Why Leaders Need Short Memory

When it’s difficult to forget

As a web designer, Matt was passionate about his job. He loved what he did. He’s willing to give his best every time. And he delivered too! He was one of the better performers on the team. If you want top notch work, you need him on your team.

But suddenly, things seemed to have taken a turn for the worse. This once very productive and engaged employee has turned into a shadow of his old self. His morale is shattered. He now dreads getting up to go to work each day. The love for what he does has gone cold. He could no longer give his best. His productivity is suffering.

Hold on a second! How did we get here? To understand this, let’s back up a little.

Although Matt delivered on the job, he also came with some baggage. He was a little rough around the edges. He would do a good job, but the way he did it rubbed many on the teams the wrong way. His approach could be seen as abrasive at times. Matt didn’t see it that way. He thought people should be able to hear the truth told to them even if it hurts. He didn't see eye to eye on this issue with Jenny, his manager.

But that was a long time ago. After years of feedback and coaching, Matt has come around and you can now see definite signs of improvement. He’s not completely there yet, but you could see the effort and the progress he’s making.

However, that’s not good enough for Jenny. How could she just forget the past? She knew what this guy was like! And no matter what change she may be seeing now, her already-formed opinion remains.

Jenny believes that a leopard never changes its spots. So she knows that whatever improvements she's seen in Matt are not real. Even when others who used to complain about Matt told her about the positive changes they’ve seen, she simply explained them away. After all, people don’t change!

This attitude irks Matt.

What more do I need to do? I listened to what they told me! I’ve tried to change because of all the feedback and coaching I’ve received. Still, it’s not enough! I’m tired!

As a result, they continue to butt heads. With the prolonged, ongoing confrontation with Jenny, Matt’s motivation took a nose dive. His performance started to falter. He simply hated the environment in which he now has to work. He now had to drag himself out of bed each morning.

As Jenny began to notice the change in Matt’s performance, it only reinforced the negative perception she already had about him.

Now he’s gone from being difficult to work with to downright incompetent!

What happened? This was someone who was very good at what he does. How did he suddenly become inept at doing the same job? His job responsibilities haven’t changed, so what changed? What happened to this once engaged, high performer?

Jenny started thinking of how to get rid of Matt. But before she could make a move, Matt resigned. He took another job where his zeal and enthusiasm returned. And he returned to being a good performer.

Team leaders and supervisors need very short memory when it comes to areas where their people need to improve. That’s especially true when you see them making the effort towards positive change. We need to nurture and encourage them. We should reward and recognize them for the change, even if it’s baby steps.

I understand that this is not natural for many of us. But as leaders, we need to work at it. We need a change from this natural tendency. If we don’t, and we allow past experiences to discolor present reality, we may end up losing valuable people.

If we don’t, our organizations and teams will be the worse for it.

Early Arrival

Is someone waiting for you?

Oliver has a habit of arriving late for almost every meeting. His tardiness ranged anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes. Sometimes, he doesn't show up at all. Each time, he would apologize for being late. He also has a very good reason every time.

“My last meeting ran over time.”

“Someone with an urgent need stopped me on the way here.”

"I was busy and lost track of the time."

What Oliver doesn't realize is how this behavior is perceived by those waiting on him for meetings to begin. Regardless of how good his reasons are for being late, many now recognizes it as a habit for him. It has become a part how people see him.

For those who work with the perpetual late comer, this is what his tardiness communicates to them:

He doesn’t care about my time

He doesn’t respect me

He feels he’s more important than the rest of us

I can't rely on him

A few months ago, I was waiting to get into an elevator when a group of friends passed by. I heard one of them say, “I’m always late. It’s the story of my life". Then, they started laughing about it.

But this is no laughing matter. It shows an absolute lack of respect for the people waiting for you.

I used to attend a church where everything starts 5 minutes early. Six o’clock in the evening means 5:55 pm. If you arrive at 5:56 pm, you’re late. In a school that was part of the church ministry, classroom doors are locked at 5 minutes before the time. This was done so that people would cultivate the habit of arriving early for meetings and other appointments.

Not too long ago, I had a meeting with another leader who explained why she strives to be on time at every meeting. She said, “Their time is valuable; my time is valuable”.

Some don't see it that way. There are leaders who see it as badge of honor that people are waiting for them. Maybe this feeds their egos. Maybe they’re just not aware of how the behavior comes across to others. No matter what it is, it may be a good idea for them to rethink the issue.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that you should never be late. That’s impossible even with the best of intentions. Circumstances can conspire to delay your on-time arrival at times. Where it turns into a problem is when it becomes a habit. When people can predict with some high accuracy that you will be late, that you’re always late, this is not a good sign. They will start to feel that you're not reliable. It begins to affect your integrity.

If you are conscientious about always being on time, what’s your usual response in those few instances when you're late?

Those meticulous about keeping to time will realize that they won’t make the meeting on time, before the agreed time. So, they reach out ahead of time to inform the other party or parties of the situation, and why they won’t make it on time. Because they take psychological ownership for anything they commit to, they also feel emotionally bound to follow them through to completion. They know that their good name and reputation depends on it. They’re not content with just explaining it away. They don't deal with it after the fact. They deal with it before.

But what do you do if you have meetings stacked back-to-back and you find yourself running breathlessly to your next meeting?

Pay attention to how your meetings are scheduled. I know a leader who will not schedule 3 meetings in a row without a break or a “me time” somewhere in between to catch up, reflect on the meetings he has attended and have time to get to the next one.

So, while being late to a meeting might seem of little consequence to me, others could infer my level of integrity from it; especially if the behavior becomes a pattern. I could be seen as unreliable. That’s the reason that, as a leader, I cannot afford to be wishy-washy about delivering on promises, no matter how trivial or casual. And being on time at meetings has an implied promise inherent in it.

My effectiveness as a leader depends on it.

Difficult Discussions

When conversations turn ugly, you don’t have to.

Have you ever disagreed with someone on a topic that you cared about? The conversation may have started innocently enough, but before you know it, tempers flare up and the hairs on the back of your neck stand at attention. As adrenalin pumps into your bloodstream, what started as a harmless discussion is about to take an ugly turn into a full-blown war!

This was the scenario in which Sam and Jack found themselves. It was time for the annual end-of-year performance review. Sam was discussing how he had performed over the past year with Jack, his boss. Jack knew that Sam was an exceptional employee and a valuable member of his team. He had been consistent in delivering results over the years. This time however, the discussion went south very quickly. Sam felt under-appreciated by Jack’s comments. There were disagreements on how the results Sam delivered during the past year had helped the business. At the end, Sam stormed out of the meeting room. Two months later, he sent in his resignation. Jack had lost a valuable resource.

When conversations get to the stage described above, many of us are no longer listening to the other person. We are thinking about how to respond and refute whatever we’re hearing. Or not hearing. Acclaimed author and leadership expert, Stephen R. Covey said,

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”

This is truer when conversations become difficult. When we are in this mode, we miss important details that could have steered the exchange away from troubled waters.

Assumptions, Motives & Intent

More often than not, our frames of mind do a lot to influence how we respond during these difficult discussions. If we believe that the other person is not acting with our best interest, the natural reaction is to defend our turf. Unconsciously, we attribute unholy motives to whatever our senses pick up.

An innocent comment such as “you sure do look good today” could generate responses ranging from, “Thank you; that’s so nice of you!” to “What do you mean I look good today?! Are you saying I don’t look good on other days?” and everything in-between. In today’s culture, this may even result in sexual harassment accusations if it involves people of opposite sexes, especially if the relationship is not one of mutual trust.

Instead of attributing the worst of motives, it’s always good to assume positive intent. Until proven otherwise, why don’t you assume that what you’re seeing and hearing are done with the best of intentions? This could really help, particularly in situations where those assumptions eventually turn out to be wrong.

The Past Comes to Play

In other situations, prior interactions with the other person could affect how a new discussion turns out. This is because we have a natural tendency to attribute and impute the content and perceptions of past exchanges with a person into a present situation.

A few months ago, I gave a ride to someone after church. Afterwards, my wife asked me if I had any discussion with the person during the trip. My response?

“What do you think? You thought both of us just sat there mute for 15 minutes?”

Think about that. Her question did not warrant the kind of response I gave. At the root of it was a quick story I must have unconsciously told myself between her question and my response.

“Why is she asking me this question? Why does she care about whether or not we spoke? She assumed I didn’t speak to him and was trying to say I should have. That’s another way she’s trying to control what I do. She always wants to be in control!”

While I didn’t actually go through this “story” in my head before responding, experts tell us that’s exactly what we do. In their best-selling book, Crucial Conversations, the authors assert that we tell ourselves stories such as these, sometimes in the twinkle of an eye. To help in these situations, they recommend that you calm down and get back to the actual facts, instead of these made-up stories.

Avoid the Fool’s Choice

In the same book, a Crucial Conversation is defined as one in which the stakes are high, there are differences of opinion and emotions are strong. Researches done by the authors revealed that many of us believe that we only have two choices on how to approach these conversations: speak up and ruin the relationship or be quiet and suffer in silence. They call these the Fool’s Choice. Their recommendation is to avoid it.

It is possible to be both honest and respectful when confronted with these challenging situations. When we learn to find a way to get all relevant information in the open from both sides of an argument, we get better at handing these difficult discussions. When we learn to get away from wanting to be right, to focusing on what the relationship means to us, we can turn an adversary into a friend. These are skills that can be learned, and it will do us a whole world of good to work hard at acquiring them.

As we saw with Jack, leaders are often usually tasked with having these difficult discussions. How we approach them could go a long way to determine the outcome of such discussions. It could be the difference between keeping a valuable team member and scurrying to find a replacement.

Leading by Following

You don’t have to run the show to be an effective leader

Photo courtesy of Dominik Lange

I was once in a leadership meeting where the team leader said nothing. If you didn't know who he was, you wouldn't have guessed that he was the boss; that the buck stopped with him. He wasn't running the meeting, so he didn't say much. He simply asked some clarifying questions and made a few comments. He didn't challenge anyone’s assertions nor did he force his ideas on the team.

While, there’s great value in having a take-charge kind of leader, being a leader doesn't mean you have to run the show at all times. Unfortunately, there are those who think you don’t have leadership abilities or potentials if you don’t always and visibly show what they consider leadership behaviors. To them, you have to say something at every meeting. They believe that you must always have something to contribute, or you don’t belong in leadership circles. Some expect every leader to exhibit a Type A personality even if that's not who they are.

When James Sinegal co-founded COSTCO in 1983, it was a small organization trying to grow. With his leadership, the company grew to be one of the most profitable in the world with an enviably low employee turnover. Against very stiff competition from bigger companies like Wal-Mart, Sinegal kept COSTCO strong with collaboration and solid operational tactics.

Most organizational cultures develop from the personality of the founder. At inception, the founder has to take charge to chart a course for the organization. After all, it’s her vision and she knows exactly what she wants accomplished. However, with success comes expansion and possible changes in direction. The vision could suddenly become bigger than that of one person. A smart founder will find ways to tap into the strategic skills of other leaders in the organization. To do this, she must have been able to surround herself with leaders that are equally capable.

In a piece about Sinegal, Karlee Weinmann wrote that “At a young company, it's important that the few members of your operation can collaborate, share ideas and develop strategies to grow. As the business gets more established, it's important to have open communication with your direct reports.” Open communication and collaboration help to birth new ideas and strategies. These are the keys to sustainable business success.

You Can’t Be a Know-It-All

Even after you have surrounded yourself with leaders who have like-minded passion for the organization, situations will occasionally arise, when you don’t agree on issues. What you do in those instances may make or break your reputation as a leader.

In their book, The EQ Edge, Steven Stein and Howard Book noted that “… excellent leaders can compromise and put their preferred decision aside when the team or department’s decision is appropriate. Doing so solidifies team spirit, is evidence of your (the leader’s) flexibility, and demonstrates that good leaders are also good followers.”

As long as the team decision does not seem to put the organization in jeopardy or potentially result in unimaginable losses, putting your preferred decision aside will do a lot to build trust within a team. Rather than taking the lead all the time, allow others to lead; let them flex those leadership muscles and grow into the leaders they’re meant to be.

My Way or the Highway

I used to work in a place where one head of department ruled with an iron fist. He had to have the last say on everything. There was no doubt about who was in charge. He got his way through intimidation, fear and coercion. This went on for a while because he delivered results. However, such results are not sustainable; not with the methods that he employed. Eventually, he was let go.

The results we get and the manner in which they are achieved are equally important. There are leaders who focus on "what" needs to get done. They need to get immediate results. While getting quick results are important and crucial indicators of success, the "how" determines whether or not those results are sustainable.

Are you the type of leader that achieves outstanding results, but your team members do not feel valued? If that's is the case, they will jump ship at the slightest opportunity?

Do you lead in such a way that makes your team members loyal even when what looks like good opportunities get dangled in front of them? Only one of these types of leaders delivers the kind of results that endures.

What will it be? The choice is yours.

Are You Present?

You’re sitting at a meeting; but are you really there?

Photo courtesy of Tim Marshall

I was in a meeting a few years ago, and my boss, who called the meeting, was speaking. My colleague, Jesse was sitting across the table. He had his laptop, and kept tapping away on the keyboard. A few minutes later, he took out his smart phone and tapped and swiped some more. Suddenly he heard his name.

“What do you think, Jesse?” My boss was asking.

Not knowing what had been said, Jesse looked flustered and asked, “Could you repeat that?”

Multi-tasking is everywhere. We try to be more efficient by juggling tasks at the same time, but what’s the value of it? Maybe the right question is, “How much are we losing by multi-tasking?” In these days of smart, mobile devices, people seem to be engaged more in what’s on the screen in the palms of their hands than what they could learn from engaging others in a normal conversation.

Multi-tasking was a computer term coined many years ago to show that a computer’s microprocessor could do multiple things at the same time. Even at that time, engineers knew that a microprocessor could only execute one instruction (task) at a time. But they do it so fast and could jump between multiple tasks that it gives the illusion of doing many things at the same time. Those are before the days of dual and quad processors that are now so commonplace.

Because we can really do only one thing at a time, every other activity that we “pretend” to be engaged in fades into the background. So much is lost when we occupy ourselves with activities in a half-hearted manner. The result is that we become less productive. Because Jesse wasn’t paying attention during a discussion in which he was supposed to be a contributor, the question and the reasoning behind it had to be repeated. As a result, valuable time was lost and the team was not as productive as it could have been.

Sometimes, the person not paying attention may not be have been asked a direct question. But they leave the meeting without any awareness of the decisions that were made. Focus is lost on what is needful, and the organization pays the price in lost productivity.

Have you ever talked to someone that didn‘t seem to be paying attention to you? How did it feel? It felt as if you were not being listened to; as if you had nothing of value to say. You felt disrespected. That’s exactly what happens when someone is in a meeting and does not pay attention to what’s going on. Here's what they're communicating:

“There’s no worth in what you’re saying.”

“You can’t add any value to me.”

“I don’t really care.”

I know these conclusions seem a bit extreme, but that’s what is being said without any words. That’s what happens when we allow ourselves to be controlled by devices that are meant to be tools in our hands. That’s what we get when a buzz, chime or vibration from these devices make us jump to be at their every beck and call.

A few weeks ago, I was driving home from work one evening when my phone chimed, alerting me that I’ve just received a text. It was from my wife. I picked it up from the cup holder, swapped glances between the screen and the road in front of me.

I need to respond to this immediately, I thought.

As I pressed the Reply button and started fidgeting to find the first letter of the first word in my reply, it hit me. This is dangerous! It would take only a split second of not keeping my eyes on the road for an event with catastrophic consequences to happen.

My mind immediately went to my wife and children. What happens if I don’t make it home while trying to answer this text? Suddenly, I realized that responding to that text message while driving is not worth the huge risks to my life. I dropped the phone and concentrated on the traffic around me.

Sometimes, we need just a few seconds to ponder the potential consequences of an action, for us to realize whether or not it’s worth it. Peter Bregman used a hilarious experience to outline a two-step plan for changing bad habits. Not being present when you need to be is a bad habit that definitely needs broken.

Your life may depend on it.

Empty Words

Speaking when you have nothing to say is a waste of everyone’s time

So much has been said and written about the value inherent in speaking up, and most of them are valid. The fear of speaking in public has been ranked the number one fear of all time, and there are numerous reasons why people don't speak up, especially in a workplace environment.

Some may think that it's pointless because of their peculiar situation, whatever that may be. In his blog, Ron Ashkenas noted that others may simply lack the confidence, candor and courage. Then, there are those instances when an ethical dilemma may make someone suddenly go mute.

But how about those situations when people should keep quiet and they don’t?

Because most people have been sold on the merits of speaking, especially in a workplace meeting environment, can we ever have a situation where people speak when they shouldn't? Yes, we can! And I've seen it happen a few times.

When the culture of a place is dependent on how much people speak, things can quickly degenerate into chaos. Meetings could be filled with those who feel the need to say something even when they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. At the end, there’s so much talk with nothing concrete coming out of it.

This type of scenario is typical in places where the leadership rewards people who speak more and punish those who speak less. While the rewards and punishments could be subtle, those involved can easily pick up on the cues. In order to be seen as possessing leadership skills, they do what they have to, in order to get ahead. They realize what the game is, and they play it brilliantly.

One of the major symptoms of a place with this culture is that people who have something valuable to say have two options. They either keep quiet because they don’t get a chance, or they try to get their two cents in, by resorting to being rude. They interrupt others while they’re still speaking.

When people have nothing concrete to say, they tend to ramble on, so others would think they’re contributing. As a result of trying to make sense even to themselves, they just keep on talking. The result is that those who have real contributions have to find a way to say something. They have to interject. And that starts a vicious cycle of people not listening to another. There’s jockeying back and forth as one tries to get the floor over the other.

The sad part is that sometimes, those with valuable contributions do not really get a chance. Someone with a very good idea may choose to keep quiet instead of engaging in this battle to speak. While this shouldn't be a deterrent for any one, a good meeting facilitator should ensure that everyone in a meeting is given an opportunity to speak if they so desire.

A meeting where what I've described above happens, will be deemed unproductive or inefficient. What’s the impact of this to organizations? In his article, The Expense of Ineffective Meetings, Jeffrey Klubeck noted that “inefficient meetings cost organizations billions of dollars each year”. According to him, research indicates that over 50 percent of meeting time is wasted.

Patrick Lencioni, the author of Death by Meeting, stated matter-of-factly that bad meetings are a reflection of bad leaders. A good leader will quickly recognize when a meeting is becoming unproductive and speedily bring it back on the right course.

An ineffective leader will engender ineffective meetings. A good one will foster an environment of trust where all the parties in a meeting can freely speak up or be silent if they choose, without any fear of negative consequences.

Benefit of the Doubt

Take another look at what you see. It may not be the real thing.

Photo courtesy of Tobias-Zils

During a recent strategy definition session with a leadership group of about 25 people, most of us were tasked with coming up with specific action steps for a goal that was randomly assigned. I didn't like the one assigned to me. I thought I could do better with another goal, which was assigned to someone else on the leadership team. I made this known to Susan*, the facilitator and she asked me to do the best I could with what I have.

About an hour later, I had to present the specific action steps I came up with, to the rest of the group. As I began to speak, Susan suddenly started laughing. I was taken aback and wondered what was going on. Without any clue as to what just happened, I proceeded with my presentation. At the conclusion of it, I just had to ask the question because I was still intrigued at the sudden outburst of laughter earlier.

Susan explained that as I started to speak, I gave her the finger; and that it’s probably because I had wanted another goal to work on. I was shocked! I have never given anyone any kind of finger, neither do I intend to. I need every one of my fingers!

While I couldn't tell what my fingers were doing with the hand gestures I had during my presentation, I knew that I didn't intentionally give her “the finger”. After the meeting, Susan continued to make fun of me and insisted that I gave her a finger. A few weeks later, she finally admitted that she knew I wouldn't do that.

In the February 2013 blog titled, Oblivious, I wrote about how we may not realize the effect of our behaviors on others. This situation got me thinking about how we see the behavior of others, and how that in turn, affects the way we behave as leaders.

In his book, The Speed of Trust, Stephen M. R. Covey stated that “while we tend to judge ourselves by our intent, we tend to judge others by their behavior”. When we see a particular behavior in other people, we quickly jump to conclusions about what their intentions are. The focus on, and the attribution of motive or intent is almost immediate.

While behavior is usually the manifestation of motive, that’s not necessarily the case all the time. This is the case with my “finger-giving” example. That’s where knowing people well enough comes into play. Because Susan knew me fairly well, she knew that I couldn't have been giving her the finger, even though my behavior appeared that way. But what about people we don’t know quite well? That’s where it gets dicey, and where our own values, background and experience come into play.

Have you ever been around someone who immediately ascribes negative motives to the behavior of others?

He’s doing that because he’s just a mean person!

I've seen a few like that and my response is usually, “why don’t you give the person the benefit of the doubt?” Since you may not know what’s going on with an individual at a particular time, it’s always difficult to ascribe the right intent to their behavior.

We must be careful how they judge other people. We must be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when we observe behaviors that may be a little off. We would do well to recognize the possibility of good intent or motive in others, despite their observable behavior.

There are times when we actually project our own intent on others’ behaviors. When we observe a behavior, we unconsciously latch on to the motives that could make us behave in a similar manner; and project this on others. As fallible humans, we have to realize our tendency to do this, and work on ensuring that we don’t.

By deciding to look beyond the behavior of others, we can encourage and motivate them. This is possible when we project a positive intent on those behaviors and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Assume their intentions are pure, until proven otherwise.

*Names have been changed