I’m finding that I’m bumping into more and more people who have, or have had, Depression. The more I talk about it, the more people are owning up to having experienced serious challenges in the past, of trying to live happily. When I review the professional research, its an epidemic in our society - mostly undiscussed between friends and family.

Hence this blog - what am I in favour of? - people talking openly about depression.

I have friends on medication, people in sporting teams having big ups and big downs, I’ve recently learned about family having experienced it.

And its not just the occasional sad day or pessimism.

So what is Depression?
It can be complex to describe, so let me oversimplify it for my purpose here. It can include feeling extremely low for at least two weeks, where you lose interest in the things you used to enjoy, and potentially suffer other symptoms like not being able to sleep, or eat, losing weight, and feeling worthless. Your memory may suffer, or decisions become crazily hard to make, a focus on the negatives, lack of exercise or willingness to engage with others.
One of the frustrating aspects of this is that people “know” they have many positives, but they just don’t seem to matter. They can see the faults in thinking, but feel helpless anyway.
And this can make things worse - “I’m no good - which I know is wrong - but I still feel no good - so I must be really, really no good”.

How do we fix this? Some people have no ability to help themselves, and don’t try. Others try too hard and fail, and fail, and fail. In these latter cases, our job is to demotivate them. They can be too ambitious. It can be hard for the depressed people to accept this, but the ability to manage themselves has gone (temporarily), and they need to accept baby-sized goals to get themselves going again, and to be patient.

As a way of finishing this quick review, and this blog of support for talking openly about depression, one summary point is that people aren’t so afraid of depression itself, it is lifelong depression that scares them.
If I offer you a pill that will give you depression for a day, after which you will be cured of depression…., would you take it?
Most people say yes.
Depression itself is ok, its permanent depression - the lack of control that messes with us.

So if you know someone with depression, support them. Go to beyondblue. If you have any questions, if you think you might be depressed and want to check it out, add a comment here and I will answer you.

Since our newsletters a few people have commented that they found trust an unusual thing to write about, in terms of business. For them, who are not naive, its hard to go after trust directly. You can ask “are you trustworthy?” but the answer is always yes, and therefore meaningless. Defeated by this difficulty, it fades into the background.

Maybe what is needed are some practical steps for implementing trust. How do you convert a feeling, a personal judgment, into practical business steps.

The following is a summary of the ongoing discussion.
As an example to work through, let’s say that you buy a project (of any description) for $100,000, to be delivered in 6 months. How would you manage the delivery of your supplier to you? Would you:

The answer to this question is… another question…. “what are the consequences of non-delivery?”
Let’s say the answer is ‘disaster’.

You might ask, “but how were we to know?” They looked reputable etc etc.
Unfortunately this answer means you are accepting a third party reference on your supplier, you are accepting other peoples’ opinions on projects that may or may not be similar to this one.

The challenge here is to build up your own experience of the supplier on this project. Your aim is to test the supplier to deliver on small commitments regularly.

The first two steps here are ‘past tense’ - little trust required because the steps are small and regular, and not too much can go wrong before you come across it, and fix it if needed.
Its the third step where trust begins, when you start predicting. The good news here is that you are now using your own experience to make this prediction, which gives you more confidence.
If they fail these small tests, then you monitor closely. If they do everything well, then you can relax the monitoring.

What are these ’small tests’?
We monitor their communication (oral, written, and is it complete?), their attendance at meetings (do they always show up, or postpone, and why?), timeliness, negotiation style (passive/ aggressive/ assertive), optimism/pessimism, urgency, and so on.
Any one of these may be no cause for alarm, but a combination could and should make you curious.

A big example is how well business partners communicate - if they are open, transparent, always accurate. For example, the current financial crisis (Oct 2008) has occurred because companies have hidden the weaknesses in their investment strategies. (There is no legal obligation to be so detailed). They have not been as open as they could be (they knew, but didn’t say), so now we have a massive confidence crisis, because we don’t know what else they are not telling us.
No-one can predict, because the information has been unreliable, and it will be a long time before we regard them as consistent. So recovery will be slow.

So, back to our 6 month/$100,000 project…
You’re objections to this approach of interacting closely may be:

Another perspective is to actively build the relationship.

I hope this helps…

I recently attended a seminar about Slavery, run by Catalyst and found it both interesting, alarming, and saddening.
What am I against? …. slavery!
I thought we left this all behind us, but no, its just changed its colours.

Click on the powerpoint slavery-overview (9 slides), and you will find a high level coverage of the issues, and suggestions for action.
It has implications for how we might manage the highest ideals of our lives, and it also brings it to a level where our day to day actions can contribute to solutions. This even includes for example, how we do our shopping - what brands we buy and why, and why not.

There are many global problems that seem mind-boggling, unfixable in the short term. But with accumulated voices, we can slowly change things for the better. As Bill Gates once said,
“people over-estimate what they can achieve in the short term, and underestimate what they can achieve in the long term.”

What I’m hoping for, by writing to you - is that you visit the Catalyst site, or read the powerpoint summary. And think about… “what is one idea you agree with”.
For me, this small achievement would be a good first step.

Can’t buy me love? Can’t buy me trust? If I have to buy it, I would rather not have it.
But if you’re doing business, there is no question about it – you cannot not trust.
You must trust - or do everything yourself.
A better question is - how much will I pay for trust?
And what risk will I accept when trusting others? Unskilled negotiators target price so exclusively that they fail to make trust a negotiable item…
_____________________________________
Let’s start at the beginning…
When negotiating trust, we are really negotiating mistrust. What’s the difference?
Trust assumes things will go well. Mistrust ensures things will not go wrong. Skilled negotiators manage mistrust.

Does this sound cynical or mean-spirited? We would like to trust. It sounds like a good thing - positive relationships, pure like love, it’s quicker, less combative. But like love, we know that broken trust can end in tears – so much so that we wish we’d never begun.
It’s this sting in the tail – the consequences of failure – the financial, emotional and relational scarring - that makes us cautious in the beginning.

Trust is often thought of as competence (ability), character (integrity) and credibility (track record). Trust sounds like an emotional issue, but it is very practical:
• can they / can’t they? (skills/knowledge)
• will they / won’t they? (how much monitoring is necessary?)
• alert to obstacles or not? (learned by experience)
• solo or team player? (collaborates or not)

With some clients, we will choose not to do business with them. We may forego a profitable agreement because the road to get there looks too dangerous and the risk of failure too high…mistrust.
For the clients we do engage, we make decisions about how much to trust them. Skilled negotiators manage the steps to trust, making them part of what is agreed at the negotiation table. Unskilled negotiators ignore these steps, believing that face-value trust is enough.

So, what are the steps to trust?
For trust to grow, or mistrust to shrink, smaller steps (many of them) must be made and completed - mini-achievements, repeated often, that demonstrate consistency, and that are so consistent, we are confident to make a (small) leap of faith and say “predictable”.

These steps vary in size, in proportion with the overall gain/loss. That is, as trust is being developed, the greater the gain/loss, the more important are the steps and the time invested in monitoring them. The smaller the gain/loss, interim steps matter less, and the less time and effort is dedicated to monitoring them.
Takeaways - consider:
1. The size/value of the agreement: for big ones, build in plenty
of steps that allow you to see each other at work along the
way – to assess character, competence and credibility. This
allows you to intervene early if things are not going well, and
gives substance to the celebrations when you succeed.
2. The relationship history: how well do you know them? The
better you know them, the less monitoring you have to put in
place.
3. The relationship future: the prospect of future agreements is a
natural influence to promote reliable conduct. One-off
agreements leave one party, or the other, vulnerable to
a “snatch and grab” tactic. Build in steps to let them know
you are watching.
4. The market: the more volatile, the more steps / milestones are
needed in order to share experiences and constantly re-assess
risk together.

What would you do in this situation?
An experienced, older technician with a long record of success begins to perform poorly: sloppy work, disinterested attitude. You have had several discussions with little improvement. What would you do?
Trust him to resolve his own issues? Keep sending her to clients while hoping nothing goes wrong? Or would you take strong disciplinary action, and risk losing them, or risk showing disrespect by telling them exactly what to do? Tough leadership is not very trusting is it?…
______________________
Must we always trust others? In leadership, trust has many names: delegation, empowerment, teamwork. Philosophically, we like the idea of trusting people, but trusting successfully is harder than it sounds.

Leaders who do not trust tend towards two extremes – micro-managing or hoping. At one extreme, they stand over someone’s shoulder and watch them do every small step. Or, they simply handover complete control and cross their fingers (“come back to me when it’s done”). Either way, they may not be using their interpersonal brain.

What managers do least effectively is assessing others and reacting to what they see. Without assessment through observation, effective questioning and listening, managers operate based on habit or urgency.
In our ‘experienced technician’ example, we are challenged to see a familiar employee in a new light – underperformance. People and circumstances do change, but managers who fail to assess regularly do not change.

In this situation, there are many good reasons for doing nothing – for hoping.
You might say to yourself: “the current problem is temporary - a lapse”; “by the time I deal with it, I will blow it out of proportion”; “the problem is not that serious anyway”. Too much trust?

We could justify taking sharp action – “failure cannot be tolerated”; “we cannot play favourites no matter how loyal”; “standards must be maintained”. So we reprimand, then micromanage, or get someone else to do it, or even do it ourselves. No trust?

Either way, the employee involved is likely to lose. They will fail by drowning (too much expectation), or fail by suffocation (not enough air / independence).

Trust, handled well, strengthens. Trust used poorly, weakens.

So, what should we do with this technician?
Let’s review our assessment:
• skilled, but failing - more training won’t help.
• experienced, but failing - a pep talk, or glossy, motivational
hype won’t help (for long).
• communicating, but not getting to the heart of the matter –
no change.
I have spoken with many managers on this issue, and the less assertive ones often take the position of the employee. They believe they cannot make life more difficult by being tough. It would only build resentment and make things worse.

What these less assertive managers do not consider is that employees rarely take the perspective of the manager. They have little trouble with making life difficult for the manager.
If the employee keeps failing, who will receive the complaint? Who will be challenged about how this situation was managed? Where is the employee’s effort to support the manager? Doesn’t the manager deserve this too?

Problems are usually two-way, which is why developing trust through deeper conversations are needed. Through conversation, ask open questions to encourage them to explain what is behind the change in their performance. And listen to the answers.

The more open and willing they are to share, the easier it will be to make a good assessment, which can lead to solutions that both of you can accept.
The more closed and unwilling to share, the less trust is possible, and greater micro-management is necessary. You cannot fix it, if you do not understand it. And employees must accept the consequences of staying silent.

Takeaways:
• leadership style is about how you spend your time – spend
more time with people, give the computer screen and reports
a rest more often.
• ask more open questions – “what? / how?”; “what? / how?”
• then listen

We all know this is nothing new. Most people have the skills.
It is the willingness, the courage, the discipline to stop talking and make your own mind quiet long enough to hear what the other person is really saying - beyond their initial comments.

And if this type of communication is not your normal practice, make listening a normal style, now, before things go wrong. It is unconvincing to suddenly be the listener in a crisis.

We earn trust!

In summary, scapegoating and hero-worshipping are superficial. How do we get beyond that, and what is the benefit?

Most companies have adopted a list of behaviours (competencies) that describe the range of leadership behaviours needed in order to succeed. Usually they include: communication, business acumen, manages change, customer service, developing the skills of others, global mindset, decision-making, teamwork, and so on. This is what we look for.

How we conduct the assessment then is a much bigger question. How do we conduct a fair and well-balanced assessment of a leader?

Well, so far we know that scape-goating and hero-worshipping are poorly conducted assessments. This is obvious I suppose, but still very common.
In politics and at executive level, results are the only things that matter. If someone has reached that level of influence / seniority, then they should be expert leaders, right?

The problem is that even at the heady heights of the boardroom, succession planning and talent management discussions are frequently conducted poorly. The quality of the discussion is light, visible evidence is limited, time is pressured, and under these conditions, we end up with these dreadful sterotypes, labels and of course - politics!

How do you conduct a good assessment discussion.

Our discussion so far is that leaders may receive too much credit and too much blame for outcomes… that hero-worshipping and scapegoating means people justify their opinions about leaders often with superficial explanations.

They assess leaders too simplistically - who they like and who delivers results - who makes us feel confident. This way is simple, allows us to use gut feel, and we can disengage quickly if things aren’t going well.

What remains unstated is the criteria for “what makes us feel confident”. Hence when we discuss leadership, it can be a very confusing discussion - so much criteria undiscussed, evidence from multiple perspectives, and so on.

Here are some reasons why hero-worshipping and scapegoating are preferred:
* Playing politics only leads to arguments. Objective answers may challenge our confidence and create conflict with others. Better to avoid contentious topics and maintain harmony. “How do I feel?” is a much easier question to answer.
* Clear answers are difficult to find. Failure to reach a conclusion only diminishes confidence.
* Even if we reached agreement on the above, (some would say) we’re helpless anyway. Why think about things we can’t change?
* To think deeply has an opportunity cost on our time - it takes time to stop and think - it interferes with our fast lifestyle. It also challenges our energy cycles to stop and think - to change a busy momentum and slow down. It affects our breathing, our emotions, our values.
* If we want to change leaders, we need simple messages and reasons. Keep it simple.

So, if we could find a quick, objective formula to use, what would it be? What characteristics should we judge on?

that’s for next week…

A CEO resigns or is sacked by the Board because the share price fell. Fair or unfair?
Another company struggles to perform, but the CEO is safe because the market is ’soft’.

A Football team underperforms - finishes too low on the table, and the Coach resigns or is sacked by the Club. Fair or unfair?
Another team finishes low on the table, but the Coach remains safe from dismissal, because the Club is ‘rebuilding’.

These scenarios describe ‘attributions’ - or explanations for why and how things happened. Making the leader the primary influencer of results is very easy - they are an easy target.

Through executive coaching, we know that of the 4 learning styles (reflecting, theorising, practising, doing), reflecting is the least used, most neglected.
We don’t spend energy looking beyond the simplistic attributions, and in many market situations, its very difficult to get the public to look beyond them either. So the leader is easy to either hero worship or demonise / blame.

The Romance of Leadership challenges the automatic reflex to attach all causes to the leader.
When you assess your own leadership, what do you take credit or blame for? what do you blame circumstances for?

Stay tuned…

James Meindl died suddenly in 2004 and left behind a legacy of academic research in relation to what he called “the romance of leadership”. This romance attributes success to leaders’ efforts when there may be other factors that contribute to any success. For example, for any company to succeed they need good products, good procedures, loyal clients, good employees, and on and on.

A leader cannot directly control all of these things.
Continue reading →

Welcome to the Skillbiz blogs.

My intention in providing these blogs is to provide insight into familiar challenges that companies face in leading their people. I want to inform these challenges with recent research and also with anecdotal feedback I receive through my consulting.
Continue reading →