Archive for July, 2012
Executive Presence and Listening Skills
A new client told me listening has always been a challenge for him because “There’s more firing in my head than my ears can handle.” I loved the expression, even though it was a lame excuse. He had some deeply entrenched habits that contributed to his reputation as a “lousy listener.”
At his suggestion I shadowed him for two days to understand how he interacted with people, and he took Hear! Hear? Your Listening Portfolio® to learn how he listened. As I watched him in meetings (group and 1-to-1), I didn’t actually know what he heard, but he presented himself as non-involved. He sat expressionless, pushed back from the table, asked only pointed questions, offered no ideas or feedback, interrupted with non-sequiturs, and sneaked looks at his iPhone.
Afterwards, I shared my observations and asked about the impact of those behaviors on others. He’s smart and quickly grasped that his actions were creating the opposite effect of what he wanted to project. What he wanted to project we named, Executive Presence (EP), and what he sometimes projected we named Executive Absence (EA). They became our standards and measures, as well as a language that quickly cut to the chase: e.g. “Was that an EP or EA?”
We crafted the critical few Executive Presence attributes as a guide to model. They are:
- Genuine: Sometimes called “walk-the-talk” it is the intention to live in truthfulness and not pretend or cover up.
- Clear: It is following the KISS principle to make all communication understandable—no jargon, code or spin.
- Present: Inquire, listen, process, use body language, facial expressions and tone-of-voice to demonstrate complete attention.
- Confidence and courage: Willing to take innovation risks that others are excited to join.
- Optimism and passion—not necessarily wildly outgoing, but deeply committed.
- Likes colleagues. Sees people in a positive light and treats everyone with respect.
- Laughs at own mistakes and willing to be vulnerable—no blame and shame.
He made a scorecard with the seven attributes and rated himself after various interactions. My job was to help him build skills in the weak areas and solidify the strengths. He was optimistic and passionate (5), confident and courageous (4), and laughed easily at himself (7). We unpacked what he did to make sure he consciously replicated those behaviors rather than relying on his subconscious to perform them well.
For the more challenging attributes, I showed him techniques and tools that aligned his Executive Presence to what he modeled. For example, he stopped taking his iPhone into meetings, pulled up to the table, asked probing questions that required preparation on his part and thought on the part of the responder, and made facial expressions that matched his internal processing.
We’re still working together and he’s making fabulous progress. He and I are even talking about conducting an Executive Presence workshop that would include his scorecard.
Do you have a list of Executive Presence attributes that you’d add?
How to Sustain Learning by Listening: Using Your Listening Skills
When we are exposed to any learning situation, it’s challenging to hold onto the new information and skills. One sure way to sustain the gains is to use every listening encounter as an opportunity to practice. Learning, like any other brain activity, is seeded when we consciously pay attention or truly listen.
Following are some tips about how to sustain what you learn:
Logic behind learning: why’s help retain how’s—Listen to figure out the purpose of what you learned and how the learning will fit into what you already know or take you into an entirely new realm of knowledge. Memorizing isn’t listening; listening goes to deep understanding.
Practice pulls theory; theory pulls practice—Putting theory to work makes it real and the more you practice what you’ve learned the more it becomes an integral part of your repertoire.
Interest in topic—I often say that “boring” is in the ears of the listener. What may not be of high interest to you might be fascinating to someone else, so try to listen for aspects that stimulate your interest and connect to what you’ve recently learned.
Novelty—Listening for new information or knowledge keeps our brains supple. If you can leave an interaction by saying, “Wow, I never thought of that,” you’ve proved yourself to have an open mind, a key component of a master listener.
Multiple settings—Listening occurs everywhere. When you learn to listen better at work, you can also listen better at home or in a social setting. Listen to identify how your newly acquired learning relates to the settings in which you find yourself.
Community—Listening is a group activity. Groups are comprised of individuals who require you to listen differently and purposefully to each person. Allow the community to test your new learning as well as to build upon it.
Skill development—The more you practice listening, the more likely you will hear more and be able to apply what you learn. Use your learning as a platform to acquire more skills.
Continual exposure—When you learn something new, pay attention to where else that new learning might occur. Listen to people talking about the subject matter, especially if they’re more knowledgeable than you.
No multitasking–we humans are only capable of “serial attention.” When mental attentiveness is required, we are actually “singletaskers,” not multitaskers, and there is no changing the way our brains are fundamentally structured. Discipline your mind to focus, focus, focus on the learning.
I tend to think the word learning connotes the integration of knowledge into your overall schema. Listening brings in the knowledge and if you consciously practice the learning at every opportunity, you’ll sustain the growth.
More on Open Communication from Dan Tapscott
I recently watched a TED talk given by the futurist Dan Tapscott who outlined four principles of an open world. Of course he was superb, and of course, he built upon what Elon Musk said—open communication is the way forward for our changing world.
You can see the video yourself: (http://www.ted.com/talks/don_tapscott_four_principles_for_the_open_world_1.html)
I want to reiterate only a few of the points and relate them to listening.
Openness is about transparency. I’m reminded of two different organizations I’ve observed. One invites employees to look at the books, attend board meetings, and advise the executive committee about changes that could help the organization. I was asked to attend one of the board meetings to provide feedback to the board after I did some listening skill development with them. The board wanted my feedback about how well they listened and if they were being open with the employees who attended the meeting. They answered all employee questions with candor.
The second organization said they wanted to be open and transparent with employees, but there wasn’t one scintilla of behavior to support that statement. There was a suggestion box and so many layers of management plus pounds of red tape, that the few suggestions were ludicrous (paint the dingy cafeteria, buy soft cushions for the call center).
The employees at the transparent organization told me they felt heard, respected and would do anything to help out.
Openness is about sharing. He told some wonderful stories about insurgents who succeeded because they shared information for the safety of others. I’m on several Linked In groups and I’m impressed by the amount of intellectual property (IP) that colleagues share with one another. Even the concept of TED itself is an example.
So why in the world would anyone give away what s/he has spent years developing? Truthfully, I’m not sure, but I think it’s in our inherent nature to want to add value and be a trusted source. If I listen to the request of a colleague within a social network community, I tend to probe deeper to develop a greater understanding of the issue. I rarely rush in with lots of solutions and information. Those interactions build a community of collaborators that builds trust and a willingness to be open with one another.
Finally, his statement that our young people today are digital natives, whereas, the rest of us are digital immigrants who have to learn to speak the language. I loved the thought that we are constantly challenged to pay attention to what is new and open to us.
Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Listening Skills, Part 2
Last week we took a look at Patrick Lencioni’s brilliant book, Five Dysfunctions of a Team, that is used widely to help teams diagnose their ailments, as well as how to get them team-healthy. I offered some examples of the first three dysfunctions and how at the core of many of the dysfunctions, is the lack of listening – a set of habits formed in the brain, body and emotions that we come to rely on at such a subconscious level that we aren’t aware of what we listen to/for and what we ignore.
Let’s look at last two of Lencioni’s five dysfunctions to analyze the role of listening in each.
Avoid Accountability: Low standards
Recently in a coaching session, my coachee, the team leader talked about being over-burdened because people on her team weren’t pulling their weight. I think she expected me to commiserate with her and say how challenging for her. Instead, I asked who was responsible for that sub-standard behavior, and when she pointed her finger at them, I turned it around and asked, “What if you’re the culprit?”
Our session was terrific once she caught on that it was she who accepted the lowest standard of performance as the norm. Case in point. One of the team members often missed deadlines. Prior to our work together, the team leader would fume and fuss, and do some of the work herself; but, in the end, she allowed the mediocre performance to perpetuate itself and spread like the disease it was.
Here’s a practice demonstration of how we changed the team dynamic:
Team Leader: Today is the report deadline, do you have it?
Employee: I have some of it, but not all. There were more parts to the assignment than I thought.
Team Leader: Here you go again. This is the last straw. I don’t know what to do when you do this over and over. Give it to me.
And so goes the established and poor pattern. Let’s look at a replay, done better.
Team Leader: The calendar shows today the report is due today. (observation) In what format can it be retrieved? (expectation and question)
Employee: Ah, I don’t quite have it finished.
Team Leader: The lateness of the report puts undo burden on others who depend upon it to complete their part of the process. (impact) How will you rectify the situation? (inquiry)
Employee: I’m not sure. It’s almost done. How about I show it to you and maybe you can help me complete it in time.
Team Leader: Part of your job responsibility is to write this report. It’s not helping you, your colleagues, the department’s reputation, or my faith in your ability if I step in to save you. (observation) Now let’s turn our attention to addressing the issue at hand and how you will complete the report. (next steps). What ideas do you have? (inquiry)
When the Team Leader listens and bounces back with an inquiry, the onus is on the Employee to figure out how to be accountable. Scolding is parent-to-child and accomplishes nothing other than dependency and rebellion, neither if which belong in a work environment.
Inattention to Results: Status and Ego
It’s not unusual to find people with good ideas in a team, but when they are not heard, those people leave, or worse, stagnate. Just think, if you see ways to achieve results and they fall on deaf ears, you’ll soon lose interest, become self-centered, and might even become a saboteur.
It is possible to change all five dysfunctions if teams are given high-performance tools to boost skills and time to practice with one another and a coach.
I’m reminded about my first coaching request when I was a facilitator of a leadership program at General Motors, at least a hundred years ago. The man responsible for the training casually mentioned to me one day, “You seem to be good with people. There’s a team of executives that is a mess. Maybe you can help them. Don’t worry if you can’t, they can’t get worse.” What an invitation.
We worked together for a few months, and indeed they did improve. If I look back now at what I did, without having any coaching education, it’s clear that I listened, observed, and reflected. To this day when I watch a team in action, I say, “Here’s what I observed, is that how you want to perform?” Then we go to work.
Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Listening Skills, Part 1
Patrick Lencioni wrote the brilliant book, Five Dysfunctions of a Team, that is used widely to help teams diagnose their ailments, as well as how to get them team-healthy.
At the core of many of the dysfunctions, is the lack of listening – a set of habits formed in the brain, body and emotions that we come to rely on at such a subconscious level that we aren’t aware of what we listen to/for and what we ignore.
In this week’s blog post we’ll look at the first three of Lencioni’s five dysfunctions to analyze the role of listening in each.
Absence of Trust: Invulnerability
Trust is most often an emotional issue that shows up as an unwillingness to be anything but “me-centered.” If I open up and listen to what you have to say, then I might show myself up as wrong, uninformed, not-on-top, inept, unclear, penetrable, etc.
A familiar example of this is when two people are driving and one is tasked to be the driver and the other to be the navigator. The navigator does not use a GPS but has lots of maps, some outdated, to rely upon. On the way to the destination, the navigator consults the maps and directs the driver to exit the highway. They exit and travel for a while when the driver asks if they are going in the right direction and if they should stop to verify. It’s at this juncture that the dysfunction might rear its fearful head. The navigator can show vulnerability by admitting confusion, error, or need of help; or show unwillingness to veer from the need to be right.
The metaphorical driver in this scenario is so emotionally attached to being right that there’s little interest in listening to what the other person might have to offer. As Lencioni points out, this person won’t ask for or give help, and sets up barriers that erode any trust that was initially available.
Fear of Conflict: Artificial Harmony
Have you ever looked into the windows of a meeting in progress and watched all the heads bobbing like toys displayed in cars? That’s a sure sign that nothing is moving the team forward in their thinking, nor are they willing to engage in healthy debate.
It’s a real challenge to get a conflict-averse team to address the dysfunction because they say things like, “You’re trying to make us argue and we see no need for that.” or, “There’s precious little agreement around here, so you should be glad we get along so well.” or, the worst, “We make decisions quickly, what you’re proposing will take too much time.” The strange part is that most of the team members know they make tepid decisions, lack energetic discussion, and don’t use team intelligence, but somewhere in their DNA they’ve learned to fear conflict.
One of the types of five types of conflict surfaced in the Thomas-Kilmann model (TKI) is avoidance, which in listening terms, indicates all listening is superficial because none of the parties will actually engage one another. Eventually, when there’s artificial harmony, decisions get made outside the team room, or people get so bored they find reasons not to attend meetings.
Fail to Commit: Ambiguity
It drives me crazy to watch a team revisit the same points, facts, and ideas over and over. Not only do they waste time and resources, they also discuss what they agree on ad infinitum until it gradually erodes confidence in any decision.
When someone suggests an action in a healthy team, inquiry follows. Team members demonstrate they are listening to one another by asking thought-provoking, supportive questions such as: “What’s behind your suggestion? How did you arrive at this conclusion? How might we proceed from here? What will it take to commit to this course of action?” In other words, there’s intent to make a decision, but a well-informed one and that requires posing probing questions and curious listening.
Sometimes I will list all the points under discussion, ask everyone to go around and state their opinions on the points, for three minutes, then identify those points that are in agreement. We put a large green check by those and a red question mark by those still to be considered. It’s amazing how doing that changes the tenor of the discussion. BTW, I’ve also suggested the team fine members $1 per slip up when they fall back to bringing up an already agreed upon point. You probably wouldn’t be surprised by the value of the ante when the meeting is ended and decisions have been made. The money collected goes to charity.
Next week we’ll look at the last two team dysfunctions, Avoid Accountability: Low standards and Inattention to Results: Status and Ego. We’ll look forward to your feedback and comments!