Dan Erwin

HOW TO LISTEN WITH YOUR EYES (Part 2)

One of my clients, a well-placed COO, once engaged me in a rather unique conversation about trust.  "It takes me about six months to figure out if I can trust someone," he said.  "Is there a faster way to make a decision than that?"  That's an issue plenty of managers think about when they're giving consideration to work relationships, but I've never had an exec put the question to me so baldly.

The issue is more basic than work performance or ability.  Having trustworthy people around makes work life much easier and much less stressful. In defining his question, the COO said, he really got "bugged" by people who were more focused on their career than on the firm's business and he wanted to know how he could identify those people faster.  Although he had a long history with a number of his peers, the firm had recently been bought out by a major corporation and there were several new execs "floating around."  He wasn't certain whether some of them could be trusted.

How you tell the good guys from the bad guys is not just a problem for execs.  It's a question that we're all faced with periodically.  My client and I talked about a number of conversational clues, but he was especially intrigued by my coaching on nonverbal clues.

So, how do you quickly size a person up by nonverbal clues? 

Nonverbal smarts can pay off with a problem like the COO was facing.  For example, watch how others respond to the person in a team meeting.  When you're friends with some of the team members, look to see whether they are cautious, giving only a minimum amount of information in front of him?  Do they smile when responding, or are they more cautious? 

Get to the meeting early, and watch where other people sit around "the guy."  If several people keep their distance, that may mean they also distrust the guy. 

Watch "the guy" in a social situation where people tend to more inhibited.  Do people naturally come up to him, or do they keep their distance from him even in an exchange?

Assess the personal space between him and others.  In a conversation, do people take a few extra inches?  When people aren't certain about someone, they'll depart from their usual personal distance between themselves and others.  You can readily spot the differences in a social gathering.  Although most managers will work a room, saying hello to all of their colleagues, they'll keep more space between themsevelves and those they don't trust. 

Watch to see which people get in close to "the guy."  What do you know about those people that might give you more insight?

Last, be very careful about drawing conclusions from just one or two situations.  Observe the person in four or five settings before you decide whether he's a good guy or a bad guy.  If you decide the guy is a bad guy, and he has a lot of power, you have some decisions to make.  Most execs have learned how to work with bad guys, but it takes a lot of energy.  If there's a lot on the line and he's your boss, you may want to tough it out.  If there's not a lot on the line, it may be time to transfer or look for the exit.

FYI: At least 50% of the time, nonverbal messages are wrongly interpreted.  The same nonverbal expression (such as a smile, crossed arms or inconsistent personal distance) can be indicative of several widely differing emotions and meanings.  The rule: nonverbal messages should always be read in context.  The same nonverbal may mean one thing in one context and something else in another.  When it's important, you may want to check out the meaning of the nonverbal with the other person.

If you were to rank order interpersonal skills in terms of use and importance, number one would be listening ( including listening with your eyes), and number two would be questioning.  Studies show that on average, 42% of our work time is spent in listening and 32% is spent in talking.  As skills become more and more complex, like managing people, negotiating or managing a conflict, listening and questioning are right there, making up a major chunk of these complex skills.  

Knowing how to listen with your eyes is just as important as listening with your ears. 

P.S.  Here's the initial post on this subject.

THINKING LIKE YOUR EMPLOYER

A recession is a great time to learn how your company thinks about its employees.  It's the one time when the handwriting about why some employees stay and some employees go ought to be very decipherable.  Since recessions are cyclical, if you're in your thirties or forties you'll see more of them.  This one provides a lesson about company thinking that you never want to forget.  Who was laid-off, who was very secure in their position? What did they do?  Why did the firm keep some of them?

Companies can't afford to be mean, thoughtless or punitive.  The few bosses or companies that are punitive end up with legal suits, sabotage and morale problems.  No company wants to deal with those costs.  But companies have to think about their existence and economic viability.  Some will stanch the bleeding very quickly, and others drag it on as long as possible. 

Who goes in a recession?

Companies often begin lay-offs with chronically poor performers.  The buzz is that companies let go the bottom 10% first, but the truth is that few companies "rank-and-yank."  Usually people are let go as a result of a survey of supervisors or managers.  Furthermore, who goes is rarely the decision of a single person.  More often it's a decision made by a team of managers.  Anywhere from three to ten managers may have input into the decision.  You can be sure, also, that long-term performance appraisals will also have input into lay-off decisions.

Lots of times, lay-offs are not made on the basis of performance, but on the basis of positions for which demand or growth no longer exist. The job has evaporated because of new technology or processes. Technology development is driven by labor intensive work throughout business.  Even highly trained professionals like physicians and lawyers are under the gun of technology. 

Finally, people whose competencies no longer fit their company's future direction and strategy will be let go.  That happens all the time, not merely during a recession.

So, how can you maintain job security?

1.    Pay close attention to your performance and always work to improve it.  That's an obvious conclusion, so don't ignore it.  Stay on top of appraisals and make certain they always look good.  They're often the difference between a lay-off and job security.

2.    Keep informed about the development of technology in your business and your industry.  One way to determine the skills you want to add is watch the technology changes.  If technology is going to run the manufacturing line, then fewer managers will be needed.  Ask yourself, for example, what job alternatives would make sense if you were to lose a line position?  Keep adding to your toolkit so you can move or stretch into another position or field when technology takes over your position.  

3.    Stay on top of your firm's changing strategy so that your competencies are central to your firm's success.  Strategy is always a moving target, in any business, so use strategy as a guideline for building your toolkit and expertise.  People with needed expertise will always have work.

QUOTATION OF THE WEEK: CLARK HOWARD

In America, whenever we have felt like we were looking in the rearview mirror to see good stuff, we always manage to figure out a way to have good stuff happen to us in the future.

                                    --Clark Howard, Money Expert, CNN

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION I KNOW

When it comes to business and personal development, it's this:  "What keeps you from saying that?"  I learned it through Chris Argyris' writings on personal and organizational defensiveness.  I use it regularly and I've taught my clients to apply it for themselves.  It also saves time, energy and results in better information.

Our human make-up requires that question.  In business most of us have a very strong need to be in control of our actions. We grew up that way.  We feel good when we can control our actions to produce the results we're after. Truth be told, we hate feeling or being out of control.  And if we were to say what we're really feeling, or what we believe to be the case, then. . . . 

There are two especially important times when that question of yourself is profoundly useful: when we're dealing with issues that we think can be embarrassing or threatening.  That's when you believe you shouldn't bring something up, the boss will be angry or theatened, or it's not appropriate.  That's when you should use the question on yourself:  "What keeps me from saying that?"

When I answer the question of myself and work over my answers--they're usually stupid.  I can rather quickly move off the dime and state what might be embarrassing or threatening.  The results are nearly always constructive.  (Oh yeah, the more you talk about the undiscussable, the easier it gets, and the more you learn.)

One of the major contributions of technology is the dramatic change in organizations.  Behavior is increasingly transparent--people can't hide things the way they used to.  Twenty-five years ago I regularly met people in consulting who were information hogs.  They believed in keeping info to themselves, thinking it would give them job security.  But today, it's exceedingly rare to meet an information hog today.  Nearly everyone knows that people have access to information that 30 years ago they could keep quiet.  That makes it a lot easier to say things that were previously undiscussable--and a lot easier for people to respond to your statement.

Sometimes transparency is so widespread it just gets funny.  A couple weeks ago the Journal reported that a Fordham law school faculty member and his class took Justice Scalia's plainly wrong comments about internet privacy seriously, and wanted to educate the justice on what was really available on the internet.  They produced a 15 page document on Justice Scalia with his home address, phone number, his wife's personal email, the movies he likes, his food preferences and pictures of his "beautiful grandchildren."

The world is just a lot more transparent, and bosses know that too.  There are far fewer legitimate reasons for not saying what needs to be said.  Try it, and keep me posted on how well it worked for you. . . and how much more valid and useful you found the information.

MORE MONEY, OR A GOOD BOSS?

Traditionalists always roll over in disbelief at this information, but here it is once more.  A study of federal workers shows that "Money's Nice, but a Good Boss Is Better."  Traditionalists refuse to look at research and they're always certain that pay is the key factor.  All the surveys indicate that out of ten issues for measuring employee satisfaction at an organization, compensation is typically number seven or eight in importance.

Today's Washington Post article revealed that studies of numerous federal agencies found an important consistency:  "federal workers value strong leadership and straight answers from their bosses more than even pay and benefits."  It's no different in private and publicly held companies. 

Top ranking of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was achieved because senior management takes the time to listen to their staff.  Once again the distinctives between agencies was not monetary, but the willingness to share information, and the training and opportunities it provides for its workers. 

John Palguta, VP of policy for the research group summarized the challenges for government managers as, "communicate, cmmunicate, communicate.  It's like real estate."

Do you really think that the issues in American business differ?

HOW LONG SHOULD YOU STAY AT YOUR FIRST JOB?

Recently a Gen-Y reader contacted me with a great question.  Although I fumbled to give him a few answers, I didn't give him the answer he deserved.  He has been working the past three-and-a-half years at a multi-national consumer products company that doesn't turn him on.  But he made a calculated decision to take the opportunity in marketing/sales.  He's obviously bright and capable.  He's been promoted twice and hopes to go on to an MBA program in the next three or four years.  Here's his question: 

"I am not sure if I should broaden my knowledge base in other companies or stay and gain experience in other roles within the company."

I wonder how some of you would answer this question.  What suggestions do you have for the next few years, and what do you think are the best ways to set the stage to get into a good business school?

ANY CHANCE YOU LOVE POLITICS?

I try to stay on top of the major political issues.  It's not just that I'm fascinated by politics, but it's a topic that a lot of my clients want to talk about--if we can stay objective. I do that by blaming both parties and praising both parties. 

It strikes me that the current economic meltdown and its resulting downturn have brought one real positive to the table:  we're rethinking European and American capitalism, its assumptions, strengths and weaknesses.  Our military leaders have had to respond to the facts on the ground, and so they've completely revisited how they do war and what the 21st century requires.  They've had to rethink and revise (and revise again) their tactics and strategy and they're doing it.  Of course, they had to rid themselves of last century leaders, and a number of generals have gone out the door.  There will probably be more.

Now the American congress has to revisit our political narrative and deal with the facts on their ground.  I was certain from day one that the last administration would be a fiasco.  But that administration did us a major favor.  Reagan politics, though needed initially, had run its course, and we were ready for a major screw-up that would be obvious to the entire population--in order for some needed changes to take place.  And we got it, even though the cost has been really fearful. A major contribution of the past administration was its terrible governance, but the mistakes that created this crisis can be attributed to both political parties.  So thank you "W," Wall Street and congress, too.

In spite of our wounds, one historical insight may be helpful: political cycling takes place about every thirty years, and that's been the case since the American Revolution.  The last cycle, under Reagan, Thatcher and Gorbachev, was a political shift of earthquake proportion.  Thirty years later, we're forced to look at our politico/economic model, delete, and cycle again.  That's one of the strengths of our Union.  What's painful, though, is that this one impacts us all in the pocket book and for some it's desperate.   Today's mess, in contrast to the Reagan era, reminds me of Winston Churchill's dictum:  "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Pluses and minuses

Finding trustworthy intelligence in the middle of global pandemonium has been tough, but the Economist did itself proud.  They brought a thoughtful comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the two major capitalist empires:  Europe and America.   

On the continental side, there is nothing especially socially cohesive about labour laws that favour insiders over outsiders, or rules that make the costs of starting a business excessive. Even Colbert might admit that Europe’s tax burdens are too onerous today, particularly since they are likely to have to rise in the future to meet the looming cost of the continent’s rapidly ageing populations.

For the liberals, even if the cycle swings back in their direction, the financial crisis and the recession have shown up defects in the way they too implemented their model. Getting regulation right matters as much as freeing up markets; an efficient public sector may count as much as an efficient private one; public investment in transport, schools and health care, done well, can pay dividends. The pecking order may change, but pragmatism and efficiency will always count.

That comparison nailed nearly all the important issues we're going to be talking and thinking about for the next few years.  We all get to be spectators to the fun--and probably players, too.  So, stay tuned.

I'm curious.  Do some of you, like me, watch national politics from 30,000 feet?  If so, what political issues do you stay in touch with?  Or, how do you use this info in your business?  Or can you even use it?

JONAH LEHRER: "THE SECRET OF SELF-CONTROL"

This week's New Yorker (May 18) contains a not-to-be-missed article, Don't: The Secret of Self-Control, by the brilliant Gen-Yer, Jonah Lehrer.  As in his two books, Lehrer is fascinated by recent studies in neuroscience.  His writing takes the form of highly accessible narrative through which he reveals the latest findings of brain science and their immediate applications.  Aside from their immense practicality, Lehrer's subjects and writing are just plain fun. 

Good scientists are good noticers, and Walter Mischel, a psychologist has found that far better than I.Q., the best predictor of SAT scores is the ability to delay gratification.  Although it used to be thought that delay was fundamentally innate, Mischel says no.  Self-control has a lot to do with environment, and it can be taught.  Currently, psychologists are developing and piloting a program in the delay of gratification at the KIPP school in Piladelphia, a school noted for long workday and dramatic improvements in reading and math. 

Although the studies have focused on children, I have a hunch that there's a potential relationship to perseverance.  While the emphasis on career achievement and development in business has been on motivation for more than 50 years, my protege, Liam O'Dea, has pointed out on numerous occasions that career perseverance is far more important than motivation.  Although motivation underlies perseverance, I believe that his focus is spot-on.  In the final analysis, projects and change succeed because of perseverance.  Although the two are interwoven, the lens through which we observe them determines what we see and the point where we might take remedial action.

Self-control and the delay of gratification strike me as intimately related to perseverance.  This is not a matter of semantics.  You measure project completion when you're assessing perseverance.  But you may or may not think to look at project completion if you're trying to check out employee motivation.

Don't let the sun set before you pick up Lehrer's article.  Here's the link:  Secret of Self-Control.

WHEN REAL SMARTS MEETS THE WISDOM OF EXPERIENCE

In a conversation between Anderson Cooper and David Gergen, I glimpsed an intriguing confrontation between real smarts and the wisdom of experience.  In focus was a discussion of Speaker Pelosi's knowledge of waterboarding and Panetta's protective action in behalf of the CIA.  As David Gergen commented:  "This is a remarkable story.  Two Democratic heavyweights at sword's point over what happened seven years ago, not even on Leon Panetta's watch." 

Cooper pressed Gergen again and again, emphasizing that the public had the right to know who's telling the truth, that the public should know what the truth is and have a light shined on it, whether Nancy Pelosi can be trusted and whether we have a right to be cynical about Washington politics.  As Cooper put it, "It's so fascinating to me, just I mean, someone who is outside of Washington, to see a situation, I mean, it's rare you see a situation where clearly somebody is lying, somebody is not telling the truth, and yet. . . "

What was so intriguing to me was how Gergen parried Cooper's comments with the wisdom of his experience.   As usual, Gergen kept his composure, a wide smile on his face.  Gergen is too nice a guy, but if I didn't know him I'd say the smile was a smirk, evoking his scorn for the question, certainly smug, and all-knowing.  His parries included the thoughtful, "you're basically right, these things happen, it just seems that. . . , but you know, this is Washington politics (and for Mr. Gergen, not a pejorative).

But it was Gergen's last two lines that best clarified the issue:  "But I'm just telling you, as in so many things in Washington, it takes a long time to sort out the truth. . . .  there are no direct paths to the truth in Washington and on these controversies."   There you have it:  the wisdom of experience.  Nuanced,  gray, not black or white.  Not pejorative, not even critical, much less negative.  Merely informative. 

Smarts plus experience may (sometimes) equal wisdom.

David Gergen is one of those rare souls with the experience to back up his insights.  Serving as assistant and counselor to four presidents, both Republican and Democrat, when he draws a conclusion I pay attention.  So when Anderson Cooper (a really smart guy) confronts the ideas of David Gergen, the intelligent thing to do is defer to Gergen, exactly what Cooper did.

So how do you assess "experience?"

This confrontation provides me an opportunity to rant about some of the crazy ideas surrounding the sacred cow of "experience."  Candidly, I think that the claims of experience are often just so much bunk.  As thoughtful professionals, it's important not to be so enamored of "experience."  When business people, clients or consultants claim experience, I tend to be wary of those claims.  They're usually made along with an insistence that so-and-so is has a very solid knowledge base, is a good decision-maker and that that person should be deferred to, or some such folderol. 

Although you're not going to ask some of these questions directly, they should sift through your gray matter before you find yourself infatuated with anyone's claims of experience.

• Has the professional learned a lot over the years, and is he/she continuing on a learning trajectory?  So, does the person really have 15 years of experience or three or four years of experience over a 15 year period?  Studies confirm solidly that most professionals stop learning after they gain competency in their field.  That means four to six years into their profession.
• What's the quality of that person's experience?  The quality of 3M or Proctor and Gamble experience means a lot more to me than long experience in other major firms, much less the small outfit or family operation. 
• How open is that person of experience to new ideas?  Research shows clearly that more often than not, experienced people often are close-minded, unaware of changes in their field and tend to ignore situational differences.

If you're looking for support, guidance or mentoring, you need to know the answers to these questions.  You'll need to check out your network, engage that person in a number of conversations before you blunder into a useless relationship, and be able to answer all three of my questions.

Good luck on your search.

See my related post, Gen-Y Questioning and Conversational Leadership

PEGGY NOONAN: "BY THE WAY, DON'T KILL THE GOOSE."

On Saturday morning, my first read is Peggy Noonan, Reagan's former speech-writer, who writes an op/ed column for WSJ.  By the middle of her column, she got to her issue:  two fears, still unarticulated, that the American public faces, are the spending and tax plans, and the related fear that our government might regulate the free-market system out of existence.  She got it right: too much gobbledygook coming out of Washington:  "Economy of language would be good for the economy."  We don't want to kill the golden goose with government activism.

The goose of course is the big, messy, spirited, inspiring, and sometimes in some respects damaging but on the whole brilliant and productive wealth-generator known as the free-market capitalist system. People do want things cleaned up and needed regulations instituted, and they don't mind at all if the very wealthy are more heavily taxed, but they greatly fear a goose killing. Economic freedom in all its chaos and disorder has kept us rich for 200 years, and allowed us as a nation to be generous and strong at home and in the world. But the goose can be killed—by carelessness, hostility, incrementalism, paralysis, and by no one saying, "Don't kill the goose.

Complicating all this is Noonan's fear that the brain trust, filled with academic types, has no messy business types.  Makes a lot of sense to me.  Much as I'm awed by the power and smarts of Obama's cabinet, I would be a lot more comfortable with the addition of a sizeable number of plain, really smart business people.  And they don't have to be Democrats to satisfy me. 

No goose killing, puhhhlease.