Mike Russell

🔨 Break the Planning Mediocrity Cycle

Ever feel like you are underachieving even with all your planning?

We often fall into the trap of underestimating, especially in the professional world.

A popular concept suggests we tend to:
↗ Overestimate what we can achieve in a year.
↘ Underestimate what we can do – our potential – in 5 years.

While this might be true for solo ventures, it becomes a challenge in larger organizations.

Think about how you plan for the year, set budgets, or handle performance evaluations. These questions are often lurking:

❓ How open should I be about my (or our) goals?

❓ Should I/we play it safe?

❓ What if things change and I/we can’t hit our targets?

These questions usually make us play it too safe. “Stretch goals” even end up too low. We end up doing less than we could.

The ripple effect? Over years, this means we achieve far less than we could.

Instead of planning for excellence, we’re inadvertently paving the path for mediocrity. It’s a vicious cycle, and the only way out is to rethink our planning, processes, and company culture.

Let’s elevate your game. Contact us to book a complimentary, confidential session and rise above the mediocrity mindset.

LinkedIn just laid off employees for the second time this year (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/16/microsoft-owned-linkedin-lays-off-nearly-700-read-the-memo-here.html)

When I see news like this, here are some questions that come to mind when not explained:

❓ If roles are no longer needed, were the people in those roles first offered options of working in other units? Or retraining for other work that is needed?

❓ If the people being laid off were judged lower or poor performers, why wasn’t that addressed by the performance management system instead of by a layoff?

❓ Why is adapting organizational structures often associated with layoffs rather than done as an ongoing process and viewed as a core organizational capability?

❓ This layoff includes a number of managers. Part of the memo cites “driving improved efficiency & transparency through reduced layering”. Did the managers know that they weren’t sufficiently transparent or their areas insufficiently efficient (cost or otherwise)? Were they given an opportunity to make improvements or suggestions (i.e., back to the performance management system question)? Options to do something else?

❓ Were roles incorrectly established or the wrong people hired … i.e., are there other causes for this situation outside the control of the people being laid off? Who was responsible for what was outside the control of the people being laid off? For instance, who set up the layering in the first place that led to a need for reduced layers? Are they included in the layoff?

❓ If indeed “every affected individual has played a valuable role in the growth and success of Linkedin”, then did that value suddenly stop? Did value erode over time but was not addressed? Or was it a leadership issue outside the people affected that caused the value reduction?

❓ Will senior leaders be rewarded in some way for the layoffs? Are any senior leaders included in the layoff, if the situation was at least in part caused by them? The article states LinkedIn has seen “year-over-year revenue growth slow for eight consecutive quarters” … this wasn’t an overnight issue.

❓ Why are some jobs being shifted to another country, presumably for “cost savings,” especially if valuable experience will be lost in the transition and causing at least short-term inefficiencies … the opposite of “efficiencies” sought via this action?

❓ One of the goals is to “improve agility.” What is meant by that? If there is a mostly top-down decision approach for “agility” in response to market changes and organizational needs, then agility will be significantly limited.

❓ Fundamentally, are people being treated with respect or as widgets?

How does your company deal with needed changes?

In occasional spasms, often including layoffs? Or something that is continually addressed?

Are employees involved in helping make needed changes happen … change is done “with them”? Or is change done “to them”?

Leaders: how can you improve your change leadership? Increase organizational change capability?

Here’s a great – and free – learning method for anyone wanting to become a leader or to improve their leadership:

👉🏻 Watch leaders during crises.

• What they say, how they behave.
• The effects on their teams, organizations, stakeholders, constituencies.
• Government leaders, business leaders … any kind of leader and at all levels.

Anytime you see, read, or hear something that strikes you as either effective or not effective leadership, make a quick note. If on a computer or device, save the item and annotate it as needed.

Periodically review your notes and pick one (or a very few) top things to work on. Observe how you do and adjust as needed.

Your observations will also help you identify your perspectives on leadership. In time, the accumulated notes and annotations will build your own leadership book of how you think leadership should work (and not work!).

The act of formalizing observations by making notes will also make you a better observer, which in turn is an important aspect of leadership as well.

Crises present usually present more obvious learning examples … however, this approach can work anytime 🙂

 

P.S. Not convinced? Even children have used a process like this 🙂
The Blue’s Clues children’s TV show had a recurring theme, at least in early episodes, of Notice-Note-Noodle … children were encouraged to follow the host along in noticing clues, making notes about them, and then thinking (there was even a thinking chair in the show!) to figure out the clues.

Another international crisis … another opportunity for leaders to make a positive impact for their companies – part 2

In the last post, we discussed how leaders behave and communicate in a crisis will affect:

1. Current productivity/results
2. Future productivity/results via who “comes and goes”

People will make judgments about the company based on how leaders lead during the crisis. Part of that is attractiveness of the company as an employer:

• Current employees – should I stay?
• Prospective employees – should I join the company if there’s an opportunity?

A key issue is whether leaders trust employees to make decisions for themselves about well-being and employment. Withholding information creates a culture where the company effectively makes those decisions for employees.

Let’s dig a bit deeper into some general types of employee mindsets and how they might be affected by withholding information.

• “Employees”
• Intrapreneurs
• Entrepreneurs

👉🏻  Why did I put “employees” in quotes? Isn’t every “employee” an … well … employee? Yes, from a legal classification perspective. No, from a mentality perspective.

“Employees” ultimately want to

• mind their own business
• know or be told what to do and when
• stay in their assigned “lanes”
• have stability and a low/no risk environment, not growth and uncertainty that comes with it
• think about life outside the business.

👉🏻 Intrapreneurs are generally:

• proactive change agents with an inward focus (“intra”)
• want to improve their own work
• want to help the business succeed as a win-win
• know their roles but are willing to get out to help when/where needed
• a great source of growth insights
• neither repelled by risk nor seek company-wrecking risk.

👉🏻 Entrepreneurs ultimately want to:

• run their own business
• constantly think about and promote ideas for new business lines (or even businesses)
• discuss new ideas/ventures with other team members, diverting focus and productivity
• go their own way rather than collaborating
• go for bigger risks

The effects of withholding information will vary across the three groups.

Employees might be O.K. with knowing less as that can provide a façade or mirage of stability … more of the “head in the sand” approach.

Intrapreneurs likely won’t be O.K. and will be at risk of “quiet quitting” or outright quitting. Startups and any company looking to grow or innovate desperately need some intrapreneurs. Unfortunately, they will be the ones who will be turned off the most by poor communication.

Entrepreneurs are already “gone” mentally and will likely be gone physically. Sooner in the face of poor communication than otherwise. This isn’t as big an issue as with intrapreneurs, since entrepreneurs never were totally “with” the company anyway.

Future hiring will also be affected, making it harder to attract talented intrapreneurs.

How are you doing?

Another international crisis …

Another opportunity for leaders to make a positive impact in their companies.

How you behave and communicate in a crisis will affect:

1. Current productivity/results
2. Future productivity/results via who “comes and goes”

For current impacts, leaders can help by addressing immediate fears (see previous article https://novusleadershipinstitute.com/2022/04/11/the-only-thing-we-have-to-fear-is-2/) and needs:

• visibly leading by example,
• acknowledging fears or direct impacts/needs people may have, and
• clear and transparent communication.

The future impact is more subtle but the effects are longer lasting. People will make judgments about the company based on how leaders behave during the crisis.

Central to those judgments is attractiveness of the company as an employer:

– Current employees – should I stay with the company?

– Prospective employees – should I join the company if there’s an opportunity?

A significant factor affecting attractiveness is “clear and transparent communication.” Are leaders communicating what effects, if any, the crisis has on the company? And by extension, can employees trust leaders in the future about anything affecting employees?

Leaders have a few basic choices in communicating company and individual impacts:

1.   Say nothing, especially if there are negative impacts.

2.   Say something, but not everything.

3.   Disclose current and anticipated impacts along with plans.

4.   Disclose impacts and plans, plus any uncertainties about the future and related plans.

There can be many considerations for each choice; here are a few:

For the first choice, the typical hope is that any bad stuff will go away and employees won’t “notice” any issues. Employees will notice! And they will form their own conclusions, which may not be realistic nor what leaders hope for.

The second choice is similar to the first. The underlying fear is driving employees away or reducing productivity. Employees will notice, and will form their own conclusions about what is not communicated. Additionally, partial communication will often taken as intentional misleading. That can make the second case worse than the first.

For the third and fourth choices, confidence in and attractiveness of the company can increase. The fourth choice is the “full” disclosure path, acknowledging that leaders may not have all the answers. If communication hasn’t been open in the past, these choices also need to acknowledge the past and why the change, so leadership intent is clear. Otherwise, the change in communication itself might create unease or distrust.

Ultimately, the issue is whether leaders trust employees to make decisions for themselves about their own well-being.

Withholding information affecting employees creates a culture that makes decisions for employees. Some employees may be O.K. with that, others – and probably most – will not be.

How are you doing?

Just the opposite.

Unwillingness to get perspective or explore is the real sign of weakness.

Does that mean a leader with a coach gives up responsibility for decisions? For thinking? Planning? Whatever?

Absolutely not.

Coaching is about improving, not abdication. About getting out of any mental ruts and over whatever is reducing your success and satisfaction.

I have had external or internal coaches in some form for almost all of my career, whether I was in leadership positions or in external coach/consultant roles.

The biggest misses or errors I made in the past were usually when I didn’t have a coach, didn’t seek perspective … or got it, then ignored it! 😞

A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points. (Attributed to computer pioneer Alan Kay)

Looking at opportunities or problems in new ways is often the most effective way forward. Reframing is a key element of brainstorming and other improvement techniques.

You can get that kind of perspective with anyone willing to constructively participate. Fostering collaboration in organizations also helps.

Coaches are of particular benefit for leaders on things that can’t be discussed with others in their organization. Or there is a need for any kind of confidential discussion in a safe place.

At the very least, a coach can help you avoid what Zig Ziglar called “stinkin’ thinkin’” 😉

If you don’t have a coach, I invite you to take advantage of a totally free “Business Breakthrough” coaching session where we’ll work together to:

🔎 Examine your situation from different angles

👉 Create next steps that take advantage of promising angles

⚡ Leave you better armed to tackle opportunities and problems

If you are in a leadership or management role, apply now for one of the limited free slots now opening for this month.

Contact us with:

1. What’s the biggest problem you’re trying to solve?
2. How hard has it been to solve it?
3. What have you already tried to solve the problem?
4. What progress have you made?
5. How would your life change if you solved it?

… along with any relevant background information about your role and the business.

Why wait? This gives you a “try before you buy” opportunity with little risk.