The topic of strengths, whilst becoming more prevalent is, at the same time, becoming increasingly muddy. Much of this confusion is caused by the use of that same word ‘strengths’ when describing character, talent, competency or even behaviour – quite different concepts. It doesn’t help when data from one field is used as ‘evidence’ in another. This lack of clarity opens the door to some common themes of debate; ‘Overuse’, for example. Mostly, I see overuse applying to competency or behaviour but there are circumstances where it can apply to character too. You may become predictable - so others include or exclude you on that basis; consciously, or not. The faster you can respond to a given challenge, the more likely it is that you used ‘reflexive’ resources – habitual behaviour. As long as the environment doesn’t change too much, this is fine. But who of us has that luxury? Fast thinking as Daniel Kahneman calls it, is addictive. You somehow (quickly) make sense of scant evidence, almost instinctively. You recognise the patterns and based on your previous successful response (for which your brain received a healthy dose of dopamine) the solution this time seems obvious – to you. So, what’s wrong with this scenario? Reduced vigilance: Psychology Professors Christopher Chabris & Daniel Simons present some startling examples of how intuition can be remarkably deceiving in their book “The Invisible Gorilla”. Yes, they created THAT video. The more you think you know about the situation, the more you assume, the less you will actually notice Is it even a good solution? Assuming you have correctly identified the ‘same problem’, you may have lost an opportunity for ‘reflective’ thinking which may have uncovered better solutions and broadened your perspective. Perspective is a critical leadership skill. In the 1950’s Benjamin Bloom created the ‘Taxonomy of Thinking’ which identified 6 levels of thinking ranked in order of increasing difficulty. The higher levels take practice. Your brain is wired to conserve energy and find the simplest solution. Only you can choose to make it work harder. And there is the risk of a nastier trap. If you only do the things that you think you are good at you run a risk of falling victim to what Carol Dweck calls a ‘fixed mindset’. This condition will actually see you subconsciously avoiding opportunities where you may have been challenged and grown, out of fear of looking less competent in the moment. Her work has shown some concerning consequences of fixed mindset compared to the alternative, growth mindset. “You need different strengths to succeed in different circumstances” (increasingly senior roles, for example). This is generally far truer of competencies than of character, although Authentic leadership certainly brings character to the fore. There is also an argument that talents are innate and that self-awareness and/or changing circumstances will provide opportunities to leverage them. My real message here is to be clear about how you think about strengths. Are you really talking about character, talent, competency or behaviour? There are great resources out there on any of these. Unfortunately, very few combine them and that is the great loss here. The real value lies at the intersection of them all. Imagine situations where you are able to apply your strongest talents in ways that resonate with who you are, as a person and fit the circumstances - this is where you will have experienced the state of ‘flow’, or optimal experience. One final comment: If you ever need to assess whether you are overusing any strength – talent or character - ask yourself this question: When I use this strength, is it for the greater good … or primarily for me?
0 Comments
Your people need their people. We are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of social connection in relation to our wellbeing. Connected, the 2009 book by Nicholas Christakis (Harvard) and James Fowler (UCSD) presents startling findings of wide-ranging health impacts, extending to three degrees of separation. Conversely, John Cacioppo (2009) has shown that loneliness has long term negative health impacts which are as significant as obesity, smoking or hypertension. We are social animals. It is easy for businesses to assume that an employee’s needs will be addressed by their manager, team, HR, perhaps even ‘buddy’ or mentor programs. The ‘organisation’ will take care of them. Extensive research by Monica Higgins and Kathy Kram over many years has shown that is not enough; even more so, as people become increasingly mobile in their careers. I believe businesses have a real and substantial opportunity to consider how they can actively encourage and support staff to assemble carefully considered “Developmental Networks” (Higgins & Kram). These networks consider primarily domains that will support an individual in the context of work-life: Leaders, Mentors, Peers, Direct Reports, Professional Associates and Personal Support System. The potential value of each of these domains is different – as are the likely members - and therefore a considered and informed approach to building and utilising this network delivers great benefits. How many people do you know who consciously seek to construct such a robust and defined support network? But I think it goes way further than this … because an informed and proactive person could do this, regardless of the employer. Now, think about those (same) people in your business who always volunteer to run the work social club or arrange the year-end celebrations. Think about the discretionary effort and pride exhibited by these people – they are intrinsically motivated. To them, the task has meaning. They are drawn to it. It aligns to their personal values and their talents. They generally self-organize and exceed expectations. It is hard work … but they love it. How many ways does your business actively and consciously create opportunities for your staff to work with others, fueled by intrinsic motivation? This approach should not be limited to those ‘nice to do’ or ‘feel good’ activities: it should occur within their roles and in support of organisation wide initiatives. It should not be left to chance - it is a strategic imperative. Supporting a culture which fuels the formation of complex and diverse employee networks pays dividends in terms of retention, engagement and performance. It strengthens the DNA of your business. Over the past 25 years I have played various roles in several thousand performance reviews. Be it as a participant, reviewer, reviewers manager, HR sign-off, process auditing or handling complaints and formal grievances. Over this time I have seen some very clear patterns as to what works, what doesn’t and why. It is with this background that I ponder the wisdom of the current trend toward abandoning performance reviews or ratings. I am not saying they can’t be improved, particularly in light of recent work in social neuroscience, Strengths Based Management and positive psychology, but I see real risks in ditching them. Let me explain. Almost every article I see questioning the value of performance reviews will cite some form of statistic pointing to high dissatisfaction or low perceived return on investment. They often fuel this uncertainty by mixing in claims about the mysterious needs of a particular ‘generation’. It is ironic that the work of people like Bruce Tulgan, the author of Managing Generation X (1995) shows how little of this is actually new. Most people have experienced a less-than-great performance review experience at some point in their life, so these statistics will feel right: they are aimed squarely at unconscious biases. What rarely appears though is what was actually being studied, how, or any form of root cause analysis of what really went wrong. I have always believed the advice I was given early in my management career: "No aspect of a performance review should ever be a surprise" In 2004 Robert W. Rogers, then President of DDI wrote “Realizing the Promise of Performance Management”, one of the most credible and pragmatic texts I have seen on the topic. Armed with several large-scale studies, Rogers draws straight-forward conclusions about 8 key factors that will impair a performance management system:
He regards the first point as “… the primary problem!” and I totally agree. In my experience, any failing in this regard often leads to the other issues listed. Performance management (simply) must be: fair, accurate and meaningful A quick look at the list above will show how easily these expectations are placed at risk. We all know the symptoms of these issues; reviews that are not completed, late, meaningless, scant or worse; unfair, breach policy, contract or law. These outcomes have a huge impact on employees who often feel powerless to question ‘management’ or ‘the system’. If this becomes the reputation of your performance management system you risk creating organisational learned helplessness. Trust me; this will kill your organisations culture and performance, often in unseen (passive aggressive) ways. Additionally, research into ongoing exposure to such work environments shows significant links to employee health issues. So, what's my point? If you are questioning the effectiveness of your performance management system I suggest you take a very honest look at this list. Because failing to admit that any of these factors underlie the current reality will likely see any replacement fail for exactly the same reasons. Does your organisation really take performance management seriously? I have always been intrigued by human behaviour, particularly within workplaces. By nature, I am drawn to studying it – I need to make sense of what I see. An example I have studied for several years are the almost covert networks of employees seemingly intent upon actively sharing bad news stories about their workplace. In many cases I could see that the stories were either incorrect, illogical interpretations or pessimistic predictions. Further to this, the impact on the individuals involved appeared to be quite negative. Over time, my question became; “Why do people do this, when it just seems to make them feel bad?” What is driving this apparent ‘cognitive dissonance’? In part, I believe this is a common theme:
But why connect and share the bad news? Over the past 5 years I have studied internationally, with access to many recently published academics working in psychology, neuroscience and wellbeing. In an effort to answer that question, I have discussed my observations with many of them using a Toy Story analogy. At some point it struck me; the analogy was far more powerful than I had first thought ... The story I use considers the ‘mutant toys’ who live under the bed of Sid Phillips, the sociopathic 11 year old neighbour. They are a group of damaged, disfigured, seemingly discarded toys who have banded together to hide in the shadows. Increasingly, the parallels made sense:
This final point added much to my thinking ... These networks also seek to recruit; either from other mistreated staff or new hires entering an organisation, testing their faith in the company, manager etc. They can be very persuasive; sharing stories of others mistreatment or hollow promises. In psychological terms, these ‘toys under the bed’ are suffering – in some cases demonstrating clear symptoms of learned helplessness. Given the links between this, stress, illness and depression my attitude shifted from frustration to concern. In many cases, these staff are seen as just too hard to fix and are left alone (the parallel continues). The price for this is very high. At an individual level, these staff are likely to be:
Ignoring these staff is not an option. They once had ‘healthier’ beliefs that aligned with their desire to be in the organisation – hopefully, a part of what got them hired in the first place … Until their version of ‘Sid Phillips’ came along. Some people have the strength or resilience to deal with that, others choose to leave but there are those who feel they can do neither of those things. These people need to be identified, understood and helped to regain trust that they matter and that they have something to contribute. It may be a very difficult process, perhaps in some cases futile. I see this as duty of care. Look after your toys. Before I start - there are a few things you should know about me ... Firstly, I like coffee. Good coffee. And I will typically consume a minimum of 3 double-shot hits a day. The second thing to know is that I make it a personal challenge to 'connect' with customer service staff, particularly when I know I will see them again. So, on with my story ... Earlier this year I attended a week-long strengths coaching training course in Sydney, delivered by the GALLUP organisation. At every break we were provided an impressive array of treats, sweets and beverages - but I will always trade that for a quick dash to the nearest coffee house for my mandatory high-octane brew. Fortunately, although we were located on the 18th floor, there was a 'hole-in-the-wall' coffee house directly across the street. This became my 'local'; game on! On the first couple of visits I accidentally wore my name tag, boldly strung around my neck on a thick string lanyard. This name tag not only announced me not only as "Garry Davis" ... it then went on to spell out my 'Top 5 strengths': Individualization | Analytical | Relator | Learner | Deliberative Some might have found this a little embarrassing, but recall my second objective. I now had a way to connect. By day 3 I was laughingly known to the lady as "tag man", although I had now remembered to take off the lanyard. When she asked my name for the order, clearly feeling that she should have remembered; I asked hers. For the remainder of the week our conversation continued to build with each visit. My final coffee visit was at the morning break on the Friday, as we were scheduled to finish our training at lunch. I walked up to the window and she asked how I was. "Sensational!” I replied. She seemed almost shocked (which of course, is always my motive for such a response). "Why?” she asked. "Because I choose to be", I told her. She looked a little puzzled before responding "It's not that easy, is it?” But my next comment really seemed to hit her. "Yes, it is - the choice is yours" I said. I love exchanges like this. But this one was to have a powerful twist. My change included a 50 cent piece. Here's the third thing about me - I collect special edition 50 cent pieces. Ever since I saw my first Captain Cook coin in 1970, I have been drawn to them. Habitually, I glanced at the tail side to find that it was a 2010 Australia Day coin and realised that I had never taken notice of the inscription accompanying the unique design. It seemed to be the perfect coincidence. I held the coin for her to see and asked her to read what it said. Her face lit up. I completed my course and left Sydney but the experience remained in my mind for some time, prompting me to search for the coffee shop address to send her the coin but the only address I found was not convincing. Six months later I attended another course in the same area. I made sure I took the coin and visited her. I reminded her about the exchange and she did remember; so did one of the other staff there, who had been looking on when it occurred. Celebrate What's Great It felt great for me to ‘close’ the story and I hope it reinforces the message for her that we can all choose where to put our attention and how things impact us. 50 cents well spent, in my opinion. |