Spring Break Rewind #4 - I'm not really properly motivated

Note: It is Spring Break week here in Western New York, (for the school-age kids anyway), and while I will still be working and traveling to New York City to present at a conference, this week will be busier than most. So this week on the blog I'll be re-running some pieces from the last 12 months or so. Yes, I am being lazy. Cut me some slack. Anyway, if you are on Spring Break this week, I hope you have a great little vacation!

This piece - 'I'm not really properly motivated', originally ran in August 2012.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most readers who are parents would likely agree with me when I say that of all the challenges we face in various parts of our lives, that convincing a stubborn kid to do something, (or more likely, to continue to do something so as it becomes a habit), is probably right up these on the frustrating and maddening scale.

When the kids are really young, say less than 5, logic and reasoning are (mostly) useless as negotiating tactics, and once they get a little bit older they develop a pesky ability to apply their own forms of logic and let's say unique world views to bat back most of your well-reasoned and completely reasonable demands. Never mind that as parents we almost always give up really fast trying to actually see the problem from the kid's perspective, after all, it is the one time in our lives when we have (pretty much) absolute power in the negotiation. And breaking out 'Because I said so' or 'Because I am the parent and you are the kid' might both be fully valid, accurate, and successful ways to put an end to any discussion around behavior modification, they also feel kind of hollow and depressing to have to rely upon, at least too frequently.  Dilbert.com

Whether it's a reluctant kid who can't see the inherent wisdom in simply doing whatever it is you want him/her to do, or a pesky colleague, manager, or subordinate at work that for some reason is having trouble seeing the brilliance (or at least the logic) in whatever fool idea you are pushing, it seems to me it is getting more important all the time to appreciate the absolute value of being able to have your ideas, if not adopted wholly, at least understood and maybe, maybe even supported by collections of folks that have their own ideas about how things should go. Like the kid who does not seem enthused about mundane activities like 'room cleaning', the truth is most folks won't naturally or willingly see the value to them of listening to you, making the 'I'm the boss/parent/teacher/coach' your all-too-frequently uses fall back position, and discussion-ender.

I know all contentious debates do need to come to an end for any progress to be made. The kid's room has to be cleaned, homework has to get done, the TPS reports have to go out, and on and on and on.

But how the debate ends I think is important, and how the accumulation of these endings over time begin to impact the ability of any type of leader, be it a parent, manager, or coach, to get people around them working towards mutually beneficial ends matters.

As a parent, if you keep pulling the 'Because I'm the Dad' line, it is probably a sign of some other kind of problem, perhaps a little bit of a lack of seeing their point of view. As my 11 year old explained to me recently, 'It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I'm not really properly motivated'.

Sure, I could have trotted out the 'Tough luck kid, I am the Dad', (I actually think I did), but there certainly was the feeling that I should not have had to go there. That the kid should have intuitively understood the wisdom/logic/importance of whatever it was I wanted him to do. And the fact that he did not, well, that was completely and totally his problem or failing, not mine.

That's how it works when you are the boss, right?

MAMBA OUT: Leadership and Likability

One of the NBA's most accomplished players, the Laker's Kobe Bryant, has been a controversial figure throughout most of his career. Through the course of his 15-plus year career, highlighted by 5 NBA titles, he has been dogged by on-court accusations of selfishness and petulance, and off-court problems, most notably a 1998 sexual assault trial in Colorado.

Bryant is a lighting-rod type player, and opinions about him are mostly clear and starkly divided. He is, to use the cliche, a player you either love or hate. If you love him, it's for his single-minded focus and competitiveness, his intense drive to succeed, and his pursuit of winning, although certainly on his terms. For those that can't stand Bryant, they usually point to his on-court domination of the ball, his seeming lack of respect for teammates not as talented as him, and a sort of general 'unlikability' that makes him, at times, kind of difficult to cheer for. Bryant, as the best player on his team, and the de facto leader, has often had little patience or positive things to say about his own team mates that fail to live up to his standards and expectations.

And it's that last point, Bryant's unlikability that I want to call out, inspired by a recent little leadership manifesto of sorts, that Bryant posted on Facebook, and was reported on by the Pro Basketball Talk blog. Here's a piece of the Bryant message, with some comments, and really questions after the quote:

Sometimes you must prioritize the success of the team ahead of how your own image is perceived. The ability to elevate those around you is more than simply sharing the ball or making teammates feel a certain level of comfort. It’s pushing them to find their inner beast, even if they end up resenting you for it at the time.

I’d rather be perceived as a winner than a good teammate. I wish they both went hand in hand all the time but that’s just not reality.

Some interesting takes from the Mamba, (Bryant's self-designated nickname). In a hyper-competitive business, where the difference between winning and losing is razor-thin, and the window of opportunity for achieving the ultimate goal, winning championships, closes quickly, Bryant acknowledges that he views leadership and likeability as two mutually exclusive traits. In his view, you can do what it takes to lead, to inspire others to get the best out of themselves, and to put the team in the best place to win, OR, you can worry about being liked, and how you are perceived by the team, (and the public).

The Mamba is pretty clear on which approach works for him, and it is kind of hard to argue with both his personal and team success over the years.  But reading his manifesto seems to engender a contradictory reaction - Bryant sounds kind of mean, petty, and yes, almost completely unlikeable.

Which I suppose is the real question - can you be a true and successful leader and not be willing to point out in very clear terms the shortcomings you might see in the team? 

Can you be a great leader and worry about how you are perceived?

If you want to win in a competitive game should you worry at all about being likeable?

Mamba out...

READER QUESTION: Who is the new Dave Ulrich?

I usually don't like these kind of 'Reader Question' type blog posts because the cynic in me secretly thinks that they really never cover an actual reader question, but the blogger just pitched it that way to have an excuse to write about a topic perhaps they would not normally cover, and they feel like somehow people will get the impression that the blogger gets all manner of back channel questions and comments from readers, which I also secretly think almost never happens.

Having said all that, and asking you to put your natural cynicism aside*, I want to submit to you, dear readers, what I swear is an actual reader question that I received this week, one that I think is pretty interesting, and one that I (and the reader who hoped I'd have something intelligent to offer), could use some help from the crowd to try and answer.  Here is the question, in its entirety:

Hi Steve. A question came up with the Sr. HR leadership team for my company "Who are the new thought leaders in HR?  Who is the new Dave Ulrich?", I thought - I bet Steve would know.  I would thrilled to recieve any thoughts you might have. Thanks!

That's it, the Big $64,000 question for a Summer Friday. I did reply to the question, and offered up some thoughts, but after realizing that my views probably were not typical, (one of the names I submitted was Tim Sackett), I asked and received permission from the reader to post the question here, and see if we could crowdsource some additional responses or ideas.

So I put it to you my friends - Who are the new thought leaders in HR as you see it?  Who is the new Dave Ulrich?

And I think the answer could still be Tim Sackett. Or maybe it still is Dave Ulrich.

I'd love to know your thoughts and many thanks to the actual reader who submitted an actual question, (I swear it really happened that way).

Note:

* I am quietly working on a new presentation with a working title of 'Everyone is Lying to You', so I am even more cynical than usual lately.

Tebow: How many leaders are too many?

There are two reasons I had to finally weigh in on the (admittedly over-analyzed), Peyton Manning - Tim Tebow NFL saga that has played out over the last two weeks. One, I need to make sure I have submitted enough sports-related dispatches for next year's installment of The 8 Man Rotation E-book, and two, since Tebow has been traded to my beloved New York Jets, I simply felt obligated to comment. So, apologies in advance if you are already tired of the story - come back tomorrow for something more interesting.Don't look behind you Mark.

Most of the HR-related analysis on the deal has tended to focus on what the Broncos' decisions suggest about Talent Management  - that acquiring superior talent is more important that keeping popular but less-talented around, and that a keen understanding of what capabilities and competencies are required for success should drive talent decisions. Those are both good points, but as a Jets fan, I want to focus on their decision to bring in Tebow and what it might say about their (shakier) talent strategy and the potential implications to the success of the team.

In professional football it is generally agreed that the quarterback position is the most important on the field, and the quarterback is seen as the team leader. For young quarterbacks, developing leadership skills and earning the respect of teammates might be equally as important as improving the practical skills of the game. For the New York Jets current starting quarterback and three-year veteran Mark Sanchez, cementing his status as the team leader has been a kind of rocky ride. His first two seasons saw kind of unexpected success, with back-to-back deep playoff runs, but this success was tempered by a disappointing 2011 season marked by a failure to make the NFL playoffs and numerous reports of dissension amongst the team. Sanchez play on the field was inconsistent, (not uncommon for young quarterbacks), and the presence of strong personalities on the coaching staff and in the locker room have also made it hard for Sanchez to truly become the team leader, generally seen as a necessary step on the march towards competing for championships.

But the Jets' ownership has enough faith in Sanchez' ability and potential, to just a few weeks ago reward him with a contract extension, and a guarantee of at least two more years as the starting quarterback. At the time the contract was seen as a commitment by the team to Sanchez not  only as the quarterback, but also as the de facto team leader. It was a bit of a risk certainly, as any contract is, but it was also a signal to the players and fans that the ownership and coaching staff was 100% behind the player who is effectively the most important player on the team.

Fast forward just a short time and via a series of events that started with the Indianapolis Colts decision to release NFL legend Manning, and now the phenomenon known as Tebowmania has relocated to the New York Jets. Tim Tebow enjoyed an incredible, unusual run of games last year for the Broncos that seemed equal parts incredibly poor play, inspired and winning comeback performances, and solid character and leadership capability, unusual for such a young player in the NFL. In fact, when talking about Tebow, observers almost always talk 'character' and 'leadership' as much as they discuss the practical aspects of actually playing quarterback in the NFL.

Before the Sanchez contract extension, there were serious questions around the team's faith in him and their commitment to his continued development. Then, with the acquisition of Tebow, these same questions are naturally re-emerging. The larger questions I think, are about what it signals about leadership in the organization and the importance of commitment to key team members and an understanding about the role of leadership inside the organization. Tebow, for all the circus atmosphere that surrounds him, is seen as a high-character guy and a natural leader. Sanchez, as the incumbent quarterback, has not yet firmly grasped the role of team leader, and now with the acquisition of Tebow, his job has become that much harder. The minute things start to go poorly on the field, fans and the media will start calling for Tebow to assume Sanchez' spot. And if Tebow does come into the game, and performs well, (not a given, but possible), and then says and does all the right things afterward, (almost certain), then Sanchez' position becomes more untenable.

The Broncos have been lauded for doing all the right things in this situation. Signing Manning was the first right move, then moving out Tebow was the next correct move. To Manning and to the team, the signal was clear - Peyton's our guy. And with him on board, the presence of Tebow was only going to be a distraction. Their management recognized and abided by that old football axiom, 'If you have more than one starting quarterback, you don't have any.'

Mark Sanchez is certainly no Peyton Manning, does not have Manning's track record and does not get afforded the same respect. But just two weeks ago, Jets management had committed to Sanchez (and guaranteed him at least $20M). The contract said essentially, 'Mark is our quarterback and leader. We think we can win with him.' 

But with the signing of Tebow, who as a winning-type player naturally will want to compete with Sanchez for playing time as well as team leadership, the Jets have essentially told Sanchez that only two weeks later they are hedging their $20M bet.

Only one guy can play quarterback at a time. And only one guy can be the team leader. What's tough on the organization is when ownership can't figure out who that guy should be.

If it isn't urgent, skip the dramatics

We've all heard them at one time or another in our careers, the overly dramatic 'inspirational' speeches, often peppered with military metaphors, from executives and leaders that are meant to get the troops (dang, I just did it myself), charged up and ratchet up the energy and enthusiasm in the office. While we all know, at least most of us know, that these kinds of speeches, whether delivered live or in an email, are generally not taken all that seriously by said troops, there doesn't seem to be any sign of them going away.

One reason I think that these kinds of fake, shallow, and sort of silly communications continue is the fact that rarely if ever will the boss get any feedback informing him or her just how much the rank and file are secretly laughing to themselves while listening or reading to these kinds of messages. Certainly, job security and a general desire not to make waves requires and makes prudent the decision by most folks to simply keep the giggles to themselves and nod in agreement as the brave leader exhorts the team to greater heights.

So while it might be difficult for anyone to actually speak up, occasionally you'll find an amusing rant about how these dramatics are actually interpreted by the team, check out a recent post from a terrifically funny, (and almost always NSFW), blog called Pound the Budweiser that helps spell out what the average employee thinks in response to typical and common leadership histrionics:

I'm an office drone. I live and work in a hive of cubicles. We have no deck. We have staff meetings. So when the new boss scheduled an All Hands on Deck Meeting for last week, I metaphorically circled it on my Outlook calendar.

The morning of the All Hands on Deck Meeting it was postponed for three weeks. Our first ever All Hands on Deck Meeting will now take place in March.

I am not a sailor but when the captain tells the bosun to pipe "All Hands on Deck" I think it confers a sense of urgency to the proceedings. Something like, there's a pirate ship on the horizon, lets put up more sail and get the heck out of here or, we've got a German U-boat on the scope so we're going to need your best effort or, there's topless Playboy bunnies off the port bow, who has my binoculars?

Can an All Hands on Deck Meeting be postponed for three weeks and still be called an All Hands on Deck Meeting?

Classic. And a good reminder of how even the small things, like the name given to a staff meeting, can actually have an impact with how you are perceived as a leader.

I am not trying to say that leaders can't or shouldn't try to rally the team and inspire the staff, but I think it a good idea to keep in mind that there while there probably is in most organizations a time for dramatics and urgency that time is probably not as often as you think. Second, when you really do feel like there does need to be some urgency, don't wait three weeks to let the team know what you felt was so important. And third, and you may or may not care, there is a chance that your 'troops' are really only following out of fear and contemplating launching their own anonymous blogs to goof on your leadership style.

What do you think? Do leaders sound the air raid signal too much?