The Ballyhoo Over Yahoo

Last Friday's decision by Yahoo to eliminate telecommuting has released a firestorm of punditry on both sides of the issue.  The lessons to be learned by analyzing from the sidelines are many - so let's begin.

Extremism at both ends: witness the thousands of comments posted about Yahoo's action.  Many, unfortunately, can be categorized as being at the extreme ends of the spectrum:    either this recent action  by Yahoo was described in Biblical Revelations as a sure sign of the end times. . . or. . .that telecommuting itself has contributed to the downfall of civilization as we know it.  As leaders, let's  "back up" and be thoughtful:   neither extreme is true.  This is one action by one company regarding one set of circumstances.

Look at core thought differences expressed in this debate.  Advocates of telecommuting point out that it can cut costs, often contributes to higher workplace satisfaction, reduces employee turn.  Yahoo's Marissa Mayer counter-points that great collaboration happens when employees are working at the same site together and, whether in meetings or informal gatherings, these collaborations can lead to innovation.

Instead of automatically defaulting to one side or another, let's recognize this: both points of view are true; neither is wrong.  This is the stuff that tough decisions are made of.

Look at the challenge contextually:  pundits look at the Yahoo decision from their own personal viewpoint (pro-telecommuting or not - and here would be a good place to insert that generally I am in favor of it).   We should also look at the issue contextually.  Yahoo is a company that is publicly struggling and yes, is in dire need of innovation.   The decision to end telecommuting may be a right decision for Yahoo at this time, but not a right decision for its competitors.   As leaders, we should always apply context to issue management.

Understand that personal choice is still in force.  The debates surrounding these type of issues can quickly degenerate into "the management has no right to do this" or "the employees are just a bunch of whiners."  Let's be clear:   Marissa Mayer and her management team are within their rights on changing the policy. . .and the team members at Yahoo are within their rights to either follow the policy or pursue opportunities elsewhere.  (Let's also be clear that there are limitations to this guideline;   no one in management should make the workplace a living hell - with the proviso that if the employee doesn't like it - they can just go elsewhere.    That's not ethical and is just a bad business practice.)

Don't substitute a policy change for what is really a management issue.   There has been some vocalization to the thought that Yahoo had become lax and that team members were abusing the telecommuting policy.  Let's hope that the policy was changed for the stated reason, encouraging innovation, vs. trying to solve what is essentially a management issue by changing the policy.   Lesson to be learned:  don't change what may be a good policy just because of abuse by a few.

Lead with the headline and manage the message.   Assume that Yahoo took the action of eliminating telecommuting with the purpose of fostering innovation;   the message that came through in the media was upside down.  It accented the elimination of what many felt was a strong benefit and then gave the reason.  Properly positioned, a stronger managed message would have been, "Yahoo believes that it needs to foster innovation and further believes that its talented staff, working in collaboration with each other, is the best way to achieve that goal.   With that in mind, it will no longer be a telecommuting company."    Both messages are still presented, but in my mind, it is a more positive presentation of the message.

Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available for readers, IPads, tablets and PCs on Kindle.

The Most Excellent Virtues, and Dangerous Vices, of Reacting

I'm a big believer in having a strong business plan that lays out the case for your enterprise, your value proposition to your constituency as well as outlining your systems for how you are going to conduct business.   I am also a big believer in utilizing your business plan as a foundation for how you are going to react to the world around you and the changes it brings.

Reacting to situations is a two-edged sword;  if you don't react to a changing world, or to special circumstances, you run the risk of allowing injury to happen to your business, becoming irrelevant or leaving opportunities for growth untouched.   If not kept in balance with your overall business plan, however, reacting can become over-reacting that sways your venture from one undefined tactic to the next, which in turn leaves your constituents looking for the lost focus of your purpose.

The same is absolutely true in our leadership styles and our interaction with our teams.  We  must be able to react to and interact with our team members, otherwise we are irrelevant as leaders.   This must, however, be guided with our own professional leadership plan.

Many times I have fallen prey to reacting immediately to a team member's request or situation.  I was answering off the cuff and either saying "no" (or, more accurately "hell, no") or "yes, go ahead and do it" without any systemic thought.   Mistakes.  Big mistakes.   My reaction was a short-term answer with no long-term value. So, herewith are a few thoughts on a professional plan that enables you get all of the virtues out of reacting and hopefully none of the vices.

• With few exceptions (those being medical emergenies, natural disasters and personal danger) there is not a request or situation that cannot wait for a few minutes.   There is nothing wrong with a response of "Let me think about it and get back to you in a few minutes/hours" as long as you are prompt in getting back to the individual.   Often requesters want us to grant their wish on the spot; often we, and the team, are better off to invest some time in analysis before reacting.
• Make a promise to yourself that you are going to look at the issue from all sides:   your natural point of view, the boss's opinion, the point of view support services (HR?, IT?) may have as well as the perspective of other team members.
• Take counsel.   Unless it is an issue that is highly confidential, find a peer, team-member or supervisor with whom to discuss the issue.   It is good to hear yourself talking about an issue to someone you trust - you may find yourself. . . telling yourself what to do.
• You may want to revisit the issue with the person who brought it to your attention.  Why do they think it's important?   What do they view as risk factors?  What are the opportunities if addressed positively?
• Ask for more information if that is warranted (don't do it just to delay making a decision - that's not fair).
• Rally the team.   Often, especially if the matter is urgent, the temptation is to act alone.   I have done it that way and failed.    I was successful when I partnered with peers and in collaboration we quickly came up with and executed a solution.

The point is this. . . you can leverage reactionary situations to most everyone's benefit, but only if you have a plan and point of view, for how you, as leader, will react.

Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available for the Kindle, IPad, Mac and PCs from Amazon Kindle.

Catfights! Scandal! Drama!

Among the few certainties of life is this;   if on any of the Real Housewives offerings one of the personalities says something like, "All I want is just a chance for everyone to get together for a nice evening without any drama," this wish will quickly be followed by an emotional blow-out that roughly equals all of the firepower of WWI times three.

Hopefully, all of us can understand the distinction of the vast chasm that separates reality TV. . .and reality.  I do have concerns, however, that this slice of popular culture may shade, however subtly, how we approach the workplace. . .and our personal lives.

• Devious contestant on competition show confides to the audience that this is, after all, a contest. . .and he or she will do whatever is necessary to win.  Throwing a team-mate under the bus, lying, cheating and rumor-mongering are just a few of the tools these schemers utilize in an attempt to come out on top.
• On reality shows featuring people with a high degree of creative talent, it has become the norm to portray contestants as highly strung individuals who simply cannot get along with their fellow man or woman.  Frequent breakdowns are interspersed with some surprisingly uncreative verbal sniping.
• And here's a teachable moment. . .a scene from one of the Real Housewives franchises in which a cast member, who endlessly touts her business acumen, and accompanying wealth, quite literally spanks an employee  to correct a supposed wrong.

I get it - this is television, after all, and (sometimes) drama makes for great television. . .or minimally, the rating points needed for renewal   When said shows, however, pose as "reality" I get a little concerned that we begin to think that this certain brand of bad behavior is the norm in life outside of TV land

It isn't. . .or at least, it shouldn't be.

First of all, I think we recognize that the very nature of life will bring drama to us:  birth, death, great times, times not-so-great.  To stir up conflict  just seems like a redundancy and a poor use of time.

Here's a reality (not reality TV) primer for leaders.

If you, or a team member, seemingly lives to create conflict  - it just needs to stop.   There is a wide gulf of disinctions between a strong difference of opinion and conflict.   The former can be utilized positively to arrive at creative solutions that gives the team a competitive edge while the latter can tear a workplace apart.

Stop already with the notion that high performers get the starring role of being prima donnas with the side benefit of exhibiting behavior that tends toward emotional instability.  Ultimately this behavior is a short-cut to getting one's way without having to engage the team.  Good attitudes and great teamwork always beat out egos and narcissism.

Understand that everyone needs to listen to your HR department about rules, regulations and policies regarding the treatment of human beings with dignity.   These guardrails are there for a purpose; minimally to keep everyone safe and maximally to drive efficiency.

Let's recognize that creating conflict among teams does not serve any useful purpose. . .but to create ways to work together peacefully, and thus seamlessly and efficiently, allows the team to truly win.

Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders," available on Kindle:   http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0095KPA6A

Traffic Cops and Leaders

Have you ever observed a really great traffic cop?  You know, that brave individual who positions himself or herself smack dab in the middle of an onslaught of vehicles to create order out of chaos. 

Think about it, great leaders have many similarities to these brave individuals:

Traffic cops give direction.   This is also what great leaders do, and like traffic cops, they give it definitively.  Traffic cops are not subtle about the direction they want you to go, they are pointing the way with unswerving certainty.   Same is true of great leaders;  not only do they provide direction, but it is provided without subtlety.

Traffic cops will stop you to keep you safe.    The same is true of a capable manager.   Just like a traffic cop will stop a driver from advancing to avoid an accident, a strong leader will stop a team member when they sense that the timing is not right for action.  When a leader sees something that a team member cannot see, they are wise to use the "STOP" signal.

Traffic cops will give you more than direction.  A great traffic cop will not only point the direction they want you to go, but they will also indicate an appropriate speed and they may also point out dangers along the way.     Great communicators in the workplace do they same thing; they provide more than direction, they tell team members how they want them to proceed.

Traffic cops step in the middle of chaos to create order.  Great leaders do this every single day - they step into the middle of not-so-desirable situations to create solutions that allow individuals, the team and the company to achieve their goals.

Traffic cops constantly assess the situation from all points of view.   Drivers can only receive safe direction when the director is looking in all directions.    Team members can only proceed when they know that their leader is looking in all directions for challenges and distractions.

BONUS POINTS:  The traffic cops you really love are the ones that are also entertaining.  Think about it, the really memorable traffic cops are the ones who make eye contact with you, give you a nod or a smile or even do a little dance.   While certainly the job of the leader is not primarily to be entertaining, a nod, a smile, an appropriate joke or some great conversation certainly goes a long way toward making the office a better place.

Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders," available for readers, IPads, tables and PCS on Kindle.  http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0095KPA6A