How Behaviors and Drivers Influenced the Greatest Songwriting Team in History

In our previous blog entitled, How Lennon and McCartney Used Collaboration and Competition to Create Genius, we looked at how John Lennon and Paul McCartney used their opposing behavior styles to work brilliantly together. John and Paul, along with a little help from their friends George and Ringo, changed the world in their eight years as a popular music powerhouse. Taking a closer look at the power duo’s behaviors and drivers, John and Paul couldn’t have been more opposite. How did they make it work and change the music world as we know it?

Defining behaviors and drivers

In the realm of behaviors as measured by DISC, Paul is a classic S/C. He was slower-paced compared to John and his priority was the proper execution of his tasks. While friendly and good with people, Paul would probably have preferred to work in the studio than have a press conference. However, he clearly understood the value the press provided for the band and was willing to accommodate. Paul was very systematic when it came to making music and he could also be possessive of his musical ideas. Paul was comfortable when things were status-quo. When something came in to affect the status-quo, such as Yoko Ono’s presence in the studio, it made Paul very uncomfortable.

John was the epitome of a high-D, low-S/C, driven to accomplish much, but always in a hurry to finish whatever it was so he could move to the next thing. Definitely lacking patience, John wanted everything to be done as quickly as possible. John never cared much for rules and followed only those rules that seemed to suit him. He was charismatic and people were always drawn to him, which is indicative of someone possessing at least a relatively high-I. Comparing the behavior of John and Paul, they were mostly opposites.

From a driver’s perspective, John was constantly being driven by new ideas and ways of doing things. Paul was much more set in his way, having very specific ideas for how he liked to do things. Paul wanted to learn as much about music as he could while John learned mostly what was necessary for the project he was working on at the time. Paul always worked purposefully and knew exactly what he needed from others to accomplish his goals, which were always driven around increasing the stature of the band.

Both men enjoyed the spotlight, but Paul would defer to John on occasion, such as when standing on the Ed Sullivan stage after their performance, when there was only room for one Beatle on the higher platform. Other times, John would step back and let Paul have his moment, usually to the delight of the screaming girls in the front row. They realized they each brought their own value to their audience, to the overall benefit of the band, so they adapted their behaviors accordingly and willingly shared the spotlight.

Switching roles

As the decade progressed and The Beatles continued to define the music of the generation, John and Paul continued to answer each other through music. When John penned the politically-fueled Revolution, Paul answered with his own social commentary in his ballad, Blackbird.

For a new challenge, the two occasionally spent time reversing roles. John was known for his rockers and Paul for his ballads. However, toward the end of the union, Paul penned the very raucous, Helter Skelter, while John countered with the touching soft ballad, Julia, a tribute to his deceased mother.

What it all means

Most people will argue that Lennon and McCartney were more successful together than as solo artists, and rightfully so. Together, the two created a force that far surpassed what they could, and did, accomplish individually. With a unique balance of collaboration and competition, the two pushed each other to continuously raise the bar and exceed even their own expectations.

While Paul may have been the band’s unofficial “musical director,” he and John took turns running the show. Early on, John and Paul may have deferred to the mastery of their experienced producer George Martin. As time went on, they took turns calling the shots for various album sessions. Paul was widely known to have controlled the majority of the Sgt. Pepper sessions while John reasserted his leadership during the tumultuous White Album sessions. Both albums are considered brilliant by critics and fans alike.

As a unit, The Beatles seemed to have a natural ability to channel the exact behaviors and drivers needed when they were needed. When John lost focus, Paul took control. When Paul began to lose interest, John took control back. Finally when conflict between John and Paul was making it difficult to accomplish anything together, George Harrison stepped out of the shadows, asserted control and delivered some of the bands most iconic songs as showcased by their epic masterpiece, Abbey Road.

There was a perpetual give and take, push and pull, that made The Beatles work. John and Paul were clearly each other’s yin and yang. The complementary behaviors and drivers closed all the gaps and filled all the holes, making The Beatles an unmatched force in the music scene, something the world hasn’t seen since.

Note: This article originally appeared on TTI Success Insights and was republished with permission.

How Lennon and McCartney Used Collaboration and Competition to Create Genius

John Lennon and Paul McCartney, it can be argued, formed the greatest songwriting partnership in the history of recorded music. The Beatles changed the world in their eight years as a popular music powerhouse. On the surface, the two may seem like two peas in a pod. In reality, John and Paul couldn’t have been more opposite, when viewed from a behavior and driver perspective.

As the staff writer for an assessment solutions company, I am intrigued to study how different behavioral styles and motivators can work together to create greatness. And who better to study than the brains behind arguably the greatest band of all-time?

While George Harrison and Ringo Starr certainly contributed to the group (especially in the later years), it was McCartney and Lennon that did the majority of the songwriting and were the engine that powered The Beatles music machine.

After being inspired by reading a thought-provoking article about the differing personalities of the two lead Beatles, I was motivated to compare and contrast Lennon and McCartney from a perspective of behaviors. The article is entitled The Power of Two, written by Joshua Wolf Shenk of The Atlantic, a great read for anyone who considers themselves a fan of The Beatles.

Proving that opposites certainly do attract – and have the ability to work fantastically together – comparing the behaviors of these two musical geniuses and the drivers behind those behaviors sheds insight on how their individual opposing forces were often the fuel that brought out the greatness in both men’s songwriting.

Behaviors form early

While John was just twenty months older than Paul, the age gap was significant enough to position John as somewhat of an “alpha dog” during the two boys’ formative teenage years. John was 100% rebel, moving to the beat of his own drum from the very beginning. John lived in the moment and did as he pleased, without much care or concern for future repercussions.

Paul, on the other hand, was a proper and polite young gentleman, well-schooled and respectful. Paul came from a loving family, while John was raised by a strict aunt who cared for him after his father left and his mother decided she wasn’t cut out for the job. While John’s aunt had his best interests at heart, her style of parenting left John more resentful than appreciative.

When the two boys met sometime around 1957, a magnetic pull occurred instantly. John was the rebellious older boy that did as he pleased, which appealed to the well-behaved Paul. Conversely, Paul’s musical ability was equal, or even superior, to John’s. Paul’s ability to be able to keep up with and push John appealed to his competitive nature. John, whether he’d openly admit or not, was somewhat envious of Paul’s stable household while Paul often wondered what it would be like to break some rules once in awhile.

Competition vs. collaboration

The two were virtually inseparable from the time they met until the later years of The Beatles. They could often be seen with their guitars in hand, learning popular songs of the day or creating songs of their own. Both Liverpool lads had wildly-creative minds and ideas flowed like fountains from both of them. One would create a song idea and the other would have an equally compelling idea to complete the song. John and Paul thrived on collaboration, and what they accomplished together was leaps and bounds above what they would have seemingly accomplished individually. In this case, 1+1=3. There was John, there was Paul and there was a third force that was created when the two worked together.

Their collaborative genius can be seen in what many consider to be the Beatles greatest song, A Day In The Life, where both members came to the table with parts of incomplete songs. While vastly different in musical composition, the pair fused these parts together to create an epic masterpiece that defines their greatness. In writing the psychedelic Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, it is said that they “volleyed” lines back and forth, coming up with ideas with ease, creating the definition of a true collaboration.

Interestingly, competition also drove the pair. During the Beatles’ heyday, when everything the band wrote became a hit, they began to write significant parts of songs, or even entire songs, on their own. When John appeared in the studio one day with Strawberry Fields Forever, a melancholy reflection of his childhood, Paul immediately answered with Penny Lane; an interpretation of his childhood. Always trying to “one-up” each other, the pair kept raising the stakes on what it meant to write a great song. Because of this, the songs kept getting better all the time.

When they weren’t competing with each other, they were teaming up to compete against other rival bands. The Beach Boys were their main competition, battling The Beatles in the early and mid-60s for chart supremacy. When the Beach Boys’ Brian Wilson wrote his signature classic God Only Knows, Paul answered with his touching ballad Here, There and Everywhere.

The competition wasn’t confined to the music either. Shortly after Lennon broke the unwritten rules of bringing an outsider (Yoko Ono) into the studio, McCartney quickly followed suit introducing Linda Eastman. When Paul married Linda, John and Yoko also married, a mere eight days later.

Comparing behaviors

Paul was meticulous and organized; he was known for always carrying a notebook with him should inspiration hit him while he was on the move. Known for his neat handwriting, and equally smooth communication skills, Paul usually had a plan and a specific method for doing things. He was willing to put in the long hours to accomplish his goals. He’d see ideas through to completion and was known to be somewhat set in his ways.

John was the opposite of organized, scrambling to find scraps of paper to jot down unreadable notes when inspiration struck him. He didn’t have a set method for going about his tasks, he was open to go with the flow and enjoyed constantly trying new things. He liked to move quickly from song to song and project to project, having a high sense of urgency. If an idea of his morphed into something different than he originally imagined, he was open to the change. This was unlike Paul who would often take offense when someone would critique one of his ideas.

Being a natural communicator, and usually having a calculated purpose in mind, Paul was a perfect fit for the press. Always prepared, he was engaging and he gave them exactly what they were seeking. This made him a media darling. It also helped counteract John’s sometimes harsh, if not crude, approach with the same media members. John could get away with his rebellious attitude because of Paul’s opposite manner. Together, the two made it work.

John’s first wife Cynthia Lennon was known for saying “John needed Paul’s persistence and attention-to-detail while Paul needed John’s anarchic, lateral thinking.” They each had strengths and weaknesses and it seemed, in many regards, one’s strength was the other one’s weakness. That’s why things worked so well for John and Paul.

While the two did share many things in common, it seemed their opposing behaviors and drivers are what really propelled them to a place no band had ever reached previously.

Note: This article originally appeared on TTI Success Insights and was republished with permission.

Bohemian Rhapsody – The Contrasting Personalities of Queen

, , ,

With box office sales reaching $142 million in the US and almost $600 million worldwide, the movie Bohemian Rhapsody has captured the hearts and minds of movie goers everywhere. Based on the story of the British rock band Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody chronicles the nascent band from its early days playing clubs to its rise into megastardom.

Comprised of four superstar musicians, the band was unquestionably led by frontman and vocal virtuoso Freddie Mercury. Much like The Beatles did a decade earlier, Queen leveraged the unique personalities of each member to create a sound that changed the music landscape forever.

With millions of musicians in the world, what made Queen so special? Authenticity, emotion and energy is what set Queen apart from everyone else. Whether it’s the euphonic harmonies of the song Bohemian Rhapsody or the unparalleled energy the band delivered during their live concert performances, Queen was the true embodiment of emotion and energy, with a side of style and class.

Creating the band’s sound
Queen is a study in how disparate styles can come together to create something bigger than the sum of its parts. In many ways, the differences in the band were showcased in how Freddie’s style contrasted with the other three band members.

Freddie was a showman who clearly envisioned the big picture, imagining a song from its conception to its stage delivery. Incorporating classical music training into his songwriting, Mercury challenged the status quo of the rock world by delivering a sound that possessed elements of ballads, rock and opera.

Brian May’s musical palate was as vast as his intellect, spanning from classic hard rock such as “Hammer to Fall” to the softest of ballads found in the beautiful melodies of “Love of My Life.” Drummer/vocalist Roger Taylor liked to inject a little humor into his writing as is shown in the song “I’m In Love With My Car.” Bassist John Deacon was a frequent songwriting contributor, penning some of the band’s bigger hits including “You’re My Best Friend” and the unmistakably bass-driven “Another One Bites the Dust.”

 

Challenging the status quo
Often rejected by record company execs for not being commercial enough, songs like Bohemian Rhapsody redefined what commercial became. At the time the song was recorded, there were no six minute radio hits, no opera parts in rock and certainly no music videos.

Queen wanted to break free from what was previously considered “radio acceptable,” fully believing there was a market for their new brand of rock. They rightfully believed that if the public had a chance to experience the music, they would enjoy it.

For a song “certain to fail” according to record company execs, Bohemian Rhapsody became the third most popular song in the history of the British charts based on sales, having reached the #1 spot in two separate decades (on its release and upon Mercury’s death) and charting on the Billboard Hot 100 in an unheard of three different decades (70s, 90s, 10s).

Collaboration is king
It’s safe to say that Queen left an indelible mark on the music world. The bigger question is what propelled Queen to produce music that became so long lasting and impactful? A strong argument can be made that the unique personalities of the band members is what created the greatness.

While no one will doubt that Mercury was the band’s driving force, every member of the band was a contributing songwriter. The future astrophysicist May was the yin to Mercury’s yang, with Mercury’s soft melodies being sonically balanced by May’s raging power chords. When it came to songwriting, they were very collaborative, with different members taking the lead at different times, creating unique, memorable songs that spanned the musical gamut. When the band performed live, however, the three members of the rhythm section were willing to take on more of a supporting role role so that Mercury’s star could shine the brightest.Queen-Performing

History has seen many bands crash and burn with a dominant personality in the mix. However, May, Taylor and Deacon understood that letting Mercury take the lead on stage – and often in the studio too (i.e. Bohemian Rhapsody) – brought out the best from the vocalist. The band’s epic performance at Live Aid, considered by many to be the quintessential rock performance of all time, showed that the bigger the stage, the better the band performed.

As self-assured as Mercury was, it was what the others contributed that made Queen the powerhouse they were. The commercial failure of Mercury’s solo album, made without the help of his trusted bandmates, confirmed this point. It proved that even the most creative minds have their limitations and often it takes another voice or idea to elevate something from good to great.

What motivated Queen?
Queen believed in pushing the limits and creating a new definition of what was considered to be mainstream. The band understood that with their supreme songwriting and performing capabilities, they could accomplish just about anything. Freddie had a commanding personality, wanting to be the center of attention at all times. The spotlight energized him. The others were smart enough to realize that Mercury was a bonafide star and that letting him shine was very much to the band’s benefit.

John Deacon seemed to avoid the spotlight, instead preferring to be the foundation on which the songs were built. Slow and steady, Deacon’s bass lines were the glue that held everything together. Roger Taylor was a showy drummer and a good vocalist in his own right. While the press would regularly gravitate toward Mercury during interviews, Taylor would frequently chime in to remind the eager press that Queen, in fact, consisted of four equal members.

While Mercury attracted attention with his showmanship and stage acrobatics, May attracted attention with his style and guitar virtuosity. With a precise attention to detail, May performed like a master craftsman, creating both a style and a sound that was unlike any that came before or after him.

Wanting to be unique, May and his father Harold built an unconventionally-shaped guitar that became known as the Red Special. It produced a thick, bright sound which instantaneously conveyed the Queen sound. Playing with a Sixpence instead of a guitar pick, May created his unique, ear-piercing squeal that a traditional plastic pick could never produce. To say May was detail-oriented in his approach would be quite the understatement; he was nothing short of a guitar maestro.

The show must go on
The members of Queen had an insatiable appetite for songwriting and performing. Attention to the finest details is what set this band apart from other acts of the time that were more consumed with sex, drugs and everything else that came with the rock and roll lifestyle.

Queen was a supergroup before the term was even coined. Understanding that, through collaboration, they could achieve virtually anything they wanted to, the individual members sacrificed a certain level of personal fame and fortune in exchange for a lasting legacy for the band as a whole. They were a band in the truest sense of the word.

Note: This article originally appeared on TTI Success Insights and was republished with permission.

The Foundation of High Performance Teamwork: Trust

,
The Foundation of a High Performance Team: Trust
In our work with assisting teams move from groups if high performing individuals to high performance teams, we have have found that Trust is the foundation. When it is present then the other elements of a HPT can be developed, however when it is not then no matter how much you work you will never create a HPT.
The problem is that we all think we are trustworthy.
It’s true for you isn’t it? You are trustworthy. It’s those other people that are not. In fact, when we work with teams this is the lowest rated element in the HPT Assessment. How is that possible? One reason may be that although their are some universal truths about what we would all deem ‘untrustworthy’, ‘trust’ is not arrived at the same way for everyone. There are actually some words that will cause a person to NEVER trust you. The challenge is that those words are different depending who you are speaking to!
The good news is that there is a way of breaking the code. When working with a consistent team, you have the additional benefit of being able to observe people over time and determine what to do – especially when you perceive a relationship is going (or has gone) bad.
Breaking the code.
The first thing you must do to break the code is to recognize our own bias in the way that we judge others. That’s right. You’re biased. Not in an evil way – you just have a very specific way that you see the world. People that see the world much as you do will tend to get more of the benefit of the doubt from you, and those that do not – well you get the picture.
Understanding your own bias.
In order to understand your own bias, we need to take a quick test. Let’s say that someone you do not know very well is trying to convince you to trust them on a recommended course of action: Which of the following words would be cause you to raise your eyebrows and be less likely to move forward:
If they said:
  1. In my opinion…
  2. This is a sophisticated solution…
  3. We should play to win…
  4. This is a revolutionary way to proceed…
While none of the above may be very convincing to you, there are probably one or two that would turn you off more than the others. Those statements will be more likely used by individuals that you will have a bias against.
And the statements that you did not react as negatively to? These are the ways that we are more likely to utilize to attempt to convince others.
The bottom line is this: At a subconscious level do not trust people that use certain language patterns, and at the same time we utilize very specific language patterns when we trey to be persuasive.
In order to increase trust within a team, we need to be aware of the different ways that people interpret what we say. The good news is that this entire process is easy for a team to engage in.

The 4 Decisions you MUST Make to Create a High Performance Team

,

Having worked with thousands of individuals and hundreds of teams, you could say we have a fairly robust set of data to draw upon to identify what makes teamwork really click. Now, notice that I use the word ‘team’. There is a HUGE difference between a high performance team and group of high performance individuals.

The Challenge:

In today’s business world the demands on every member of the team continue to increase, even while resources to address those demands become more scarce. We often ask groups we are working with whether they believe their goals will decrease over the next 12 months. You can imagine that the vast majority of people openly laugh at even the thought that expectations will decrease. Expectations always increase. Resources decrease. So we are left with the old cliche: We have t to learn how to do more with less. But how do we make this happen?

The Pattern:

When we work with teams we almost always see a pattern emerge. As business demands increase, team members experience continuous stress and frustration with their inability to control their results. Since they are high performing individuals, they do what has always worked in the past: They work harder. Now, I know you have heard the expression “We need to work smarter – not harder”. Don’t you sort of want to slap people when they say that to you? Of course this does not stop us from offering this same advice to others as they struggle with the same challenge!

When we work with teams and conduct simulations of stressful situations in out 4 Faces of Frustration Process, we find that the ‘team’ almost never responds under stress as a ‘team’. They respond as a group of highly talented individuals. Now I am not in any way suggesting that we should not seek out the very best talent to be part of the team. Hiring and developing the best talent is key to achieving high performance teamwork, however it is insufficient to assure that you have a high performance team.

The Missing Ingredients:

So how do we move from a group of highly talented individuals to a truly high performance team? We have found that there are four essential ingredients necessary:

  1. Trust: While it may seem like a cliche, the truth is that many teams do not have an abundance of this foundational characteristic. In fact, there is a distinct lack of trust, which leads to a lack of:
  2. Constructive Conflict: When it comes to conflict, team members are often leary of conflict or far too comfortable with what they see as ‘constructive conflict’. In both cases dialogue shuts down within the team. Efforts to restart dialogue tend to create what we refer to as ‘surface agreement’, which leads ro a lack of:
  3. Commitment to Team Decisions: There is a big difference between team members going along with a decision, and actively supporting it. When team members do not engage in respectful constructive conflict team members do not really agree – they just ‘go along to get along’. When this happens there is no:
  4. Accountability: What we all want is a team that achieves results. In order to accomplish this team members must be willing to hold each other accountable to the results and activities agreed upon.

At The Oxley Group we are in the business of  creating individual and team coaching experiences that accelerate business performance.

In order to help you on this journey, we offer you a complimentary webinar that will help you pinpoint the exact pain points that you must address to become a truly high performance team!

 

The Four Faces of Frustration Process

Register now for the Complimentary High Performance Teamwork Webinar

 

Why Everything You May Think You Know About Building the Perfect Team May Be Wrong!

,

Why Everything You Think You Know About Teamwork Might Be Wrong!

Register for the Complimentary High Performance Teamwork Workshop by Clicking Here

What would you say makes the most productive team?

  • Combining the best people? The smartest people?
  • Finding people with similar motivations?
  • Putting ‘like’ personalities together or putting a mix of personalities together?
  • Making sure teams are friendly away from work by creating opportunities to interact and build rapport in non business settings?
  • Making sure people are ‘heard’ by not allowing team members to interrupt each other?

It turns out that while the conventional wisdom around highly effective teams may be conventional – it may not actually be wisdom. According to Abeer Dubey, a manager in Google’s People Analytics division, ‘nobody had really studied which were true’. In other words, a condition may be true for a high performing team – but that does not mean it was the root cause of the high performance.

So what to do? Enter Google with it’s massive data gathering ability. About five years ago Google started a project – code named Project Aristotle – to search for the truth. But who’s truth? Mine or yours? You see, we all have a bias when it comes to truth. Which is why Project Aristotle had to dig deep into the data.

However after studying over 180 different teams and a half century of research to try a discern a pattern, they came up dry. Nada. The only thing that seemed certain was that the ‘who’ was involved in the team did not matter. Dubey said. ‘‘We had lots of data, but there was nothing showing that a mix of specific personality types or skills or backgrounds made any difference. The ‘who’ part of the equation didn’t seem to matter.’’

One thing they did seem to find consistency around was ‘group norms’. Think of group norms as the unwritten rules of the way we interact with each other. After more than a year of research, Google determined that understanding and influencing group norms was the key to highly effective teams. But which norms were most important? Sometimes the norms of one highly successful team clashed with the norms of another equally successful team.

This has huge implications for leaders because group norms that may have worked with one team will not necessarily work with another one!

What the research did show was that there were two underlying behaviors that high performing teams shared, and they determined that these behaviors allowed for the creation of group norms that spurred the higher perfromance.

  1. Team members each spoke roughly the same amount of time. This could occur by sharing time to speak during the task itself, or taking turns from assignment to assignment. IHowever they got there, the team members had spoken about the same amount by the end of the day. If, on the other hand. one person or a small subset of the team dominated the dialogue then collective intelligence of the team declined.
  2. Team members had higher ‘social sensitivity’. This is a fancy way of saying that they could figure out what people were feeling from their tone of voice as well as non verbal clues. While this is harder to assess than the amount of time the most team members speak, it is possible to get a read on where your team stands. In fact, you may not be able to get certain team members to speak more if your team is exhibiting low social sensitivity.

So what can you do?

First of all, the research clearly indicates that you must stop thinking of high performing teams in the traditional way. Many different group norms can create a high performing team – as long as they exhibit the two behaviors outlined above.

Second, you have to have a process that has been proven to deliver results. The 4 Faces of Frustration Workshop can help you deliver the kind of teamwork that you know your team is capable of! Or you can register for our complimentary webinar by clicking here.

Register for the Complimentary High Performance Teamwork Workshop by Clicking Here

 

The Four Faces of Frustration Process

Register now for the Complimentary High Performance Teamwork Webinar

 

 

WHAT CAN YOUR ALARM CLOCK TEACH YOU ABOUT LEADERSHIP?

, ,

What can you learn from your alarm clock about leadership? It turns out quite a bit. The scene is played out in almost every household across the nation each morning: The alarm clock goes off to alert you that it is time to get up. At that point there is a battle that takes place between the the rational side of you that wants to get up (and get a head start on the day) – and the emotional side that wants nothing more than just a few more minutes of sleep. I won’t ask you which one normally wins – or how many times the ‘snooze’ button gets slapped in your household. Suffice it to say that the fact that there is a snooze button tells us everthing we need to know!

Enter the Clocky, an invention of an MIT student by the name of Gauri Nanda. As you can see, it is no ordinary alarm clock. Once set, it will go off at the prescribed time just like any other alarm clock. But that is where the similarities stop. Once the alarm goes off, the Clocky rolls off your bedside table and away from your reach. Imagine how hilarious it would be to watch someone chasing one of these around the room in attempt to silence it! But wait – what on earth does this have to do with leadership? Well, I’m glad you asked…

It turns out that the Clocky is a perfect analogy for what happens in human psychology whenever we are asked to do something that we rationally believe to be beneficial, but that is in conflct with our emotional side. The unavoidable conclusion is that when we say we need to ‘make up our mind about what we need to do’ – we really should say ‘we need to make up both our minds’ – the rational and the emotional. Unfortunately the rational side is typically overwhelmed by the sheer power of the emotional side. The emotional side of you is the part that is instinctive and feels both pain and pleasure – and it tends to be governed by HABIT. The rational side of you is what we would refer to as the intellectual or conscious mind. This is the part of you that thinks and (in theory) makes decisions. The crazy part of this is that all decisions made in the conscious mind must first pass thru the filter of the emotional mind before we can take action. In order for the conscious mind to win there needs to be a crisis that reinforces the need for change, or a lot of repetition (hence the prevalence of the snooze button).

So how do we use this knowledge to lead more effectively?

While we all know that it is relatively hard for us to change our own habits, we tend to underestimate the lock that our employees habits have on their behavior patterns. Because of this we tend to frame logical reasons to our employees why they should change. While I am not saying that we should throw logic aside – it is without a doubt an important and necessary element of any change initiative – I am saying that convincing the rational mind of the importance of a change is actually the easy part. The harder part of any change is getting a person to change their habits.

There is normally only one time of year that most people give any attention to changing their habits: New Years Eve. Although many people have given up on the fruitless ritual of the New Year’s Resolution, others cling to the dim hope that the new year will help them overwhelm the power of habit and they will indeed change for the better.

How to change any habit:

Changing a habit is one of the hardest things you will ever do, however it does not have to be as laced with failure as it normally is. Here is a simple strategy that you can follow to help yourself or an employee increase the likelihood of success:

  1. Focus on the root cause of our frustration – which is likely a HABIT not a bunch of tasks that needs to be completed. For example, if you have a messy desk and it bothers you (I say this because it does not bother everyone!) – do not set a goal to clean your desk. It will only be messy again in no time. Instead focus on the HABIT that is generating the messy desk, likely that you tend to dump things on the desk rather than putting them away.
  2. Identify ONE habit that needs to change. This is of course not what we normally do – we normally get so frustrated that we identify a whole raft of changes that need to happen. This almost assures failure before we even start the process. Since most people struggle to change even one habit at a time we must find a way to focus them on that one change.
  3. Follow up relentlessly until either change occurs or you determine that the change will not occur. If you dtermine that this one habit cannot change and it is critically important to the success of the role, then it is immaterial if other habits change or not.
  4. Back out of the follow up cycle slowly ensuring that there is adequate positive reinforcement and then identify what needs to change next.

By following this strategy you can overwhelm the emotional mind with your consistency of follow up. In essence you have (for a short period of time) become a Clocky – a constant reminder of HOW the change needs to happen – but definitely NOT just a reminder that it has not yet happened.

Now let’s get started! What HABIT would help you be more successful? If you are unsure you might want to try reading our post “Are You Coachable?” as most people can identify (at least) one thing they rationally agree should change – even if they have not emotionally decided to do so!

Here’s to your success!

Andrew

We have found that most leaders are frustrated that they experience the same problems day after day. At the LeaderShift Workshop we teach leaders a process that helps them create a Performance Acceleration Plan so that they radically accelerate their business results. To learn more click here or on the icon below.

 

4 Dangerous Myths About Managing Millennials

, , ,

Millennials. The stereotypes come at us fast and furious, and most of them are not particularly complimentary.

But what does the research actually show? Are they really that different? We decided to take a look at what is being said about managing millennials and offer some insight into what is true and what is myth.

MillenialsMYTH #1: Millennials are completely different from the way ‘we’ were at that age

This is the grand-daddy of them all. While it is true that millennials are different from the generations that preceded them, that is also true of every generation. Every generation looks at the generation that follows them and complains about how they are (fill in the blank here with a negative term). Research conducted by Jean Twenge, a professor of Psychology at San Diego State University showed that although there were some shifts in the attitudes of millennials toward work when compared to other generations, those shifts were relatively small, and they are not what you think. What is different about millennials is the way that they react to work environments that were tolerated by other generations. Millennials do tend to be more vocal and far less tolerant of leaders and companies that they perceive as not meeting their standards.

MYTH #2: Millennials are primarily concerned with making the world a better place

According to Twenge’s research, millennials are no more concerned with altruistic work values than the generations that have preceded them. You should not read the former statement to mean that millennials are not interested in volunteering and working for a cause. That is something that has always been valued by US workers, although it may be true that millennials are slightly more vocal about their motivations. What is true is that millennials are less tolerant of organizations that they do not believe are engaged in meaningful work. However, meaningful work can be defined in many different ways.

MYTH #3: Millennials are all about work-life balance

The research does not support this conclusion either. While Gen X and millennials are slightly more interested in work life balance, the differences are not nearly as great as managers often believe. The differences more often than not are attributed to the fact that managers have forgotten what it was like to be young, or they were not particularly normal workers themselves before they were promoted. That last piece may sting a little, as we all like to think of ourselves as normal, but the fact that only a small percentage of the workforce occupies leadership roles puts the lie to this notion.

MYTH #4: Millennials need to be treated with kid gloves.

Peter Cappeli, Professor of Management at Wharton, has a strong opinion about this: “It’s ridiculous” he says. He recommends relying less on age bias to determine how we are going to manage people, and that we should focus more on their individual needs. While there is no question that managing a person from a different generation will require you to be flexible in your approach, it in no way means that you cannot or should not keep your performance expectations high. Understanding generational differences is helpful when looking for where a leader can and should be flexible, but we should always remember that we do not manage generations – we manage people. When an entire generation of individuals is denigrated, it is not only unfair, it is unproductive.

So here is the challenge: Let’s put a skewer in these millennial myths and get back to the hard work of winning an incredibly gifted generation to your cause. To that end: Now that we have skewered what is not true, make sure you check back here for future posts on what is different with managing millennials – and how to lead them most effectively.

We have found that most leaders are frustrated that they experience the same problems day after day. We have a process that helps leaders create a Performance Acceleration Plan so that they can move past those problems and start making radical improvements in their business results. 
For more information please click here or on the box below:
LeaderShift

THE CORRUPTION OF EMPATHY

, , ,

The other day I was coaching a leader that was complaining that his boss lacked empathy. In this case, the boss was demanding an increase in the level of performance of the team. The manager (I was coaching) felt that the boss was not paying attention to the circumstances surrounding the lack of performance. Then it happened… the manager shared his real concern: “I feel that by I have more empathy than my boss. Maybe if he understood what was happening in our business, he would be less focused on the numbers.”

I have found that most leaders are almost always playing a role – they are either the boss in the above example – or they are the manager. To understand which one you are, and what to do about it read more…

Empathy.

It sounds sort of wimpy to a lot of leaders. To others leaders it can become a rationale (or excuse) for not holding their team accountable to reasonable expectations of performance. However neither of these responses is accurate or appropriate when using empathy in a leadership context.

The Corruption of Empathy.

Empathy can be defined as ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’. Based on this definition, it is actually not possible to have ‘too much empathy’ – however it is possible to allow your empathy (whether it is high or low) to become an obstacle to effectively managing a team.

In fact, the word empathy was hardly ever used prior to 1950, and then it’s use ramped up rapidly. The understanding of how to use empathy in a leadership context has been evolving over that time. When human resource professionals started to try and address their low scores on workplace engagement surveys, they often determined that part of the problem was that leaders had little or no empathy for the people they were seeking to lead. Since leaders seemed to be completely focused on the numbers, some HR professionals determined that if only we could make them ‘nicer and gentler’ versions of themselves then we could have both business results and happier employees.

I call this the corruption of empathy because empathy does not necessarily involve being nicer and gentler. Often it involves very frank and honest conversations that hurt at the time – however we can all attest to the fact that we are better for having had a leader that cared enough to speak the truth with love.

The Accountability-Support Continuum:

One of the concepts we teach in LeaderShift is a model called the Accountability-Support continuum. In this model, Accountability Focused Leaders tend to be more preoccupied with the numbers, while Supportive Leaders tend to be more aligned and understanding of the situation that the people they seek to lead are experiencing.

Which one is better? The answer of course is BOTH. As a leader, you are accouable for achieving results. However, in order to achieve those results you must understand the how your employees ‘see’ the problem so that you can more effectively coach them into different behaviors in order to achieve better results.

When we ask leaders where they would rate themselves on that ‘Accountability-Support Continuum’, most leaders says they are about in the middle.

An therein lies the problem, as very few leaders truly can strike a balance between accountabilty and support – especially when they are under pressure. Now, I am not saying it is not possible – just that most leaders make assumptions about where others would place them.

Who Really has Empathy?

So who really has empathy? It would appear at first glance that the Supportive Leader is more empathetic. But are they?

It may be that Supportive Leaders are no more empathetic than their Accountability Focused cousins. If empathy is understanding and seeing as others see, then Supportive Leaders may be as guilty of prideful arrogance as anyone else. Think about it. Essentially Supportive Leaders are saying that ‘they get it’ and their boss and/or peers do not. What they really have for their employees is sympathy, as they have ‘bought in’ to the way their employees see the problem. In doing so they have abdicated their position of leadership, and can no longer help their employees navigate their way through the problem.

So while there is no question that an Accountability Focused leader needs to increase their empathy by reaching out and making more effort to understand the challenges associated with changing results, the Supportive Leader must also not use their Empathy as a crutch to excuse poor perfromance.

How do you balance Accountability and Support? 

  1. First you must find out what your natural orientation is, especially under stress – Accountability or Support. Do not presume that you know the answer to this question – I have seen too many leaders get this wrong! By the way, if you are a Supportive Leader you cannot task your employees for feedback on this question. The will inevitably tell you that you are a balanced leader. And if you are an Accountability Focused Leader you cannot ask them either because they will reluctant to be completely truthful. Instead find some peers and ask them – as well as your boss.
  2. Once you know where you reside, start working on developing the muscle on the other end of the continuum. If you are a more Accountability Focused Leader, start with reading this blog post USING GOAL SETTING AS A DEVELOPMENT TOOL. If you are a more Supportive Leader, you will likely encounter a fair amount of defensivess when you attemt to speak with them about their lack of production. Consider starting with this blog post HOW TO COACH AND DEAL WITH DEFENSIVENESS EFFECTIVELY.

Empathy is a critical skills for you as a leader to develop – you can never really have too much – but you can use it inappropriatley!

Here’s to your success!

Andrew

We have found that most leaders are frustrated that they experience the same problems day after day. At the LeaderShift Workshop we teach leaders a process that helps them create a Performance Acceleration Plan so that they radically accelerate their business results. To learn more click here or on the icon below.

 

CAN YOU REALLY GET SOMEONE ELSE TO CHANGE?

, , ,

Can you really ever get anyone else to change? For those of us in leadership, the answer to that question had better be a resounding ‘yes’. However, the degree to which we are successful in getting other people to change is certainly a different question altogether! In this post we will investigate the one critical question that will determine your success or failure in leading others to change. Often when we conduct our signature LeaderShift Live Workshop participants are confused when we ask them if they ‘Celebrate failure to the extent that ongoing learning takes place.’ Their confusion stems from the fact that most high achieving leaders would never consider celebrating failure. Failure is to be avoided at all costs! And yet we know that almost every success we have experienced in life involves learning, and in many cases, mistakes. So while we ultimately do not want to fail, we recognize their will be small failures along the way in any undertaking. So, while it may sound strange to you, in order to get another person to change you need to create the expectation of failure – not of the entire change process but that there will be failure along the way. This leads us to a fundamental question: How do we (as leaders) approach the change/failure dynamic – and what might we need to do differently to encourage the team we seek to lead to change more consistently and positively? Carol Dweck, professor of psychology at Stanford, has researched this question and finds that there are essentially there two ways that people approach change:

  1. A Growth Mindset: This way of looking at the world says that people (ourselves included) can and do change all the time.
  2. A Fixed Mindset: This way of looking at the world says that people (ourselves included) don’t really change that much at all.

People who have a ‘fixed mindset’ believe that their abilities – and those of others – are essentially static. In other words, we are good at some things and not as talented in other areas. In this mindset your behavior is a good indication of your natural abilities. This leads to an avoidance of challenges because failure would reflect badly on your true ability level. In this case, negative feedback is seen as a threat – and you definitely don’t want to be seen as trying too hard – just in case you fail. That way if you fail – well – you always have the defense that you didn’t try that hard. The ‘growth mindset’ believes that abilities are like ‘muscles’. It’s not that some people are not more talented than others – there is not question that Michael Jordan is a truly talented individual. However, we can and do develop our abilities (and talents) through practice. With a growth mindset you will accept more challenging assignments. You are more likely to accept negative feedback, in fact you may seek it out, because you know that it will eventually make you better. Once you understand this critical difference in mindset you can start to recognize the ways that we inadvertantly reinforce a fixed mindset with others. Here are just a few examples:

  • Telling our kids ‘You’re so smart!’ or ‘You’re so good at_______’
  • Telling employees that they are so good at speaking, presenting, or organizing etc.

So what can we do differently?As leaders, we need to start praising the effort rather than the natural skill. While many leaders will object to this insight – it seems a lttle too touchy feely to many – I am not saying that we should not pay attention to results. Nor am I saying that we should not hold people accountable to results. To the contrary, what we are suggesting is that while you recognize the results (or lack thereof) you attribute the results to the effort rather than talent. Let’s use an example to reinforce this point: Employee A: Does all the right things/the right way but gets crappy results. You know this is because the circumstances that particular week just did not line up correctly. Employee B: Does not do the right things/the right way but gets great results. You know this is because the circumstances that particular week lined up in a way that promoted positive results. Which employee would you rather have in week 2? If you answered ‘A’ then you need to consider how you provide feedback and direction to your employees. In other words – Can you celebrate failure to the extent that ongoing learning occurs? Because if you can’t – then you will surround yourself with fixed mindset team members that have already reached the extent of their potential. And that is not a future that I would wish for you!

We have found that most leaders are frustrated that they experience the same problems day after day. We have a process that helps leaders create a Performance Acceleration Plan so that they can move past those problems and start making radical improvements in their business results. 
For more information please click here or on the graphic below: