| Greetings!
In September a department of a major international organization asked us to conduct a full day management retreat followed by a two-day offsite meeting with more than 140 professionals to explore the implementation hurdles and opportunities of their new strategy. In spite of the concerns of the sponsors based on less-than-successful prior experiences of similar events, we delivered a high level of engagement around deep content conversations. Being able to lead such a large group through highly productive meetings was a major benchmark for our approach.
On a different note, if Leadership is a topic of interest for you, here is a great book that echoes some of our core tenets. Leadership and Self-Deception published by the Arbinger Institute is a parabola that describes the journey of a young senior manager through 2 days of intense reflection with the top leaders of the enlightened firm he joined just a month prior.
The focus is on how leaders unbeknownst to themselves create negative reactions in the people they are trying to lead, and engage in unintentional self-sabotage. Full of examples and situational anecdotes that one can easily identify with, this is a fast read that I highly recommend to develop self-awareness in relations at work...and everywhere else, as a matter of fact.
Sincerely,
Alain Bolea
|
| Managing Team Stress | |
A fundamental misunderstanding exists between leaders and team members around the subject of stress and what it means for ongoing performance.
Leaders themselves are generally operating under a lot of stress because of demands on their time, and the responsibility to balance short-term performance and long-term strategy. This is all par for the course for leaders; yet when they look at their teams, they can see that many staff members carry their stress in not so stoic a manner. Subordinate or team-wide stress is often expressed as complaints (about unfulfilled promises or expectations) but heard by leaders as "gripes", mere excuses for poor performance caused by lack of commitment or inability to do the work right.
Leaders forget that they personally are more likely to thrive under stress because they typically have greater control and understanding of the situation. But they also need to remember that, as leaders , they are exposed to the same negative stress as their staff when they feel overwhelmed by the situation they are in, and experience being "out-of-control."
For subordinates and teams, there is a basic difference between short-term stress to complete a finite task, and ongoing stress that is part of the normal operating procedure of the organization. Every time an individual or team loses a clear understanding of their contribution to the whole picture, does not understand the decisions made by superiors, is asked to do things that appear to be in conflict with what was done before, or asked to do things that appear to be in fundamental conflict with what they believe is right, they begin to experience negative stress.
Misunderstanding the source of stress, and the effective response needed, can have huge consequences for the team's performance. Leaders' first reaction is often to come down on those employees with low performance or morale either by trying to force an attitude change or to invalidate their complaints.
Over time, however, unaddressed negative stress engenders resentful mindsets, skeptical attitudes and eventually resistant behaviors. It saps creativity, the ability to think through complex issues, and focus on finding solutions. Individuals then tend to ruminate over how they have been wronged, repeating to anyone available to listen how they are mistreated by the boss, their co-workers, the system, the organization... With some conscious effort, leaders can have a powerful impact on stress and the overall mindset of the group by making sure that everyone understands the purpose of the group so that individuals can make better sense of the situation they are in.
When purpose and vision become clear, individuals feel more in control of their destiny and their stress is greatly reduced. As individuals understand better how they contribute to the whole, they can see more clearly how their work impacts the work of their colleagues, and how others may be able to help them improve the outcomes that the organization is trying to generate. Once cooperation and collective problem solving take hold, friction within the group drops, and with it a major source of stress for its members.
By constantly bringing back the conversation to purpose and vision, leaders help team members navigate difficult times with better clarity and sense of control, creating more opportunities to find solutions instead of getting buried by overwhelm, frustration and confusion.
Alain Bolea
© Business Advisors Network 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do Conversations Need to Be Confrontational to Be "Real"?
|
Many leaders we meet are frustrated in their efforts to hold more open, frank and honest team conversations around contentious issues. They enter into these discussions girded for conflict, or the fear of conflict, anticipating every move beforehand. They tell us that truth telling tends to further polarize perspectives and reconciling these differences leads to upset and defensiveness. They believe there is a need then for 'toughness' to get beyond this and move forward. This raises the question whether having frank conversations necessarily leads to conflict? Or is it that some people are more attracted to conflict as their means of getting to the bottom of things?
Our own observations and experience reveal that any attempt made to get to the bottom of a matter by pitting viewpoints against each other, trying to convince the other person to their side, decreases the ability of the parties to explore the whole system involved and available to the solution. Conflict in terms of arguing from positions yields solutions favorable to the best convincer but not typically the best solution available.
In our team development engagements people are routinely amazed at the extent of open, frank conversation they can generate around their contentious problems. The process we use in groups of all sizes is aimed at quickly getting beyond entrenched positions.
Here are the ground rules that leaders can intentionally apply to engage in tough, seemingly intractable conversations with more success:
· Some simple, graphic data that shows the complexity of all viewpoints and how they stand in relation to each other (that different 'realities' about the issue exist and assumptions cannot be made)
· A safe psychological environment for talking, free of retribution
· All viewpoints are valid; no need to justify (i.e., go into 'war stories')
· Different viewpoints are considered as an added insight needed to achieve a shared reality about the issue
· The conversation is gently guided through the whole system of how the involved individuals work together (the team, the department, etc.) so that no essential point of connection or insight is missed that could help in resolving the matter
· The conversation continues until there is a felt coming together around the reality of the issue, naturally leading those involved to consider new possibilities and commitment to a chosen solution.
Surprisingly some are left with the feeling that if the conversation did not generate "heat", it means that it did not get to the bottom of things. Yet we have seen over and over that when groups come to realize that their collective future hinges on 2 or 3 critical points that need to be addressed, previous areas of conflict fall away naturally during the process.
Scott Brumburgh © Business Advisors Network 2011
|
|
Upcoming Episodes
|  | |
|
|
