identify the facts of the situation.  More often than not, a thorough assessment of the facts will point to different inferences and conclusions--which could result in a totally different action step for you.  Focusing on the facts beneath your inferences, conclusions and assumptions will go a long way toward raising your decision-making batting average.

My clients and I have come up with the following issues for questioning the facts about relationships, projects, funding and anything else of significance:

• What facts are you paying attention to?
• What facts are you ignoring?
• What facts don't you know?
• What facts (data) are just plain wrong?
• What facts (data) are outdated?

Remember:  Knowing what to think is not the real key to effective problem solving and decision-making.  Knowing how to think will be one of the make-or-break career skills for this new talent age.