Change the Battlefield: A Different Perspective

I'm a bit of a history buff. Others might consider that comment an understatement as they peruse the inventory of books sitting on my shelves. E-readers and audio books? Not for me; I need the physicality of history in my hands. Old fashioned? No doubt.

One reason for this fascination with history comes from the lessons learned - and not learned - from others. With variations on a theme, the quote "Those who cannot remember (or learn) from the past, are doomed to repeat it" resonates with me. One of those lessons that has been the subject of explicit and implicit discussion with many of my clients is that of choosing or changing the field of battle on which you compete or work with others. We can probably all understand and appreciate this at some bigger picture level with companies and technologies like Apple, Uber, and Airbnb that have changed their landscape.  These companies and technologies did not take the landscape they faced as given and at points in time made conscious decisions to NOT compete against well-established competitors. They radically changed the field of battle. In some cases, so profound was the change that they wrought that major competitors were put out of business.

This is not a new a concept. For centuries, dating back to Greek city states, the Persian empire and other dynasties, commanders, and armies would maneuver for days or stare across at each other for weeks from their respective camps, looking for the best place or opportunity to engage in battle. They sought out high ground, access to water, linkage to the coast or supplies, or waiting for the sun to be in their enemy's eyes before engaging. These ancient leaders went to great lengths to try and set the table to their best advantage, to leverage a strength, or mitigate a weakness. Alternatively, they might seek similar opportunities to diminish an opponent's strength or take advantage of their perceived weakness. Don't have sufficient or good enough cavalry? Choose a battleground that constrains the field of movement.  Fighting against great odds? Choose a place where only part of your enemy's strengths can be brought to bear at one time.

So how does this relate to leadership/team coaching, organizational effectiveness, business development, consulting, or other things you might be doing? How does this relate to the current world reality of economic warfare (US versus everyone else) and hybrid/proxy warfare being engaged in Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? The reality of assessing your personal battlefield - whether in your work or your personal life - resonates with so many circumstances that I have lived and that I have coached others through. Which of these scenarios might you have experienced or otherwise be familiar with:

"I looked at the job posting and I'm missing a couple of the qualifications they are looking for so I'm not going to apply."

"He/she/they stopped me in the hallway and were looking for my input on his/her/their initiative. I felt compelled to answer them on the spot but I don't think I gave the best answer."

"I'd like to pursue the CEO role but I'm not sure I'm what they are looking for. I'm not anything like the current CEO."

"The client/RFP is looking for something pretty particular as far as a solution/technique. It's not something we have do so maybe the fix is already in?"

"I thought we had agreed on a deal, but then the client/partner/vendor keeps changing their mind or terms of an agreement. I feel like I am constantly chasing my tail on this."

I could go on with other samples, but at the heart of these comments is a belief (or fear) that the terms and conditions of the "battle" are already set and our choice is to compete on those terms or not at all. My suggestion is that perhaps the battle conditions are not set in stone. You may and can have a choice as to where, how, and when to engage. And maybe you also have a choice as to never engage either! 

How can you alter your own reality and that of your "adversary" to change the tide in your favour? For example, if applying for a new role, how can you paint a picture that, despite not having a couple of the qualities or attributes asked for, you have something different or more important to offer to the role?  

Rather than feeling compelled to respond on the spot to a question or proposal, how can you set yourself up to better respond, perhaps by asking for a more considered, focused, and structured discussion - one that allows you to be as prepared as your counterpart?  

What makes you think that you have to lead like the last CEO? Or that you can? Or that you should? We are all different leaders, no clones, and certainly all imperfect. What do you bring to a leadership role that your successor did not and that is perhaps better suited to the current and future realities?

All of these scenarios - and the historical analogies of success - speak to and require several foundational realities being in place. 

First, understanding your personal, team, or organizational strengths and values.  Those (successful) generals and commanders noted earlier were completely aware of the strengths and weaknesses of themselves, their armies and those of their foes as well. You likewise need to understand your own strengths and limitations and how to make best use of those in your chosen field of endeavor.  

I can't overemphasize how much we need to understand, appreciate, and hold to our personal values. If you find yourself feeling uncomfortable in any work or personal scenario, pay attention to those    misgivings. They are a sign that some core value of yours is being pushed beyond what you feel is right and good. Understand what you are prepared to negotiate away - but do that consciously. For me those core values include integrity and honesty. Once you cement these values, its easier, although not easy, to not just negotiate a "better deal" but to even walk away from a damaging engagement - live to fight another day. 

Second is the ability to exercise restraint and patience to seek out the right opportunity to apply your skills and abilities. Wrong time, wrong place? Maybe these questions and answers will also help you determine that this is the wrong opportunity altogether. 

Third, have the courage to be bold or patient as circumstances dictate. When pushed, can you hold your ground to create the right circumstances for victory? When opportunity presents, can you demonstrate and apply your strengths at the right time and place? Time and tide may wait for no one, but luck also favors the prepared. Be ready when the time comes.  Be clear about your objectives, your vision for success, and apply your strengths, abilities, and values with confidence.

It's About Leadership and sometimes leadership means actively understanding and creating the conditions for success...your success.

_____________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

gregh@breakpoint.solutions

www.breakpoint.solutions

780-918-0009

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

The Maze of Motivation?

By definition, leadership means that one has followers. Ideally, what you are experiencing is work with a highly engaged team that works well together and moves from success to success, right? Or is this perspective overly optimistic and grossly naive? Perhaps your experience is one where you feel that you are more constantly cajoling, prodding, and pushing your team to perform at even at a basic level of effort and achievement. You lament that you just can't seem to get individual team members working effectively and efficiently. You find that the 80/20 rule is working against you because you spend 80% of your leadership time trying to performance manage the 20% of your team that is problematic, trying to repair mistakes, and trying to manage the next conflict within your team.

If you are like many leaders - whether a business owner or employed decision-maker - you have likely tried a variety of techniques and approaches to getting better results from those you have contracted, employed, or otherwise worked with. This might include creating sophisticated models for recruiting and selecting staff because hiring the right people at the outset that will be more than half the battle won, right? Unfortunately, even the best of efforts doesn't guarantee success in this regard. Next you start playing with compensation/benefits plans and look to solidify performance management processes in your company. The bottom line is you have goals you want to achieve and you want to MOTIVATE your team to help you succeed in your plans.  

The problem is that carrots (e.g., money) and sticks (e.g., traditional performance management) don't create true engagement, motivation, or sustained (positive) impact on performance. My own experience is that any compensation model, pay for performance, bonus system, and so on, might have a short-term impact for an individual, but all too often they diminish the teamwork that is necessary for bigger and sustained differences in performance. These approaches are also problematic because there is rarely agreement between organization and individuals as to what constitutes good, better, and best performance; there can be large discrepancies in how one leader/manager assesses performance relative to their peers; and it sets up comparison and unhealthy competition between team members.

Another challenge in trying to motivate staff through a carrot and stick approach is what to do in times of restraint that every organization and business inevitably goes through. In some cases, this might not just mean eliminating bonuses in a given year (or years). There could also be efforts on the part of a company to rein in costs, ensure alignment with industry best practices, or even to ensure alignment with legislative standards. I have seen this latter reality take shape when companies had to move away from long-standing practices and "traditions" that then impacted things like vacation banks, ensuring staff take vacations in the years they have earned time off, and setting limits on how/when sick time can be utilized. The consequence of formalizing and maturing these HR policies and procedures? Disgruntlement and demotivation as employees view these changes as a unilateral change in the implicit contract/relationship they thought they had with their employer.  

Does all of this mean that motivating others is a fool's errand? Not at all. But it does require us to accept another perspective on motivation and then adopt a different approach to motivating others.  First, we have to accept that everyone is motivated! They are just not by the same things that you are.  If I consider either my role as a public health care leader or as a business owner/entrepreneur, I was very clear about why I did. There was clarity of purpose that made me a self-starter, highly conscientious, and a person focused on achievement. What I clearly had was a strongly held passion for the work I was doing. Did others share that passion? In some cases, almost completely so. But in the vast majority of cases, other people and staff would not or could not put in the time or effort that I was prepared to exert in pursuit of success.  They had other aspirations and goals. No amount of sloganeering, pulpit pounding, or bonus would dramatically impact that reality. 

Is there a solution for getting more out of your team? To be successful in motivating them? The answer is YES. However, it requires to understand motivation differently, do differently, and put energy into our leadership and teams in a more positive and assertive way. The answer was recently and most articulately brought to my attention through the work of author Susan Fowler in her book "Why Motivating People Doesn't Work...And What Does". She suggests that everyone has an innate desire to thrive, to grow, to develop, and to be part of a team/positive collective. A leader's task, then, is to create the condition in which these innate desires can be supported. And if the leader fails to create that environment, then an individual will focus on other areas of their lives that will deliver those benefits to them. They will be motivated by something else. 

What do people need and what can you tap into as a leader to enhance motivation for your organization's goals? 

First, you have to empower those who work with you. You have to give them choice and a sense of control in their work. Now this doesn't mean unbridled anarchy. There are always boundaries in place for everyone, including the boss. However, all of us want to have a semblance of control over all aspects of our lives, set direction, and feel like we are using our skills and abilities. In this way we are tapping into internal drivers of success rather than being driven or constrained by external forces. I can speak to this reality even at the pinnacle of my leadership journey when I was a senior vice president. While I was making the most money I had ever made in my career, was afforded the chance to earn bonuses when they were available, and enjoyed a great benefits package, I was not only unmotivated but also disillusioned by feeling that I had limited latitude to exercise my skills and abilities. Bureaucracy was stifling or eliminating my decision-making power.  

Second, a leader needs to cultivate an opportunity for individuals to be connected with the leader, the team and the broader organization. Humans are social creatures. We need to experience genuine connection to others, to feel that our values align with the values of our team or organization, and that we are all working towards something greater than ourselves. This means personal, interpersonal, and social connection. If people don't feel this level of connection with you, their team, or their organization, they will fulfill that need in other places - professionally, with family and friends, anywhere but within the organization. As I consider this insight, I am reminded of Lencioni's 5 Dysfunctions of a Team and the first element of that model being Trust/Absence of Trust. A bonus system as a motivating tool, unfortunately, feels like a nice way to tell us what to do but won't foster relationships or support a belief in your staff that you care about them.

Finally, a leader needs to support their team in experiencing growth and development. Does the work environment promote confidence, does it support learning, does it build confidence, and does it learn and manage through "mistakes" (or punish those transgressions? It has always struck me as extraordinarily short-sighted that so many organizations - public and private sector in equal measure - so easily cut back or eliminate training and development budgets as one of their first go to means of managing through adversity. In reality, training and development, including leadership and team development, are never more important or required than in challenging times. Instead of constantly focusing on short-term productivity metrics (What did you achieve today?), you might start by appreciating the growth and development of an organization's greatest asset - its people - and find out what your people are learning and how they are growing.

I had always believed that all people were motivated by different things. However, I could never necessarily translate that understanding into tools that could support motivation of others. In reality, I just had to think about those times where I felt most motivated in my work (and life) and can easily see the parallels to having choice/empowerment in what I was doing, how cohesive and supportive my team environment was, and the degree to which I felt I was able to learn and grow in my skill sets, my leadership capacity, and in myself as a person.

Motivation doesn't have to be a maze. There is another way forward if we change our leadership mindset.  It's all about leadership!

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE(R), CEC, PCC
Executive Coach/Senior Consultant

gregh@breakpoint.solutions

www.breakpoint.solutions

780-918-0009

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Stockholm Syndrome at Work?

In the past year, I have been pondering the concept/reality of Stockholm Syndrome and how it applies to the workplace. However, as I considered writing about this notion, it struck me that many might not even know what Stockholm Syndrome is and where the term originated. So, a brief history lesson first before we consider how this applies to the workplace. 

In 1973, Jan-Erik Olsson, a convict on parole, took four employees of Kreditbanken (one of the largest banks in Sweden at the time, based out of Stockholm) hostage during a failed bank robbery. Olsson was soon joined by a co-conspirator and so began a six-day ordeal for the captives. For much of this time, the hostages were held in one of the bank vaults under conditions that most of us can only imagine - cramped quarters, no comforts, negotiations for food and water, unsanitary conditions, and constant threat to life either from the hostage takers or police action. When the hostages were finally released, they not only choose NOT to testify against their captors, but they also actually went so far as to raise money for their legal defense!

In the time after these events, police and mental health experts tried to dissect and understand why the hostages would be supportive and even identify with their captors. Long story short, the hostages started to build a relationship with their captors.  While the captors were certainly the immediate cause of the loss of freedom and risk to life that the hostages experienced, there was also growing appreciation for the power that the captors wielded over them. The hostages were, after all, kept alive by their captors for six days. They were provided with food and water and what limited amenities were possible. The captors and hostages developed a shared experience. And, as related by the hostages themselves, they increasingly saw outside forces (e.g., police) as being a greater risk to their health than their captors. The captors and the hostages came to believe they shared a similar threat from outside the bank. 

What similarities do I see (or have experienced) in the workplace? I can neither begin to describe all of the instances of workplace harassment, abuse, and trauma I have experienced, nor those that I have seen or have had relayed to me by others over the past many years. In all of these cases, it is clear that the organization or "boss" controls all manner of punishment and rewards that can be provided to their staff (e.g., good/bad performance reviews, salary increases/bonuses or not, public praise or ridicule, private encouragements or disparagement).  

While societal norms and values may be changing, with particular impetus to this trend being given by our COVID-19 pandemic experience, much of our self-worth is still tied to our work, our positions/titles, and the sense of belonging we crave in working within a team/organization. Humans are social beings and need connection and belonging. Most, if not all, of us are usually excited and hopeful when we begin a new job. We are anxious to prove ourselves to our new organization, our new colleagues, and even to ourselves. With few exceptions, we are probably somewhat vulnerable in these circumstances and assess any short-term "failures" as part of our learning curve. Over time, as each successive day passes and each paycheck is received, we become more enmeshed with an organization's culture. Most of our day-to-day relationships are those we experience at work.  

I know from my own personal experience that as time goes on (months and years of working together), there is an increasing desire to hope for positive feedback and rewards while at the same time taking on a great degree of ownership (and even guilt) when performance is not recognized or even diminished. We have been trained to believe that the boss or organization might be infallible and that any punishment we might receive is warranted.  We double down on our efforts to be worthy - accept negative feedback, work longer hours, sacrifice personal time for the good of the next big project, even lie to advance an organizational priority. Unaddressed or unchallenged, I have seen some of the most downtrodden staff members remain fiercely loyal to their boss/organization at the expense of themselves. At times, these abused staff can even become allies in the abuse and harassment of other colleagues.  

An employee experiencing Stockholm Syndrome in their workplace becomes emotionally and psychologically attached to the organization/boss to the detriment of their own emotional health.  And this is not just some mask worn in some form of perverse self-preservation. In many respects, the employee comes to BELIEVE that the environment being created is right/correct and is in the best interests of the organization as a whole. This spirt of self-sacrifice, doing everything that needs to be done, swallowing one's pride, can often be seen as the epitome of professionalism. We can become vigorous and passionate deniers of what seems obvious as unhealthy by any outside or objective perspective. 

How do we know we are living in or seeing Stockholm Syndrome in our places of work? All too often a key casualty in these environments is a breakdown in real, honest, and authentic teamwork. Each individual becomes primarily focused on self. They work to be rewarded, actively look to avoid any form of punishment, and are grateful that others might be the focus of negative attention. Keep my head down, please the boss, put in my time. To the extent that rewards are still available to employees, these will be powerfully used to maintain control over staff behavior with loyalty being the expectation regardless of personal cost. 

A rather bleak picture! Breaking this cycle is hard and usually requires a major (or many major) inflexion points within a team or organization. In rare instances, a particular leader overreaches their bounds and is found out. The "hostages" are released, but still experience long-term negative impact that takes significant time and effort to overcome. Some have to unlearn the coping mechanisms they developed and rebuild trust in the organization, their colleagues, and even themselves. For others, the journey forward means a departure to another organization and, depending on their personal resilience and strength of a broader support network, can either mean upward mobility or downward spiral. 

As with everything within an organization, the type of culture created and maintained comes directly back to the quality of leadership provided, our view of what it means to be part of a team, and even to our confidence in ourselves. Professionalism is great, but not at the expense of ourselves and our values. 

It's all about leadership for self which sometimes means we have to recognize that the emperor has no clothes, our hostage takers don't have our best interests at heart, and that as painful as it might seem in the moment, moving on can often be the best thing we can do for ourselves. 

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE(R), CEC, PCC
Executive Coach/Senior Consultant

gregh@breakpoint.solutions

www.breakpoint.solutions

780-918-0009

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.