Over the weekend I was at a show where large volumes of small items are sold. On one particular stand a lady was browsing the shelves pulling a large trolley bag with the top open. The stall holder accosted her and said, ‘I just wanted to say that because you have that bag open like that, every stall holder will be watching you like a hawk’. The lady thanked her and promptly closed the bag.
 
Observing this I was struck by the interaction. The stall holder did not accuse her of being a thief but achieved her aim of getting the bag less accessible with no unpleasant accusations or a scene. This was done by using a form of words that was not confrontational, that implied she had the customers interests at heart, that gave the customer the benefit of the doubt, that allowed the customer to retain her dignity and that assumed the best of the customer.
 
It struck me that these principles are a helpful formula when trying to address a sensitive or difficult issue. When trying to decide what and how to say something it can be hard to find the right form of words, so people often say nothing at all. Yet the communication approach can become clearer if you use a respectful tone and assume:
 

• The issue is an oversight and unintended
• The person is fundamentally good and doing their best
• You are giving the information for their benefit
• A stance that helps them preserve their dignity

 
Think of a recent example where you wanted to say something but were silenced by a fear of the potential reaction.

• If you adopted the assumptions above, what could you have said?
• How can these ideas help you address difficult conversations?

My husband was an avid player of cricket until age and broken bones persuaded him to retire from the pitch and take up scoring. That was until last week, when a shortage of players led to a plea to get him back on the field. He was overwhelmed by a sense of duty to the team but was concerned about the precedent it would set. I therefore asked him, if he agreed to play, what caveats he would set. He looked confused, and said, ‘If I play, I play?’
Yet setting no boundaries when under duress to play would very clearly lead to future requests. Surely better to set some boundaries to the expectation about where you might field or where you are prepared to bat in the order? At least if some caveats are outlined everyone knows the limitation of any future contribution and the precedent is contained.
 
A similar thing happens when someone is ‘acting up’ into a job or on probation for a new role. The person can be reluctant to set boundaries to what is expected of them because they feel under pressure to fulfill the expectation, no matter how extreme that expectation might turn out to be. I have seen someone be driven to resignation from a post because the expectations were unachievable, and they felt unable to set clear boundaries. While there is always a transition period and a challenging time when new and old roles run in parallel, it is vital that you set and deal with boundary issues early. Otherwise you end up feeling a sense of resentment and that you are being taken advantage of, and this is rarely a formula for role success. The saying goes ‘you get what you accept’.
 
Setting of boundaries need not be a negative conversation, it can take the form of a;
 

• request for priorities e.g. In order to achieve x which of y or z will is lowest priority?
• statement of what IS possible, rather than what is NOT e.g. ‘of those 3 tasks I can complete x and y by Friday, when would you like to reschedule z to?

 
Just beware of others either testing or playing power games. Investigate requests and find out what makes them important, and set clear boundaries for anything you feel is unethical or inappropriate. 
 
When have you failed to set boundaries and regretted it?
What did you learn from that experience?
Where do you need to set boundaries in your life now?

This week in the UK, Wimbledon has dominated the media, with a great deal of time devoted to Nick Kyrgios and his ungracious response after his tennis match with Nadal. For those of you who have no idea what this refers to, Nick attempted to hit Nadal with a ball and felt it was unnecessary to apologise because Nadal has a large number of trophies and ‘zillions in the bank’. No hint of jealously there!
 
Yet most agree that Kyrgios has the talent to be No. 1 if he showed the same dedication to his sport. But Kyrgios is at pains to explain that he likes a drink and cannot always be bothered to turn up to practice. Many interpret this as laziness or lack of commitment yet it provides a very easy excuse as to why he is NOT No. 1. For many it is easier to accept a failure that results from deciding not to take part, than to accept a failure that might result from inadequacy. At the moment he can enjoy the star status that he could be ‘the best’, but he cannot seem to engage with the work that would take him there. A psychologist might say that he fears not being able to reach the top and thus engages in this self-sabotage, rather than it being due to disinterest.
 
I am not in a position to know which explanation might be closer to the mark but it does highlight a pattern we see in many potential stars in organisations too. Those who fail to try to reach the top-flight not because they are not able, but because they cannot stand the thought of weaknesses being exposed and losing their reputation on the journey. The high performer who does not apply for the next promotion because of ‘family commitment’ or the young superstar who says he really can’t leave his current department to work on that high-profile project. Both might be trying to maintain their current star status, rather than risk potentially losing it.
 
The key for such situations is to understand what might be happening and to face the discomfort that the next level brings. Growth into new areas always brings the possibility of failure at that next level, but until you try, you will never know.
 
Who do you know that might fear failure so much that they fail to try at all?
What does that person need to understand and appreciate?
What do they need from you?

​Over the past month there has been a consistent theme within the media that may have lessons for leaders in organizations; this theme revolves around our frequent failure to engage with others, especially those we feel may have different views to our own. We have the ability to ‘mute’ people we do not want to hear from and many now travel and sit at their desks plugged into their earphones rather than the surrounding activity. The individuals effectively sanction everything they hear. While many say this helps them concentrate, or that they do not want to engage with others, we have learnt this week that it is actually beneficial to well-being to engage with random strangers in conversation. This has resulted in the rail network offering a ‘chat carriage’ (carriage C, in case you are interested) to facilitate connections between willing parties.
 
Many years ago, when leading a large team I took to selecting a random empty desk every day as my work station, I was astonished at how much I learned: How many times I heard my team being coerced into work not on the schedule, how much new information I gathered and how many process improvements it led to.
 
Listening and engaging with a diverse population adds knowledge, richness and perspective in any role. Once we listen to only one voice, there is no challenge and a danger that we all develop more and more extreme views that leads to increased polarization. This is exactly the situation we face as our media consumption is increasingly driven by algorithms that seem to offer us ‘more of the same’. We risk a world where we all camp in our silos, convinced that we are right, and never opening the door to new ideas or opinions that could help us move forward.  
 
When do you effectively ‘mute’ others, even if you are physically present and pretending to listen?
Who do you need to engage with to get a different perspective?
How can you open opportunities to more knowledge and information from others?
 
 

​Who are you? If I asked you that question, how would you answer it? For many of us this question would be answered in terms of the roles we fulfil (mother, manager, artist, runner, public servant) but as soon as we identify ourselves as part of one ‘group’ this immediately creates divisions with the ‘out-group’. The drive to advance the position of minority groups has led to an increase in identity labelling by criteria such as sexuality, gender or culture. It has been reported that this can reduce the level of empathy between individuals of different groups. This was neatly highlighted by an experiment to assess the impact of group identification on altruistic behavior. At a football match, arriving fans were told that researchers were studying either ‘Liverpool fans’ (A) or ‘all football fans’ (B). However, on the way into the ground, fans encountered another supporter in need of assistance. If that person was from the opposing team the studied fans were more likely to offer help if on arriving they were assigned an identity of ‘football fan’ (B) rather than ‘Liverpool fan’ (A). They had mentally identified the person in need of help as part of their ‘football fan’ group and therefore felt a stronger empathetic bond to help than they did when they labelled the person in need of help as an ‘opposition fan’.
 
How we define ourselves influences not only our views and how we feel but also our behavior. This is also true in the workplace. Are you part of the SMT, or not? Are you ‘Sales’ or ‘IT’ first and an organizational employee second? Were you part of the ‘original organisation’ rather than the merged one? How do you identify the team you manage or work with? Consider the terms you use, the identity labels and how these might influence people’s ability to collaborate effectively. Many of these ‘identity’ groups may be sub-conscious and so much taken-for-granted that we are not even aware of them
 
What identity do you use when referring to or thinking about your own work group?
How might your labels and identity designation be influencing your own behaviours and opinions?
What needs to happen for you to become more aware of the potential impacts?

This week saw the legendary Tiger Woods win the US Masters golf tournament at Augusta, 11 years after his last major win. For those who are unaware, Tiger Woods was a child golfing prodigy, winning his first US Masters at the record age of 21 who went on to be the top golfer in the world for many years. Yet despite this success, his life has been plagued with infidelity, broken relationships, injury and car accidents that have raised a suspicion of potential drug or alcohol misuse. Yet on Sunday evening he was rapturously applauded by the audience and commentators alike as he strode to victory. It was interesting that despite all the bad press and his sometimes rather serious demeanour that he maintains a loyal and devoted following.
 
I think his story has some useful lessons for leaders. Firstly, that persistence and dedication can pay dividends. Despite all the injuries that could have ended his career he continued to strive to succeed, with no guarantee of future success. He realised he had to be in the game to even have a chance of regaining his position. He could so easily have retreated into oblivion and enjoyed his millionaire lifestyle.  Secondly, he was prepared to fail many times, before achieving that renewed success. He was pilloried in the press and demonised as the villain, yet he was prepared to face into those failures. Not an easy task for someone who had been at the top for so long. While he took a step back into the shadows and could easily have stayed there, he chose to face up to his critics with courage and endure life in the middle rankings. Lastly, he has been very public in his admission of fault, often apologising for transgressions: Demonstrating some humility and an acceptance of his own responsibility. These I think are some of the key reasons why he has maintained public support and has managed to turn around the misfortune of the past few years.  
 
Where do you need to demonstrate persistence in the face of difficulty?
When do you need to engage courage and face into potential failure?
When might you need to admit your own failings and apologise gracefully?

This month I have been intrigued by the story that certain famous US stars have made large and fraudulent payments to get their children into top US universities. While parents wanting the best education for their children is not a new concept, what is interesting here is that at least one of these children had no desire to go to university and has a very significant on-line following with a beauty vlog. So much so, that she may need to skip part of the university term in order to go on a sponsored film shoot in Fiji.
 
It seems that the parents are still working to an old rule set that seems to equate success with the reputable university brand. Yet here we have a highly successful entrepreneur who certainly does not need university to achieve success.
 
This made me think about how managers often approach the younger generations in the world of work. Do they expect them to operate and work to the paradigms they themselves grew up with? Are they applying outdated thinking rather than leveraging their knowledge and abilities in new arenas? Many managers I work with complain about the younger generation, how they are addicted to their phones, their relaxed approach to work vs play and their desire to ‘run before they can walk’. Yet may-be it is us who needs to look at the work processes and paradigms we are operating and judging them by. Are we still trying to push them down the ‘top university’ pathway rather than assessing ways to leverage their skills more effectively to achieve success?
 
How can you ensure that you do not use old paradigms in judging performance and managing others?
When do you need to be open to reassess your definition of success?
How can you leverage the strengths of employees with different ways of working?
​

This month I collected a new contact lens but it was causing me some issues so I took it back and explained it was not comfortable. The lady proceeded to tell me all the things I needed to allow for, and try. Having worn contacts for over 30 years I was aware and had already tried everything she mentioned and found myself getting more and more irritated. The subtext was that she felt herself to be the expert while I was the novice.
 
This is a classic example of how our own knowledge and experience can cause us to go into ‘tell’ mode before we find out what the other person already knows. This leads to irritation, a fall in engagement and a lack of listening. Had she started with ‘What have you already tried?’ it might have been a shorter and more fruitful conversation.
 
Most people come to a conversation believing they have some expertise and wanting both choice and autonomy over the conversation. Even if we believe we have knowledge to share it can be more helpful to start from a position of respect and partnership. This is especially the case with younger or inexperienced staff. Even when you are asked for advice, try to use the following sequence:
​
WHAT do you know already about XXXXXX?
WOULD you like me to tell you what I know?
WHY this activity is important. (implications, consequences, potential issues that can arise)
WHAT questions do you have?
 
When do you tend to go into ‘tell’ mode?
When can you try this approach?
What might get in the way?
 
 
 

As we start 2019 many will resolve to change in some way or do something differently. But change needs more than just a resolution.
We recently had a smart-meter fitted to track our electricity usage which the radio advert reliably informs me will ‘reduce energy use’. But it won’t do that on its own! I need to do a number of things. Firstly, I need to Notice it is there and what it is telling me. If I ignore the feedback it gives me, I am no further forward. Once I notice when it changes and the readings it gives, I need to Evaluate them. It moves from green to amber when the kettle is on, but I think I will still have that cup of tea! Lastly, I need to Do something with the information it gives me. Since it moves into red when the tumble dryer is on, I might opt to hang my washing out on a sunny day.

Any change we try to make needs the same three step process. Firstly, you need to notice what is currently happening, get feedback, track your own reactions, behaviours and emotions. Secondly, evaluate the information. If people say you can be assertive is that something you want to change, or actually justified and necessary. There may be times you want to demonstrate emotion, and other times it is not appropriate. The awareness gives you options to make decisions. The decision is then what you want to do about it. If you want to effect change, you need to do something different. Just as my smart meter will not reduce my energy use, a resolution will change nothing. Notice, Evaluate and Do something about it.
 
What do you need to take Notice of in order to change?
What does your Evaluation tell you about what is needed?
What do you need to DO as a result of your evaluation to effect a change?

 

​This week I attended our local church for what was billed as a ‘non-religious gathering’ of the community to celebrate Christmas with mulled wine and mince pies. The venue was chosen for its ability to house the large numbers and to help raise money to maintain the fabric of the historic Norman building. Yet despite the non-religious focus and no religious person hosting, we proceeded to sing carols that invariably included references to God and religion. It struck me how incongruent this was, but our traditions and habits make such inconsistency invisible and accepted.
​
This inconsistency is seen in leadership and the business context too. I might be coaching a manager who want the team to grow and take more responsibility but continues to exert control and makes unilateral decisions as they have always done. Many will say they have no time but still fail to hold boundaries and say no to tasks. I have seen leaders who promote honesty and integrity as corporate values, yet will withhold sensitive information from staff or customers when they feel this might have negative consequences. I see organisations who explain that ‘we are all in it together’ but this does not seem to extend to the bonus pot!
Most of us are unaware of our own inconsistencies and need another person to help highlight these blind spots. A useful coaching type challenge is simply to highlight these inconsistencies from a curious mindset. By pointing out the potential tensions, it raises the issue into conscious thought for analysis and evaluation. The person may still decide to do what they have always done but can at least assess how those inconsistencies might be seen by others and what impact they may be having.
 
What inconsistent messages might you be sending?
Who can help you become more aware of your potential inconsistencies?
How can you help others to learn from their inconsistent choices, actions and behaviours?