Managing From A Distance
By Emmie Alexander
You've just learned from a colleague that Joe, one of your employees, is delaying progress on a very important project. On your way to lunch you pass Joe in the hallway and ask, "Could you stop by my office this afternoon? I'd like to talk with you about the project." In the cafeteria you spot Sandra, an extraordinarily talented new member of your team, and join her for a quick conversation in which you offer her a suggestion that will help her solve a difficult problem she's wrestling with.
All in a day's work, you say? But what if Joe and Sandra don't work in your building... or in your state? What if all three of you work in different time zones? How do you address Joe's lack of urgency? How do you support and coach Sandra? Managing a team you see every day is challenging enough. Managing from a distance significantly raises the ante. And the current economic crisis probably means even less travel by managers to meet with dispersed team members face to face.
Leaders of geographically dispersed teams tell us they worry over the following questions:
How can I really know what is going on, day to day? What if they're just telling me what they think I want to hear?
How can I identify potential problems early, figure out why performance is off track --and get them back on track --when I'm not there to see what they're doing?
How can I provide the kind of coaching that helps turn good employees into great employees?
How can I keep everyone focused on continuous improvement?
How can I effectively motivate and energize my team --from a distance?
How can I make sure my best performers feel connected to the company so they'll stay with us, when they see their manager (me) only once or twice a year?
(read more at December 8 Newsletter)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Business Writing--the introduction
(from 12/15/08 Learning LinksTM)
The purpose of this Learning Links edition is to give you a sure-fire way to get started when writing a document and to focus the attention of the reader on the subject immediately.
Please re-read that opening line. In the opening line above, you'll find a formula for getting started on writing any document--letter, report, email, whatever. In other words, when you find yourself staring at an empty screen or a blank piece of paper, simply write "The purpose of this document is ..." and fill in the blank. If you can answer that simple question, then you are clear about what the document intends to do. If you cannot complete that sentence, you need to think some more about your intentions in writing the document.
Keep in mind that business writing is all about efficiency and clarity of communication. Vague terminology, wasted words, rambling sentences, story-like writing if only serve to frustrate the reader and short-circuit the communication. Too many times, business communication reads like a fairy tale--it opens with a vague phrase not too unlike "Once upon a time" and rambles like Little Red Riding Hood in the woods until it finds the point it wishes to make.
Your opening sentence should make clear to the reader what it is that you want them to do as a result of the document you're writing, or least make crystal clear the subject.
The purpose of this Learning Links edition is to give you a sure-fire way to get started when writing a document and to focus the attention of the reader on the subject immediately.
Please re-read that opening line. In the opening line above, you'll find a formula for getting started on writing any document--letter, report, email, whatever. In other words, when you find yourself staring at an empty screen or a blank piece of paper, simply write "The purpose of this document is ..." and fill in the blank. If you can answer that simple question, then you are clear about what the document intends to do. If you cannot complete that sentence, you need to think some more about your intentions in writing the document.
Keep in mind that business writing is all about efficiency and clarity of communication. Vague terminology, wasted words, rambling sentences, story-like writing if only serve to frustrate the reader and short-circuit the communication. Too many times, business communication reads like a fairy tale--it opens with a vague phrase not too unlike "Once upon a time" and rambles like Little Red Riding Hood in the woods until it finds the point it wishes to make.
Your opening sentence should make clear to the reader what it is that you want them to do as a result of the document you're writing, or least make crystal clear the subject.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Presentations Series
Our series on Presentations has generated a lot of comment to us that did not make it to the blog. People are really tired of tired presentations! It actually takes only a little time to make the presentation more effective--and that is offset by the peace of mind (and reduced nervousness) you have when you actually deliver the presentation.
So why the problem? Is it ignorance of the techniques? Laziness? Give us your thoughts.
And while you're at it, what are the trouble spots for you in written communication. We really want to focus on that soon!
So why the problem? Is it ignorance of the techniques? Laziness? Give us your thoughts.
And while you're at it, what are the trouble spots for you in written communication. We really want to focus on that soon!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Hubris
A few years ago a writers’ group named hubris as the word of the year. It just might be the word for 2008 also.
In John Edwards’s recent confession of his extra marital affair, he told ABC television interviewer Bob Woodruff, “In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.” He said that his rapid rise from small-town boy to national figure led him to believe “you can do whatever you want, you’re invincible, there will be no consequences.”
While the sex and the lying have provoked a media frenzy, the real story here is hubris – the self-delusion that entraps so many successful leaders in politics, business, and the church.
What happens to someone who reaches a level of power that causes him (or her) to lose their ability to see things as they really are? We speak of the loss of “moral compass,” but it goes further than that. It is a total distortion of reality such that they come to believe, like John Edwards and countless others before him, that there will be no consequences.
Eliot Spitzer in New York, President Clinton in the White House, Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling at Enron, Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco, Bernie Ebbers at WorldCom, the Rigas family at Adelphia, Jim Bakker of PTL, Ted Haggard of the National Evangelical Association, the catholic priests who abused children and the bishops who covered up for them…and on and on and on… What were they thinking? That they were invincible, that there would be no consequences, apparently.
For over thirty years, I’ve trained and coached leaders to be more successful in business, government, and non-profit organizations. The art of leadership is well researched, well documented. The Center for Creative Leadership has devoted 38 years researching what facilitates success and what derails it. Leadership training is a multi-billion industry. Millions more are spent in the search for the right leader for key positions in industry. Yet it seems that even with all that, once leaders reach these heights, for some of them at least, something happens.
John Edwards said that as he become more and more surrounded by worshipful fans and dedicated staff, he “started to believe he was special, and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.” Leaders in our society, in business, politics, and the church, are the new kings and emperors – living and working in sumptuous heavily guarded surroundings, moving around in chauffeured limos and private jets, wearing beautifully tailored clothes, getting $400 haircuts, and socializing only with others who live similarly, and rarely if ever venturing into the real world where the rest of us live.
They are often surrounded by people whose job it is to agree with them, affirm them, cater to them, laugh at their jokes, and cover their mistakes. Is it any wonder they come to believe they are invincible, that they can do anything, that there are no consequences?
So the question I keep pondering, is how do we help our leaders see the world – and themselves – as they really are? How do we keep their feet on the ground? In the midst of all the trappings of power and wealth and influence that accrue to leaders, how can they learn to pay attention to the 98% of the people who do not have those assets? How can they learn to see the world that everyone else inhabits, where work is hard, worry and pain and sometimes hunger are daily companions, and where actions have consequences?
In John Edwards’s recent confession of his extra marital affair, he told ABC television interviewer Bob Woodruff, “In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.” He said that his rapid rise from small-town boy to national figure led him to believe “you can do whatever you want, you’re invincible, there will be no consequences.”
While the sex and the lying have provoked a media frenzy, the real story here is hubris – the self-delusion that entraps so many successful leaders in politics, business, and the church.
What happens to someone who reaches a level of power that causes him (or her) to lose their ability to see things as they really are? We speak of the loss of “moral compass,” but it goes further than that. It is a total distortion of reality such that they come to believe, like John Edwards and countless others before him, that there will be no consequences.
Eliot Spitzer in New York, President Clinton in the White House, Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling at Enron, Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco, Bernie Ebbers at WorldCom, the Rigas family at Adelphia, Jim Bakker of PTL, Ted Haggard of the National Evangelical Association, the catholic priests who abused children and the bishops who covered up for them…and on and on and on… What were they thinking? That they were invincible, that there would be no consequences, apparently.
For over thirty years, I’ve trained and coached leaders to be more successful in business, government, and non-profit organizations. The art of leadership is well researched, well documented. The Center for Creative Leadership has devoted 38 years researching what facilitates success and what derails it. Leadership training is a multi-billion industry. Millions more are spent in the search for the right leader for key positions in industry. Yet it seems that even with all that, once leaders reach these heights, for some of them at least, something happens.
John Edwards said that as he become more and more surrounded by worshipful fans and dedicated staff, he “started to believe he was special, and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.” Leaders in our society, in business, politics, and the church, are the new kings and emperors – living and working in sumptuous heavily guarded surroundings, moving around in chauffeured limos and private jets, wearing beautifully tailored clothes, getting $400 haircuts, and socializing only with others who live similarly, and rarely if ever venturing into the real world where the rest of us live.
They are often surrounded by people whose job it is to agree with them, affirm them, cater to them, laugh at their jokes, and cover their mistakes. Is it any wonder they come to believe they are invincible, that they can do anything, that there are no consequences?
So the question I keep pondering, is how do we help our leaders see the world – and themselves – as they really are? How do we keep their feet on the ground? In the midst of all the trappings of power and wealth and influence that accrue to leaders, how can they learn to pay attention to the 98% of the people who do not have those assets? How can they learn to see the world that everyone else inhabits, where work is hard, worry and pain and sometimes hunger are daily companions, and where actions have consequences?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Thanks to a tip from a blogger in the family, I recently learned about something called Postel’s Law. In 1981, internet guru and professor of computer science Jon Postel formulated what’s called Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others” (often reworded as "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you receive"). He was encouraging computer engineers to build systems that can understand each other, “to write code that could ‘speak’ as clearly as possible yet ‘listen’ to the widest possible range of other speakers, including those who do not conform perfectly to the rules of the road,” according to NY Times technology writer Mattathias Schwartz.
There’s a lesson in there for managers. Schwartz says, “The human equivalent of this robustness is a combination of eloquence and tolerance — the spirit of good conversation.”
Eloquence: speaking as clearly and crisply as possible, striving to communicate concise, unambiguous messages.
Tolerance: listening without judging; listening without formulating your own rebuttal; listening with patience and empathy, even when – especially when – the other person isn’t doing a very good job of communicating, or, as Schwartz says, “conforming perfectly to the rules of the road.”
Engineers who followed Postel’s Law created an opportunity for billions of computers to connect across the globe. Managers who follow Postel’s Law in their conversations can create organizations where people can connect in a profound way and collaborate to make great things happen for their organizations.
What do you think? How can business leaders learn to "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you receive"? How can that approach help us connect across the globe, across the board room, across the kitchen table?
There’s a lesson in there for managers. Schwartz says, “The human equivalent of this robustness is a combination of eloquence and tolerance — the spirit of good conversation.”
Eloquence: speaking as clearly and crisply as possible, striving to communicate concise, unambiguous messages.
Tolerance: listening without judging; listening without formulating your own rebuttal; listening with patience and empathy, even when – especially when – the other person isn’t doing a very good job of communicating, or, as Schwartz says, “conforming perfectly to the rules of the road.”
Engineers who followed Postel’s Law created an opportunity for billions of computers to connect across the globe. Managers who follow Postel’s Law in their conversations can create organizations where people can connect in a profound way and collaborate to make great things happen for their organizations.
What do you think? How can business leaders learn to "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you receive"? How can that approach help us connect across the globe, across the board room, across the kitchen table?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Does your boss talk "at" you or to you?
In our e-newsletter, An AHA! Moment, we’ve been talking about the conversations managers have with their employees, and offering tips for making these conversations more effective.
Every time we work with another group of managers, we find similar issues – regardless of the level of management, or of the years of management experience. In working with thousands of managers over the past thirty years, we’ve found that managers generally tend to talk at employees instead of engaging with them. Managers seem to believe that managing people consists of telling them what is expected, telling them where they’re on track or off track, and telling them what they need to do to meet targets. Employees are expected to “get it,” and produce the desired results. If they don’t produce, it must be because they didn’t listen.
Even those managers who believe they are engaging employees with questions tend to rely on leading, closed questions (“Do you think if you try this approach you can meet your targets?”), to which employees can simply smile and nod agreement.
Our data show that neither of those approaches is effective in producing high levels of performance, innovation, quality, or commitment. Without an engaging two-way conversation guided by open-ended questions, there is no way managers can know what their employees are thinking, their rationale for doing what they do, their understanding of the job expectations, and most importantly, what commitment they are willing to make.
Why is it that managers talk at employees instead of engaging them with questions that cause employees to think for themselves, reflect and take a new perspective, and make their own commitments? We’ve considered a range of answers to that question. One answer is that people get promoted into management because they’re good problem solvers – they know how to fix things. So as managers, they assume their job is to tell people what the problem is, what’s causing it, and how to fix it. Another possibility is that the people who are their models for management conversations – their own bosses – do the same thing. (Remember, we said we’ve seen this consistently at all levels.)
One intriguing possible explanation has its roots in the industrial revolution, when large business organizations grew up and began to separate management from labor in significant ways. This functional structure also separated thinking (management) from doing (labor). So over the last century we’ve built a culture that fosters the belief only the “suits” know how to think and make decisions, and even though the workplace has changed dramatically in that time, we’re mentally stuck in our understanding of what successful managing is all about.
We’d love to hear from you on this. Click on COMMENTS below and sound off!
Every time we work with another group of managers, we find similar issues – regardless of the level of management, or of the years of management experience. In working with thousands of managers over the past thirty years, we’ve found that managers generally tend to talk at employees instead of engaging with them. Managers seem to believe that managing people consists of telling them what is expected, telling them where they’re on track or off track, and telling them what they need to do to meet targets. Employees are expected to “get it,” and produce the desired results. If they don’t produce, it must be because they didn’t listen.
Even those managers who believe they are engaging employees with questions tend to rely on leading, closed questions (“Do you think if you try this approach you can meet your targets?”), to which employees can simply smile and nod agreement.
Our data show that neither of those approaches is effective in producing high levels of performance, innovation, quality, or commitment. Without an engaging two-way conversation guided by open-ended questions, there is no way managers can know what their employees are thinking, their rationale for doing what they do, their understanding of the job expectations, and most importantly, what commitment they are willing to make.
Why is it that managers talk at employees instead of engaging them with questions that cause employees to think for themselves, reflect and take a new perspective, and make their own commitments? We’ve considered a range of answers to that question. One answer is that people get promoted into management because they’re good problem solvers – they know how to fix things. So as managers, they assume their job is to tell people what the problem is, what’s causing it, and how to fix it. Another possibility is that the people who are their models for management conversations – their own bosses – do the same thing. (Remember, we said we’ve seen this consistently at all levels.)
One intriguing possible explanation has its roots in the industrial revolution, when large business organizations grew up and began to separate management from labor in significant ways. This functional structure also separated thinking (management) from doing (labor). So over the last century we’ve built a culture that fosters the belief only the “suits” know how to think and make decisions, and even though the workplace has changed dramatically in that time, we’re mentally stuck in our understanding of what successful managing is all about.
We’d love to hear from you on this. Click on COMMENTS below and sound off!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Welcome!
Welcome to the AlexanderHancock Associates blog!
We hope this will be your "blog of choice" for the exchange of ideas and best practices for human performance.
Let us know how we can make this suit your needs better by emailing us at inquiry@alexanderhancock.com or calling us at 704.892.5097.
We hope this will be your "blog of choice" for the exchange of ideas and best practices for human performance.
Let us know how we can make this suit your needs better by emailing us at inquiry@alexanderhancock.com or calling us at 704.892.5097.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
