In my prayers, I gave thanks as a child for what was tangible to me as a child: a house. . .warm clothes. . .food (especially if it was a feast - like Thanksgiving)! I was taught (correctly so) to be thankful for all of those. . . things.
We are taught to give thanks for all of the things that are given to us. There isn't anything wrong with any of this, unless it causes us to ignore to be thankful. . .for what we are.
Whether through training or culture or popular mindset. . .sometimes we get so entrapped on the "things" issue. . .that we become mindless to be grateful for what it is that makes us. . .us.
Hearts that can love, that have empathy and truly care.
Consciences that have us seek and enact social justice - to correct wrongs and strive for what's right.
Integrity that enables us to desire the truth and to be able to deal with it whether it is convenient or not.
Tears that let us express grief and sadness and anger. . . and laughter that somehow makes all of that alright.
The power of friendship. . .that human bonding that makes each one of us more than we are by ourselves.
Minds that never cease in the seeking of curiosities, new information and wisdom.
Creativity that expresses our power in both the smallest and biggest of ways.
A human spirit that, somehow, against all odds, just keeps going and moving us forward.
We know this to be true. . . all of the things that we have can disappear. . .but if we have our hearts and minds and souls. . .we will go on.
The utter beauty of this is these are not characteristics that are just exclusive to us as singular beings, but instead these are qualities which are inherent to all of us. That, in turn, creates one of the things for which I am most grateful.
Faith.
Like it? Share it?
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders," available for all e-readers on Amazon Kindle. If you are a member of Amazon Prime - you can read this book for free.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
It's All Information
There is another way of looking at events that happen at the workplace: what information did I receive?
Too often, we tend to look at events and conversations with the filter how they directly impact us:
There have been times that I have been hesitant to ask a question, voice an opinion or launch an idea for the fear of how it may be received. I was often wrong. I was too sensitive about how the reception would impact me; I should have been more concerned about listening for valuable information.
Don't think I'm alone in this; naturally we are all concerned about how people view us. Past experience, however, has taught me that it's wise to dial down the "what do people think" and dial up the "what information did I just find out."
For example, we may ask a supervisor, or team member, about an idea. In turn, we receive a rather callous answer. The first temptation is to take the answer very personally ("Well, it's obvious she doesn't like me very much.) But what if (and very likely this is so) the answer was not directed at you - but was the result of something else? What may be some of the learnings?
Same situation may be true if someone rejects an idea of yours - listen for what they are really saying vs. hearing just the rejection of YOUR idea.
Again, if you can get more information - you will be such a better position vs. getting just a perceived rejection.
I've learned to ask questions that I 'm pretty certain will end up in rejections - just to gain extra perspective into that person's process and professional strategy.
(Helpful hint here: this does not give you license to be a jerk and make queries and pronouncements without a filter - use the information you have gathered in the past to make intelligent choices for the present.)
Same applies to meetings: you may have been recruited to attend a meeting that you believe is about 1583 light years away from your area of responsibility. Know what? It may be interesting to attend - you may find out tons of information you didn't know - including ways to be more effective in your current position.
The key is this: get yourself out of the way. Instead of using your personal resources to defend yourself and filter responses - use your resources to receive and analyze additional information. A perceived rejection puts you behind. . .getting useful information puts you way ahead.
Like it? Share it!
Key words: business intelligence, leadership information, personal filters, professional filters, leadership knowledge.
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available for e-readers from Amazon Kindle. If you are a member of Amazon Prime, you can now read this book for free!
Too often, we tend to look at events and conversations with the filter how they directly impact us:
- "Well, she must have a death wish for me because the answer she gave me was poison."
- "He almost completely totally ignored me - as a ghost I would have gotten more attention."
- "That meeting was a total waste of my time."
There have been times that I have been hesitant to ask a question, voice an opinion or launch an idea for the fear of how it may be received. I was often wrong. I was too sensitive about how the reception would impact me; I should have been more concerned about listening for valuable information.
Don't think I'm alone in this; naturally we are all concerned about how people view us. Past experience, however, has taught me that it's wise to dial down the "what do people think" and dial up the "what information did I just find out."
For example, we may ask a supervisor, or team member, about an idea. In turn, we receive a rather callous answer. The first temptation is to take the answer very personally ("Well, it's obvious she doesn't like me very much.) But what if (and very likely this is so) the answer was not directed at you - but was the result of something else? What may be some of the learnings?
- Said individual doesn't care much for the subject - would rather spend their resources on other items.
- Workload is above capacity - individual can't even think of doing anything else.
- It's morning (seriously - timing is everything) and morning, for this individual, is the purgatory between evening and afternoon.
- You asked the question in a manner (e-mail, person to person, by phone) that the individual does not favor and would prefer some other manner of communication.
Same situation may be true if someone rejects an idea of yours - listen for what they are really saying vs. hearing just the rejection of YOUR idea.
- Perhaps the individual wants a more complete proposal - and you just sketched out an idea.
- Maybe the individual is concerned with human resource capacity - and rejected your idea for that reason.
- Perhaps the individual is a staunch believer in following a strategic plan and doesn't understand how your idea fits in.
Again, if you can get more information - you will be such a better position vs. getting just a perceived rejection.
I've learned to ask questions that I 'm pretty certain will end up in rejections - just to gain extra perspective into that person's process and professional strategy.
(Helpful hint here: this does not give you license to be a jerk and make queries and pronouncements without a filter - use the information you have gathered in the past to make intelligent choices for the present.)
Same applies to meetings: you may have been recruited to attend a meeting that you believe is about 1583 light years away from your area of responsibility. Know what? It may be interesting to attend - you may find out tons of information you didn't know - including ways to be more effective in your current position.
The key is this: get yourself out of the way. Instead of using your personal resources to defend yourself and filter responses - use your resources to receive and analyze additional information. A perceived rejection puts you behind. . .getting useful information puts you way ahead.
Like it? Share it!
Key words: business intelligence, leadership information, personal filters, professional filters, leadership knowledge.
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available for e-readers from Amazon Kindle. If you are a member of Amazon Prime, you can now read this book for free!
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Hallelujah - Microsoft Walks Away from Stacked Ranking
Let's hear it for teams!
Microsoft made news yesterday by announcing a significant revision in employee evaluation. In the past, Microsoft has strongly defended the "stacked ranking" system, which is essentially a bell curve within a reporting structure: no matter the degree of talent, work ethic and expertise that was demonstrated on the job - it was mandated that someone would be deemed "at the top" and someone would be deemed as under performing.
From a team leadership perspective - all should rejoice that this seeming relic of the 80's "back-stabbing-to-prove-I'm-better-than-you" culture is disappearing. Microsoft says it is replacing the curved ranking system with a new review program that focuses on personal performance and teamwork.
Some key observations:
When it's time to "move on" - move on! Microsoft defended an antiquated practice beyond it's time; but give them kudos, they had the courage to finally nix it. There are some companies, leaders and institutions that will not give in to the will of the people, but instead, keep standing on the past like it will support them in the future. Know this, if you are standing on the past, you are standing on a pillar of sand.
The utter futility of internal competition. The stacked ranking system essentially fueled internal competition. If you're having an internal competition for a food drive or United Way - that's fine. If it's a competition to prove who's the best at the expense of others - that's lunacy. Fierce, internal competition tears a company apart. The ability to compete externally, and win, is the strategy that all should adopt.
What is "better" anyway? The stacked ranking system over-simplifies the fact that some team members are "better" than others. At face value, that will always be true; but let's look at it another way. Some team members may work longer hours - but they aren't as intuitive about the business. Some team members may be high analyzers; but other members of the team are great about making the business happen. We build teams not by who's best and who's the worst; we build teams by bringing together a diverse group of individuals that have talents that complement each other.
Finally, and most intriguing: by eliminating stacked ranking, Microsoft has created two strong areas of focus. The first is internal team building; they recognize that to be effective, they must have strong, multi-functional teams that play well together. The second area of focus, then, is on external competition; they are building these strong teams to fend off the competition to maintain, and build, their status as a premier digital technology powerhouse.
Like it? Share it!
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available for e-readers, tablets, IPads from Amazon Kindle. If you are a member of Amazon Prime, you can now read this book for free!
Microsoft made news yesterday by announcing a significant revision in employee evaluation. In the past, Microsoft has strongly defended the "stacked ranking" system, which is essentially a bell curve within a reporting structure: no matter the degree of talent, work ethic and expertise that was demonstrated on the job - it was mandated that someone would be deemed "at the top" and someone would be deemed as under performing.
From a team leadership perspective - all should rejoice that this seeming relic of the 80's "back-stabbing-to-prove-I'm-better-than-you" culture is disappearing. Microsoft says it is replacing the curved ranking system with a new review program that focuses on personal performance and teamwork.
Some key observations:
When it's time to "move on" - move on! Microsoft defended an antiquated practice beyond it's time; but give them kudos, they had the courage to finally nix it. There are some companies, leaders and institutions that will not give in to the will of the people, but instead, keep standing on the past like it will support them in the future. Know this, if you are standing on the past, you are standing on a pillar of sand.
The utter futility of internal competition. The stacked ranking system essentially fueled internal competition. If you're having an internal competition for a food drive or United Way - that's fine. If it's a competition to prove who's the best at the expense of others - that's lunacy. Fierce, internal competition tears a company apart. The ability to compete externally, and win, is the strategy that all should adopt.
What is "better" anyway? The stacked ranking system over-simplifies the fact that some team members are "better" than others. At face value, that will always be true; but let's look at it another way. Some team members may work longer hours - but they aren't as intuitive about the business. Some team members may be high analyzers; but other members of the team are great about making the business happen. We build teams not by who's best and who's the worst; we build teams by bringing together a diverse group of individuals that have talents that complement each other.
Finally, and most intriguing: by eliminating stacked ranking, Microsoft has created two strong areas of focus. The first is internal team building; they recognize that to be effective, they must have strong, multi-functional teams that play well together. The second area of focus, then, is on external competition; they are building these strong teams to fend off the competition to maintain, and build, their status as a premier digital technology powerhouse.
Like it? Share it!
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available for e-readers, tablets, IPads from Amazon Kindle. If you are a member of Amazon Prime, you can now read this book for free!
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
How to (and How Not to) Boost Morale
"Everyone looks like they've just been dragged out of the grave, people are complaining and overall morale stinks. We've got to do something."
The good news is that at least there is the sensitivity that a morale issue needs to be addressed. The bad news is that often the way it is addressed does more harm than good.
Do not overlay some piece of momentary fluff that someone thinks would be a "fun" idea. "I know, let's have a cartoon theme day and have everyone dress up as their favorite character and we'll give a $10 gift card to the winner! It'll be a blast!" "Or wait, I know - let's bring in pizza for everyone!"
Well if it is a blast - it won't be in the fun way you imagine! All you've done is create more work and expense for the employee (now you have to wear a costume while you work ungodly long hours!) and haven't addressed the core issues. Or if you've just brought in pizza and that's all you've done - you've probably just caused indigestion. . .because the team is worrying about what's really bothering them. Which brings us to. . .
Do address the core issues. This takes some soul searching and some serious conversation. Usually these are issues that people don't really want to address (hence their longevity to the point at which the issue has now become a serious problem). Compensation? Overwork? Out of touch supervisor? Inconsiderate or incompetent team players? Seriously, if you want to improve morale, you need to address the root issues.
Do not even think for one minute that becoming a "cheerleader" is going to improve things. You are a leader. Your job is show the way, coach, encourage and have tough conversations that make things better. . .shaking pom-poms on the sideline only confirms to team members their worst suspicions about your level of commitment and leadership ability.
Do have thoughtful, serious conversations. . . meaning you are going to do a lot of listening and reflecting. Few things demonstrate your commitment to your team as well as quality time listening to them. (Effectiveness hint: have the conversations without resorting to justification to explain away the past or the present - team members don't want excuses, they want you to listen and then effect change.)
Do not send out the "cheer up - buck up" memo. It effectively states, "I've observed that morale is bad (from my throne in my crystal palace) and I want you to paste a smile on your gloomy faces."
Do sit down with each member of your team and express your sincere gratitude for all that they are doing for the enterprise. Take each member to coffee or lunch. And here is where money/compensation/gift cards become a nice touch. Again, few things mean as much to a team member as when a leader recognizes them one to one - and if at all possible, includes some form of financial compensation.
Like it? Share it!
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available on Amazon Kindle for e-readers, tablets and PCs. If you are a member of Amazon Prime, you can now read this book for free!
Keywords: boost morale, boosting morale, team morale, gratitude, gratitude in the workplace, boosting morale in the workplace.
The good news is that at least there is the sensitivity that a morale issue needs to be addressed. The bad news is that often the way it is addressed does more harm than good.
Do not overlay some piece of momentary fluff that someone thinks would be a "fun" idea. "I know, let's have a cartoon theme day and have everyone dress up as their favorite character and we'll give a $10 gift card to the winner! It'll be a blast!" "Or wait, I know - let's bring in pizza for everyone!"
Well if it is a blast - it won't be in the fun way you imagine! All you've done is create more work and expense for the employee (now you have to wear a costume while you work ungodly long hours!) and haven't addressed the core issues. Or if you've just brought in pizza and that's all you've done - you've probably just caused indigestion. . .because the team is worrying about what's really bothering them. Which brings us to. . .
Do address the core issues. This takes some soul searching and some serious conversation. Usually these are issues that people don't really want to address (hence their longevity to the point at which the issue has now become a serious problem). Compensation? Overwork? Out of touch supervisor? Inconsiderate or incompetent team players? Seriously, if you want to improve morale, you need to address the root issues.
Do not even think for one minute that becoming a "cheerleader" is going to improve things. You are a leader. Your job is show the way, coach, encourage and have tough conversations that make things better. . .shaking pom-poms on the sideline only confirms to team members their worst suspicions about your level of commitment and leadership ability.
Do have thoughtful, serious conversations. . . meaning you are going to do a lot of listening and reflecting. Few things demonstrate your commitment to your team as well as quality time listening to them. (Effectiveness hint: have the conversations without resorting to justification to explain away the past or the present - team members don't want excuses, they want you to listen and then effect change.)
Do not send out the "cheer up - buck up" memo. It effectively states, "I've observed that morale is bad (from my throne in my crystal palace) and I want you to paste a smile on your gloomy faces."
Do sit down with each member of your team and express your sincere gratitude for all that they are doing for the enterprise. Take each member to coffee or lunch. And here is where money/compensation/gift cards become a nice touch. Again, few things mean as much to a team member as when a leader recognizes them one to one - and if at all possible, includes some form of financial compensation.
Like it? Share it!
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available on Amazon Kindle for e-readers, tablets and PCs. If you are a member of Amazon Prime, you can now read this book for free!
Keywords: boost morale, boosting morale, team morale, gratitude, gratitude in the workplace, boosting morale in the workplace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)