WorkPuzzle

Do You Have a Set of Hancuffs Handy? - Part 2

Yesterday, we discussed the idea of using self-imposed restraints to reach goals and improve performance.  There was an interesting study conducted by a doctoral student at Harvard that investigated the nature of how humans tend to act in this regard: 

“Katherine Milkman, a doctoral student at Harvard Business School, has studied the way customers wrestle with two kinds of products: 'wants,' which are things they crave in the moment, and 'shoulds,' which are the things they know are good for them.  For instance, Milkman studied the Australian equivalent of Netflix and found that when customers rent a 'should' film, such as Schindler's List, along with a 'want' film, such as Die Hard 3, they tend to watch (and return) the want film much faster.  We aspire to be the kind of people who watch Schindler's List, but two weeks later, it's still sitting on top of the DVD player, unwatched, as we rotate through the entire John McClane cycle.” (Fast Company)

So, even with the best of intentions, we’ll struggle (and often fail) to do the things that are best for us.  This is why some restraints are necessary.

With regard to your personal performance, start by asking yourself these questions:

1. Is there an activity that I could stop doing that would improve my performance?
2. Is there an activity that I enjoy and naturally gravitate towards doing that I could limit to improve my performance?
3. Are their restraints that I can put in place to keep myself from falling back into my natural tendencies?

Let me give you an example from my own life:  I enjoy learning about politics and popular culture.  There are a number of cable news programs that cater to this interest.  A couple of years ago, I came to the conclusion that I was wasting too much time watching these programs.  I learned that I could get the same amount of substance from reading a 10-minute summary of the news from the Seattle Times.  So, I stopped watching cable news programs.

While this was a good start, I soon found that I needed even more restraint.  I was still able to waste time, even with my conversion to the news summary.  There were times when I would read five or six articles at a sitting.  I would look up at the clock and notice that 45 minutes had passed.  I definitely needed another restraint.  I now limit myself to reading one article that catches my interest from the summary, per day. 

I was successful in eliminating one activity from my daily routine.  In addition, I found a way to replace it with an activity that has some natural restraints built into it (It’s a summary, rather than a whole show).  Even with my scaled-down activity, I hold myself accountable to a simple rule that keeps this activity from detracting from my personal performance.

For most of us, this is hard to accomplish on our own.  We need structure, accountability, and relationships to maintain our restraints.  We need help recognizing where time is being wasted and how to focus our efforts on the activities that will produce the best results.

If your manager or someone else in your organization is not providing this type of accountability, it is important to understand that you’re the one being hurt most by this arrangement.  Ask for some handcuffs during your next coaching session.

Do You Have a Set of Handcuffs Handy?

The bestselling authors of Made to Stick, Dan and Chip Heath, write a monthly column in Fast Company.  This month’s column caught my attention because it is so counter-intuitive.  The premise of the article is that people will pay you to restrain them.

The classic example is the purchase of a piggy bank for a child.  Let’s suppose that a piggy bank can hold $25 in spare change.  The purpose of the piggy bank is to prevent the child from spending the loose change until the $25 goal has been reached.  The piggy bank is really a restraint system that restricts the child from giving in to short-term impulses.

Of course, it is not just kids who lack self-control.  Some alcoholics are willing to consume a drug called Antabuse that makes them sick if they drink.  Some people who struggle with obesity undergo gastric-bypass surgery, restricting the size of their stomach.  In both cases, individuals are investing resources for the purpose of being restrained from their own behavior.

Researchers have gotten in on this as well.  The article sites this example:

“In one study, students were told they had to turn in three papers by the end of the semester and were given the option to assign earlier binding due dates for the work.  Almost three-quarters of them jumped at the chance, thus saving themselves from a frantic Red Bull-and-Wikipedia bender in the last week."

How can this principle be applied to both your personal performance and the performance of those you’re required to coach and manage?  Tune in tomorrow for more on this topic....

Avoiding Incompetence

Yesterday, we reminded you that the Peter Principle has a logical corollary:

“Peter's Corollary states that, in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties... Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

I met with part of the executive team of a very large real estate company in the Seattle area yesterday.  During part of the meeting, the discussion focused on how some people are “wired” to perform certain tasks with a high level of proficiency. 

As the discussion progressed, the General Manager of this group mentioned that their company had collected assessment data demonstrating that their best managers had substantially different make-ups than their best sales people. 

I was shocked.  Why?  Because this company naturally acknowledged this reality. It was refreshing because we work with the executive teams of so many different companies who have still not grasped this concept.  They may acknowledge it on the surface, but their actions reveal their true beliefs.
 
Let me give you an example of a more typical encounter - A couple of years ago, the owner of a regional insurance company looked me in the eye and said:

“I will never use an assessment for hiring because I took the [common surface trait assessment] and it suggested I would not be good at sales.  But I was the best salesperson this company has ever had!”

In this case, the assessment he took was not built for hiring, and the profile that was being used as a benchmark was not designed for his specific company.  These are both tactical problems that would need to be solved, but the bigger problem is this executive’s basic belief system.
 
He believes that his remarkable capacity to start and build a successful insurance company would be very similar to the recipe of capacities necessary to successfully perform the day-to-day sales function in his company.  This is right where Peter’s Corollary comes into play.  Remember....

"Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

If the Owner hires people like himself, he will likely end up with new employees who perform well quickly, but then get bored and want to do more than just sell.  If an interesting, short-term opportunity is not available in the company, they’ll leave to find that opportunity.  These people simply are not wired to perform the day-to-day sales function for a long period of time.

Let’s suppose that at some point in the future a Sales Manager position opens up.  With the Owner’s paradigm (“I was the best salesperson this company has ever had!”), who will he choose for the position?  That's right, someone who has a proven sales record!

You can see how seductive our natural tendencies are concerning the realities of the Peter Principle.  If you’re coaching or managing people, acknowledge that their highest and best contribution at work will be below their level of incompetence. 

Don’t arbitrarily push people into an arena where they do not have the natural capacities to perform.  Instead, work on helping them gain proficiency in the area where their natural talents already align with the tasks in that role.  Certainly, there are times where a job change makes sense, but careful not to react in a manner that would make a good illustration for the next Dilbert cartoon.

Provoking People to Be Successful - Part 2

Yesterday we discussed how salespeople are taking on some characteristics and duties of coaches.  For example, it is a coach’s job to provoke people to be successful, however it is increasingly becoming the salesperson’s job as well.

When trying to learn and deploy techniques that will elicit success, most salespeople struggle to find a critical issue that would capture the interest of a senior executive.  Moore puts it this way:

“For any given prospect or customer, your sales and marketing team can generate a long list of industry wide and company specific problems that could be better addressed.  The key is to find the one that matters so deeply that even in a downturn the money will be found to fix it.”

As you know, there is no shortage of problems out there.  I think that any of us could quickly develop a list of things in our own lives and businesses that could use some improvement.  The challenge is to prioritize these problems, and focus energies on specific ways to solve them.

Moore admits that even salespeople have a difficult time attaching a direct monetary value to a problem.  Of course, this is an appropriate framework for a corporate sale, but is it appropriate for coaching?  In most cases, it is.

Here is a framework that will help you identify issues that are relevant:  As you consider problems, ask yourself this question:  Is there a direct and measurable payoff (preferably monetary) for solving the problem?  If there is not a payoff, then it’s time to place priority on a different issue.
 
This is not something many coaches and managers do very well.  It even becomes more of a challenge for a coach or manager who has the responsibility of coaching a large number of people.  It is easy to get into a rut and try to apply a one-size-fits-all formula.

Here are a couple of ideas that may help you be successful at this task:

1.  Think like a businessperson.  As you attempt to put yourself in a person's shoes, ask tough business questions.  What issue can put this person out of business?  What seriously jeopardizes this person’s ability to compete?  What tasks are this person’s competitors and better performing peers achieving that this person is ignoring?  If you’re not a credible source of advice on an important topic, is there someone you can elicit help from who is?

2.  Keep track of the information.  Not everyone you’re coaching has the same issues.  Since your approach must be customized, it is important to have a way to record and reference the information you’ve collected and the advice that you’ve offered.

During tough times, we’re all careful about what we buy.  Our coaching must address pertinent business issues people must solve in order to survive.  If we’re not proficient at this task, we may be one of the expenses that gets cut.

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.   

Provoking People to be Successful

If you coach and manage people for a living, then you already know that insight can come from the most unlikely places.  Is it possible that your salespeople might have something to teach you?

Salespeople are under a lot of pressure right now.  When the economy is good and things are humming along, they seem to have it easy.  But, when the economy tightens up, it’s a different story.  They’re often the first ones to feel the impact of a downturn.

Under such circumstances, most salespeople complain and make excuses about how external circumstances keep them from meeting their goals.  Many of these people fail because they get stuck in this paradigm.  However, there are always a few who figure out how to overcome these circumstances and succeed in spite of the external challenges.

Harvard Business Review published an article last month on how to think, act, and practice business like one of these salespeople.  The article is titled, "In a Downturn, Provoke Your Customers".  It is written by Geoffrey Moore, along with two co-authors.
  
The basic premise of the article is that in order to be successful, a salesperson must be able to identify problems, risks, and opportunities that the customer cannot see on their own.  Here is how Moore quantifies the issue:

“Provocation-based selling goes beyond the conventional consultative or solution-selling approach, whereby the vendor’s sales team seeks out current concerns in a question-and–answer dialogue with customer managers….  Provocation-based selling helps customers see their competitive challenges in a new light that makes addressing specific painful problems unmistakably urgent.”

In essence, the salesperson is doing the strategic thinking for the customer with regard to a small part of their overall business.  How could an outsider have an impact like this?

“[Outsiders] aren’t caught up in the dynamics that often make it hard for a client’s own managers to challenge the status quo.  This hesitancy to make waves becomes stronger in time of general economic turmoil.  When people in your client’s organization are too worried about their jobs to present anything original or thought-provoking, it is easier to come across as a much-needed breath of fresh air.”

Doesn’t this sound like the job description of a coach? 

Getting a third-party perspective from outside the normal frame of reference helps people perform better, overcome obstacles, and find solutions that are not obvious on the surface. 
 
Tomorrow, I’ll share additional insight that Moore uncovers in this article.  I think you'll find the information helpful with regard to both sales and coaching.

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.   

Choosing Grit Over Talent

On Friday, I reviewed some literature and discussed the concept of "grit" (previous Workpuzzle blog).  Have you thought about your own grit level?  How about the grit level of your team?

Many successful people don't attribute their success to their IQ or level of talent, but rather to their tenacity.  Genius Thomas Edison was one of those people.  Edison once said:

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up" (Psychology Today).

Here is another prime example of grit:  Poet David Baker is Director of Creative Writing at Denison University, and author of seven books of poetry, including "Midwest Eclogue."  Mr. Baker laments: 

"Unfortunately, no one comes in my window and whispers poems to me... Poets [have to] work hard.  I may work on a single poem for weeks or months and write 60 or 70 drafts—only to decide that draft 22 was the good one" (Psychology Today).

Along these same lines, people often refer to Mozart's diaries, where he divulges that an entire symphony appeared, supposedly intact, in his head. However, Jonathan Plucker an educational psychologist at Indiana University points out:

"But no one ever quotes the next paragraph, where he talks about how he refined the work for months" (Psychology Today).

So, if you review the research I referenced in the last entry (previous Workpuzzle blog), you'll see that talent and genius are seriously overrated.  Grit appears to be the vital component.

So what can we learn from this?  The data shows that if we praise talent and accomplishments, we get stagnation, and even failure.  However, in studies where "effort" was rewarded, the result was growth and greater success.  Stick to rewarding effort in you and in others and you'll be on top of the next economic wave.

Success comes to those who work harder...

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.  

Coaching for Change - Part 2

If you haven’t already, you may need to read yesterday's entry to catch up on this topic.

We all (myself included) need to remember that change, when approached with the right attitude can lead to tremendous personal growth.  (Remember the blogs on Resilience?  1, 2, and 3)

Isn’t it interesting that most of us have a tendency to avoid the change, challenge and growth that we once sought out.  Instead, we have trained our brains to look forward to some arbitrary and hollow goal, like retirement, when in fact what we really miss most are the days when we were carefree.  Ironically, that carefree attitude came when we were young and taking risks.

So, it’s not just feeling carefree that we’re really after -- Its carefree with a challenge.  That’s the secret combination we’re really after-- and where great learning takes place.

Personally, I know many people who have been hit hard by what’s going on in the world right now.  Some of them, despite great anxiety and sadness, are taking steps daily to reevaluate their lives, take stock of their values, and be grateful for what they have.

If you help people do this, eventually new and exciting challenges will arise.  Even this change, as uneasy as it makes us feel, can be good.

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.  

Tips for Coaching During Change

Change is difficult.  Most healthy, rational people avoid change, preferring instead the security and safety of what is known.  But ironically, change can produce incredible growth, if we respond to it effectively.

With today's economic conditions, we are all experiencing some kind of change, without having made the conscious decision to do so.  For most of us, it is in the form of fear that is paralyzing us with panic.  Panic makes it difficult to reflect and benefit from change.

Answer this question:  When have you experienced the most growth in your life?  The answer is probably when you were undergoing tremendous change, accompanied by uncertainty...perhaps when you were much younger.

It's normal to risk more when we're younger, because we don't have that much to lose.  If you analyze that statement, you will begin to see the problem:  Security and hanging onto what we've acquired becomes paramount for most of us when we're older.  We cling to it and cherish it, without ever reflecting on its inherent value to our well-being.

Of course it's irresponsible to take foolish risks.  But, you can also make the argument that it is foolish to follow a course of action simply because it promises "early retirement".  Are you living to retire?  The financial industry has helped convince you that this should be your ultimate goal, no doubt because it's profitable to them to tell you this. 

Almost everyone over the age of 30 (even younger if you consider the trickle down effect) is undergoing some kind of change due to the current turmoil the economy has placed on us.  Empathizing with people is important, and a period of grief necessary, but if you find them fixated on what they've lost, ask them the following:

"Rate on a scale of 1 - 10 how important your loss is when compared to your basic values (family, friends, community, spirituality...) If it is low on the rating scale, how important or valid is your grief?"

Now ponder that for a day, and I'll follow up with more thoughts to consider tomorrow.

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.  

You Can't Make Me Do That - Part 2

So, did you figure out why paying someone to give blood reduces the number of people of who are willing to give blood?  If you missed yesterday, you may want to catch up.  Here is another story that may help you understand why people do not respond to incentives in the way we think they should:

In Haifa, Israel there was a group of six daycare centers that were trying to find a proactive approach to dealing with a particular group of parents.  These parents were perpetually late in picking up their children at the end of the school day.  As the frustration mounted, the daycare centers searched for an incentive that would make parents operate within the rules.

The incentive they chose was a fine that would be assigned for each time a parent was late.  After the fine system was instituted, guess what happened?  The number of tardy parents doubled.  Like the blood donors, the incentive not only did not produce the desired effect, it made the situation worse.

These are just two of dozens of experiments that show that rewarding self-interest with economic incentives can backfire.  Why?  Some incentives undermine what Adam Smith called “moral sentiments.”

Dr. Bowles makes the following observations:  

Regarding the blood donors:

“People desire to be esteemed by others and to be seen as ethical and dignified.  And they don’t want to be taken for suckers.  Rewarding blood donations may backfire because it suggests that the donor is less interested in being altruistic than in making a buck.”

Regarding the tardy daycare parents:

“The fine seems to have reduced their ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as simply a commodity they could purchase…   Fines or public rebukes that appeal to our moral sentiments by signaling social disapproval (think of littering) can be highly effective.  But, incentives go wrong when they offend or diminish our ethical sensibilities.”

The art of coaxing performance from those we coach and manage is difficult because people are complex.  When we treat people as machines or robots that can be poked and prodded into certain behaviors, then these types of issues usually surface to confound our efforts.

Treating people…well, like people, and respecting their complexity is the first prerequisite to earning the authority to step into their lives and make changes that positively affect them, as well as your organization.

Editor’s Note:  Content for this article was collected from a recent Harvard Business Review article called:  "When Economic Incentives Backfire" by Samuel Bowles.  You can read this article in the March 2009 issue of HBR.

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.  

You Can't Make Me Do That

I ran across an article in The Harvard Business Review last week that I found very intriguing.  The article was written by Dr. Samuel Bowles. 
 
Dr. Bowles is an Economics Professor at the University of Siena and he specializes in the study of how economic issues affect human behavior.  While the financial information is interesting (especially in today’s economic environment), what struck me was the human behavior side of his research.

Dr. Bowles sited two examples where incentives were supposed to produce a desired result, but backfired.  The first example concerned asking people to donate blood.  An English social researcher, Richard Titmuss, first hypothesized in the 1950's that if you offer to pay someone to give blood, the blood supply would be significantly reduced.

At the time, people thought he was crazy, but the research later proved him correct.  Studies have since shown that offering to pay people to give blood, in fact, decreases the number willing to donate by almost half.  In follow-up studies, the same clinics allowed the blood donors to contribute the payment to charity, and the trend was then reversed.

The lesson here is that motivation is a tricky thing to tap.  If you’re a manager or responsible for coaching someone, it is important to learn what motivates people.  What seems intuitive on the surface may not produce the anticipated result.

For this specific case, there is an underlying principle that explains this behavior.  Rather than give you the answer (which I learned by reading the HBR article), I thought I’d give you the opportunity to ponder the puzzle on your own... 

Tomorrow, I'll elaborate with a similar example and connect the dots.

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.