A guide to defining the IT influencer

Looking for those people who define IT trends and evaluate products? In the mire of the online "swamp," it's difficult to define who matters within IT. Here are some tips on how to do it. 

Influencers, simply put, are those whose ideas and accomplishments go beyond being inspiration. They provide new ways of solving problems. They define trends, services, and evaluate products with the expertise that inspires trust. 

In the mire of the online "swamp," it’s difficult to define who matters within IT. The benefit of today’s social media landscape is that no matter who they are, once you identify an influencer you have the opportunity to engage, seek feedback/insight, and converse with them about the products and services they cover.

The value in this engagement can manifest itself in many ways, from direct influence into a service you or your company offers to simple conversation about predictions within your field. Influencers also can shape the buyer’s decision and because of this, any input into the product or service being created or advanced should be highly valued. The challenge for anyone interested in finding the right person is weeding through all the “pretenders” who portray themselves as titans of industry. Below is a criterion for defining influencers within IT.

Activity

Most influencers are active on all channels within media. Most favor a specific medium (their site, Twitter, Google+, etc.) but usually they are everywhere. Look at their channels and the content being shared.

Here are just a few questions to ask when looking online:

• Are the channels industry-specific?
• In social, are they getting shared and retweeted?
• Do their summations reflect new ideas and directions within their field?

Influencers regularly attend conferences and/or speak in front of groups related to their industry. They also usually own a site/blog and write…a lot. Their articles can be found in tweets, posts, and other forms throughout the online world. With each post, look at the comments. Are there any? What is the page rank of their site and how many subscribers do they have? Finally, does the particular person add value to the industry conversation? You can measure this in the comments, tweets, and overall engagement where you can see the dialogue going on about a particular topic. 

Example in Cloud Computing: Adrian Cockcroft, Cloud Architect at Netflix:

Mr. Cockcroft managed a team that implemented a scalable cloud based personalized web page and algorithm platform and is one of the main reasons why Netflix is so amazing. He has a large following on Twitter, is constantly invited to speak at IT events, and writes articles pertinent to his audience.

Consistency

Influencers never stop because the passion that drives them is directly related to the customer experience. In your evaluation of who to connect with, do the people you’re considering consistently speak, write, blog, contribute, and participate in social sharing? Their expertise is the result of their passion, so look for evidence of said passion when you evaluate who to follow.

Example in Solid State Storage: Duncan Epping, owner of yellow-bricks.com and Principal Architect at VMware:

Mr. Epping is consistently active on all social channels (11,983 twitter followers), is regularly asked to speak at conferences and is a prolific writer about the happenings of his industry. He is a true expert.

The golden question

Influencers regularly ask the question, “What is good for my followers?” This means that they only share what will empower those that listen to them. Gone is the time when those with influence are measured simply through social media metrics and online popularity. The rate at which technology changes requires those within to be sharper and ahead of the next big change. It’s about spreading the knowledge, making the job easier, and sharing new ideas which change not just how we see the product or service, but the world as whole.

Making a mistake does not make you an idiot

Everyone makes mistakes. But it seems that everyone is also obsessed with making sure no one knows about them. Maybe it's time to take responsibility and earn respect. 

The Latin term mea culpa"means "through my fault." I have looked this term up online and I found it in my trusty hardcover Webster's dictionary. Nowhere did I see the term translated as, "I'm an idiot." Yet, that's what most people think will be inferred by others when they speak those words or any of their brethren like, "Sorry about that" or "I made a mistake."

Trust me when I tell you that many employees share this erroneous mindset (and you know who you are). Admitting fault is not a public acknowledgment that you are a worthless human being and should be fired immediately. Apologizing for an action you took that caused a problem for a coworker does not make you the office weakling and brand you with a scarlet letter. Making mistakes makes you human, and owning up to them earns you respect and maybe even renders you endearing.

However, never admitting responsibility for a mistake is an acknowledgment that you value your own "image" more than you do the welfare of your company. I wouldn't want you working for me.

If people spent as much time and energy acknowledging their mistakes as they do justifying their bad decisions and figuring out how to dodge responsibility, the world would be a much more productive place. You can be sure that the people who are unwilling to own up to their mistakes are the same ones who don't learn from those mistakes. And thus we have a never-ending cycle of denial and repeat.

I've started to see whole groups of people attempt to disguise responsibility as an entity unto itself. My pet peeve is the phrase, "Mistakes were made." As if the mistakes just formed out of mid-air with no human hand involved.

Speaking of that horrid phrase, two social psychologists, Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson look into how the brain is wired for self-justification in the book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Their observation is that we create fictions to absolve ourselves of any responsibility, "restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right-a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong."

Maybe we should all take a look at that book.

Do you find yourself justifying mistakes at work? Have you ever owned up a to a mistake and were you burned at the stake for it?

How to deal with the brilliant, but problematic employee

Do you have that one brilliant, irreplaceable employee who brings so much to the table but who seems to have been raised in a barn? Here's why you need to do something. 

The first doctor: "Well, we could try that treatment and buy you a year or two, but at your age, you've already cheated the average life expectancy."

Doctor #2: "You're 87? You don't look like you're in very good shape. My dad's 87 and he walks four miles a day."

And yet another: "It might be cancer. Now would be a good time to ask - would you want to live on a ventilator if that were your only choice?"

These are some things I've heard some highly trained and brilliant medical professionals utter in the last few weeks as we've been seeking treatment for my father

The excuse I've heard for off-putting behavior like this is that these people are geniuses at what they do and slight imperfections, like the ability to communicate in a humane way, are a small sacrifice. Well, maybe.

Yes, I would prefer my dad's surgeon be more brilliant with the knife than conversation.  But there's something to be said for tact and for being able to convey the information you have that many others don't.

I started with this article with this more extreme example to make a point about how eager we are, even in the workplace, to dismiss the lack of social graces--or in some cases, downright rudeness--as a byproduct of the brilliant mind.

As a manager, I don't expect those who possess some singular talent that drives business in a big way to be Dale Carnegie-esque. In other words, I don't need them to be winning friends all over the godforsaken place. But I don't think it's too much to ask these people to not make their coworkers dive under their desks in order not to have contact with them.

Geniuses like to play the Steve Jobs card to defend their countenances. Well, you know what? Mr. Jobs was indeed a genius, but if he'd reported to me, I'd have lauded his ideas but asked him to watch how he conveyed them.

The effect on the team

When management doesn't chastise the brilliant employee for his or her negative attitudes or interaction with other team members, what do you think it says? It says that that person isn't held to the same principles of civility; that no one else on the team is as important. Productivity can tank as well, if your other employees would rather drink battery acid than have an encounter with the resident genius.

The Harvard Business Review spent a decade studying the effect on antisocial behavior in the office and, based on responses from thousands of managers and employees, found that those with anti-social co-workers exhibit:

• a decrease in effort (48%)
• less time spent in the office (47%), and
• lower quality of work (38%)

Steps to take

It's not always easy to face the cold, confident eyes of the office Einstein in a one-on-one consult. You might think that criticism will be met with anger or, worse, condescension. And you might be right. But sometimes the person is absolutely unaware of how he or she comes across, is shocked by the truth, and wants to change. If not, you can and should impose some kind of checks and balances on him or her. No one is irreplaceable. Weigh the loss of your genius against the stats listed above.

You may also want to consider offering bits of feedback throughout the year rather than in one sit-down.

Another complication--some anti-social behavior comes about because of a need for control, an aggressive nature, and a host of other psychological aspects that are not in my (or your realm) of understanding and/or dealing with. (Unless you're reading this and you're a licensed psychologist. In that case, I apologize, Dr. Phil.) In that case, you can refer employees to HR or an EAP if your company has one.

Either way, don't sweep the issue under the table. It's unfair to your other employees. And just think of what heights your genius can climb to if his or her social skills are honed?

6 Things Best-In-Class Companies Do To Grow Leaders

There have been numerous Fortune, Forbes, and BusinessWeek stories in the last year citing the importance of growing leaders and the challenges organizations are facing with the coming paucity of leaders due to the demographic shift occuring with the baby boomers retiring and leaving a void.
Paul Reilly of the venerable Korn/Ferry states in the Forbes article linked to above that over 50% of all C-level execs will retire in the next 5 years.
That begs the question: what are organizations doing now to prepare for this difficult challenge? In every crisis, lies opportunity. And, certainly, this immovable fact is good news for the Korn/Ferry’s, and Monster’s of the world, as it suggests an increasing need from Corporate America for recruiting top talent.
However, the best organizations do not over-rely on recruiting firms to “fix” their lack-of-leadership problem. They look inside and set up processes and programs which ensure that their “Leadership Funnel” is as full as their “ sales funnel.”
Of course, everyone pays homage to GE, when talking about leadership development. Yet, very few actually do a great job to coach, mentor, and develop top talent.
Here are some quick tips on what the best companies do to ensure an adequate supply of leaders for years to come:

1. Leadership Development happens at multiple levels within the Organization – Not just below the C-Level. We all like short cuts. Yet, we know that, in important areas, we can’t take short cuts. Developing an adequate supply of leaders is a long-term investment. The best companies understand that and work at bringing their people along no matter the level of the organization — from entry-level to the C-Suite.
2. Assess Where Leaders Are At Today, to Measure Where they will be Tomorrow. You can’t improve something, if you don’t measure it. Doing a leadership assessment at the front-end of any development program gives you a baseline to measure someone’s development — and hold them accountable if they don’t develop. 360s are great as a tool, but the most reliable measurement of a leader’s strengths and weaknesses comes from a process called an “Assessment Center” which uses multiple methods (including case studies, work simulations, and behavior-based interviews) to measure someone’s leadership performance and potential. One thing that surprised me when I started to “coach” “high-potential” leaders is how many of them were hungry to know where they ranked relative to other leaders out there. Most people work for one company for a long time – sometimes 10, 15, or 20 years. They lose sight of their “market value” relative to other execs. Being able to tell them that they are in the top quartile on “strategic orientation” relative to others is very interesting to them; often raising their confidence levels. By contrast, it can be an eye-opener when they are in the bottom quartile on a number of important leadership dimensions.
3. Meet with your Boss to discuss the Results of the Assessment and Build an Action Plan. Leadership Development programs fail if the leader’s boss is not involved. It’s critical to meet with the boss to discuss the strengths and weaknesses that were identified in the assessment. The leader is always interested to have the opportunity to hear how his/her boss sees his/her strengths and weaknesses. This meeting also needs to focus on building a Leadership Development Plan, which the leader and boss buy-in to and endorse.
4. Track the Leadership Development Action Plan over time. What good is a plan if you don’t track it and do what you say you will do. The process of setting up and tracking this action plan forms the basis of the “Leadership Development Program” that the best-in-class companies follow. This program is separate from any performance review process. It is a supplement to that — not a replacement. In our work, we act as external coaches who come in and meet with the leader once a quarter to review progress over time (usually 2 years). The leader’s boss is kept in the loop by receiving updates of the plan on a quarterly basis and then coming back at the 1-year mark and 2-year marks to meet with the leader and external coach. Knowing that you are accountable for progress is a huge stimulant to the leader.
5. Encourage mentors in your Organization – but don’t force them. Mentors are great. Who hasn’t had someone take an interest in us at one point in our lives and give us some advice which was really valuable. Yet, a lot of organizations have tried to “assign” mentors to “high-potentials,” as part of their leadership development programs. This just doesn’t work. It’s like fixing up two people on a blind date who have nothing in common or are too busy to meet. The best approach we see is to have the leader and boss discuss some possible mentors (a lot of times the boss will have the best ideas because he/she knows a wider universe of people in the organization who might be interested and a good fit with the leader). Then, the boss should contact the possible mentor, rather than the leader. We’ve seen successful mentor relationships where the 2 people meet once a year for dinner; others where they meet every couple of months. It’s up to the two people. When it works, mentors can have a dramatic impact on “high-potential” leaders.
6. Discuss Career Path. Many bosses don’t make time to sit down and discuss a “high-potential” leader’s future career path at that company. However, the ones that do can create tremendous loyalty. People appreciate it (even highly talented people who you might think get tired of all the acclaim they receive) when their boss closes the door and says “let’s talk about what you want to accomplish here and how I can help.” Ideally, this career vision gets tied into the Leadership Development Plan.

Leadership Development is tough. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having a “crisis.” Recruiting is an answer to a short-term need, but it doesn’t address the underlying problem. The best organizations understand that — buying into it whole-heartedly — and build systematic processes to ensure their best people know where they need to develop and what their future career path looks like at that company.

Top Ten Reasons Why Large Companies Fail To Keep Their Best Talent

Whether it’s a high-profile tech company like Yahoo!, or a more established conglomerate like GE or Home Depot, large companies have a hard time keeping their best and brightest in house. Recently, GigaOM discussed the troubles at Yahoo! with a flat stock price, vested options for some of their best people, and the apparent free flow of VC dollars luring away some of their best people to do the start-up thing again.

Move up Move down

Yet, Yahoo!, GE, Home Depot, and other large established companies have a tremendous advantage in retaining their top talent and don’t. I’ve seen the good and the bad things that large companies do in relation to talent management.
Here’s my Top Ten list of what large companies do to lose their top talent :


1. Big Company Bureaucracy. This is probably the #1 reason we hear after the fact from disenchanted employees. However, it’s usually a reason that masks the real reason. No one likes rules that make no sense. But, when top talent is complaining along these lines, it’s usually a sign that they didn’t feel as if they had a say in these rules. They were simply told to follow along and get with the program. No voice in the process and really talented people say “check please.”

2. Failing to Find a Project for the Talent that Ignites Their Passion. Big companies have many moving parts — by definition. Therefore, they usually don’t have people going around to their best and brightest asking them if they’re enjoying their current projects or if they want to work on something new that they’re really interested in which would help the company. HR people are usually too busy keeping up with other things to get into this. The bosses are also usually tapped out on time and this becomes a “nice to have” rather than “must have” conversation. However, unless you see it as a “must have,” say adios to some of your best people. Top talent isn’t driven by money and power, but by the opportunity to be a part of something huge, that will change the world, and for which they are really passionate. Big companies usually never spend the time to figure this out with those people.


3. Poor Annual Performance Reviews. You would be amazed at how many companies do not do a very effective job at annual performance reviews. Or, if they have them, they are rushed through, with a form quickly filled out and sent off to HR, and back to real work. The impression this leaves with the employee is that my boss — and, therefore, the company — isn’t really interested in my long-term future here. If you’re talented enough, why stay? This one leads into #4….


4. No Discussion around Career Development. Here’s a secret for most bosses: most employees don’t know what they’ll be doing in 5 years. In our experience, about less than 5% of people could tell you if you asked. However, everyone wants to have a discussion with you about their future. Most bosses never engage with their employees about where they want to go in their careers — even the top talent. This represents a huge opportunity for you and your organization if you do bring it up. Our best clients have separate annual discussions with their employees — apart from their annual or bi-annual performance review meetings — to discuss succession planning or career development. If your best people know that you think there’s a path for them going forward, they’ll be more likely to hang around.


5. Shifting Whims/Strategic Priorities. I applaud companies trying to build an incubator or “brickhouse” around their talent, by giving them new exciting projects to work on. The challenge for most organizations is not setting up a strategic priority, like establishing an incubator, but sticking with it a year or two from now. Top talent hates to be “jerked around.” If you commit to a project that they will be heading up, you’ve got to give them enough opportunity to deliver what they’ve promised.


6. Lack of Accountability and/or telling them how to do their Jobs. Although you can’t “jerk around” top talent, it’s a mistake to treat top talent leading a project as “untouchable.” We’re not saying that you need to get into anyone’s business or telling them what to do. However, top talent demands accountability from others and doesn’t mind being held accountable for their projects. Therefore, have regular touch points with your best people as they work through their projects. They’ll appreciate your insights/observations/suggestions — as long as they don’t spillover into preaching.

Move up Move down

7. Top Talent likes other Top Talent. What are the rest of the people around your top talent like? Many organizations keep some people on the payroll that rationally shouldn’t be there. You’ll get a litany of rationales explaining why when you ask. “It’s too hard to find a replacement for him/her….” “Now’s not the time….” However, doing exit interviews with the best people leaving big companies you often hear how they were turned off by some of their former “team mates.” If you want to keep your best people, make sure they’re surrounded by other great people.

8. The Missing Vision Thing. This might sound obvious, but is the future of your organization exciting? What strategy are you executing? What is the vision you want this talented person to fulfill? Did they have a say/input into this vision? If the answer is no, there’s work to do — and fast.


9. Lack of Open-Mindedness. The best people want to share their ideas and have them listened to. However, a lot of companies have a vision/strategy which they are trying to execute against — and, often find opposing voices to this strategy as an annoyance and a sign that someone’s not a “team player.” If all the best people are leaving and disagreeing with the strategy, you’re left with a bunch of “yes” people saying the same things to each other. You’ve got to be able to listen to others’ points of view — always incorporating the best parts of these new suggestions.


10. Who’s the Boss? If a few people have recently quit at your company who report to the same boss, it’s likely not a coincidence. We’ll often get asked to come in and “fix” someone who’s a great sales person, engineer, or is a founder, but who is driving everyone around them “nuts.” We can try, but unfortunately, executive coaching usually only works 33% of the time in these cases. You’re better off trying to find another spot for them in the organization — or, at the very least, not overseeing your high-potential talent that you want to keep.
It’s never a one-way street. Top talent has to assume some responsibility as much as the organization. However, with the scarcity of talent — which will only increase in the next 5 years — Smart Organizations are ones who get out in front of these ten things, rather than wait for their people to come to them, asking to implement this list.

Leadership Quality Will Make or Break You

One of the most often overlooked aspects of leadership is the need for pursuit. Great leaders are never satisfied with traditional practice, static thinking, conventional wisdom, or common performance. In fact, the best leaders are simply uncomfortable with anything that embraces the status quo. Leadership is pursuit – pursuit of excellence, of elegance, of truth, of what’s next, of what if, of change, of value, of results, of relationships, of service, of knowledge, and of something bigger than themselves. In the text that follows I’ll examine the value of being a pursuer… Here’s the thing – pursuit leads to attainment. What you pursue will determine the paths you travel, the people you associate with, the character you develop, and ultimately, what you do or don’t achieve. Having a mindset focused on pursuit is so critical to leadership that lacking this one quality can sentence you to mediocrity or even obsolescence. The manner, method, and motivation behind any pursuit is what sets truly great leaders apart from the masses. If you want to become a great leader, become a great pursuer.
A failure to embrace pursuit is to cede opportunity to others. A leader’s failure to pursue clarity leaves them amidst the fog. Their failure to pursue creativity relegates them to the routine and mundane. Their failure to pursue talent sentences them to a world of isolation.  Their failure to pursue change approves apathy. Their failure to pursue wisdom and discernment subjects them to distraction and folly. Their failure to pursue character leaves a question mark on their integrity. Let me put this as simply as I can – you cannot attain what you do not pursue.

Move up Move down

Smart leaders understand it’s not just enough to pursue, but pursuit must be intentional, focused, consistent, aggressive, and unyielding. You must pursue the right things, for the right reasons, and at the right times. Perhaps most of all, the best forms of pursuit enlist others in the chase. Pursuit in its purest form is highly collaborative, very inclusive and easily transferable. Pursuit operates at greatest strength when it leverages velocity and scale.
I also want to caution you against trivial pursuits – don’t confuse pursuit with simple goal setting. Outcomes are clearly important, but as a leader, it’s what happens after the outcome that you need to be in pursuit of. Pursue discovery, seek dissenting opinions, develop your ability unlearn by embracing how much you don’t know, and find the kind of vision that truly does see around corners. Don’t use your pursuits to shift paradigms, pursue breaking them. Knowing what not to pursue is just as important as knowing what to pursue.
It’s important to keep in mind that nothing tells the world more about a leader than what or who they pursue – that which you pursue is that which you value. If you message to your organization you value talent, but don’t treat people well and don’t spend time developing the talent around you, then I would suggest you value rhetoric more than talent. Put simply, you can wax eloquent all you like, but your actions will ultimately reveal what you truly value.
Lastly, the best leaders pursue being better leaders. They know to fail in this pursuit is nothing short of a guarantee they’ll be replaced by those who don’t. All leaders would be well served to go back to school on what I refer to as the science of pursuitology.

Exactly what is 'Thinking Outside the Box' ?

A reason we often hear for the need for innovation training is to get "our team to think outside the box."
This may come from the person at the top who feels that the quality of solutions or ideas is not great. This stems from frustration. It also comes from people working in teams who feel that the contribution of others is not helping find new and original solutions to the challenges they face. If you have ever been in this situation, you will know how hard it is to deal with. Perhaps it is best to start with what this term actually means.
I don't know of an official definition for "out of the box" thinking, but here is my perspective starting with "in the box" thinking.

Inside The Box
Thinking inside the box means accepting the status quo. For example, Charles H. Duell, Director of the US Patent Office, said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." That was in 1899: clearly he was in the box!
In-the-box thinkers find it difficult to recognize the quality of an idea. An idea is an idea. A solution is a solution. In fact, they can be quite pigheaded when it comes to valuing an idea. They rarely invest time to turn a mediocre solution into a great solution.
More importantly, in-the-box thinkers are skillful at killing ideas. They are masters of the creativity killer attitude such as "that'll never work" or "it's too risky." The best in-the-box thinkers are unaware that they drain the enthusiasm and passion of innovative thinkers while they kill their innovative ideas.
They also believe that every problem needs only one solution; therefore, finding more than one possible solution is a waste of time. They often say, "There is no time for creative solutions. We just need THE solution."
Even great creative people can become in-the-box thinkers when they stop trying. Apathy and indifference can turn an innovator into an in-the-box thinker.
In only one case is in-the-box thinking necessary. This comes from a cartoon: a man talks to his cat and points to the kitty litter box. He says, "Never ever think outside the box!"
Outside the Box
Thinking outside the box requires different attributes that include:

• Willingness to take new perspectives to day-to-day work.
• Openness to do different things and to do things differently.
• Focusing on the value of finding new ideas and acting on them.
• Striving to create value in new ways.
• Listening to others.
• Supporting and respecting others when they come up with new ideas.

Out-of-the box thinking requires an openness to new ways of seeing the world and a willingness to explore. Out-of-the box thinkers know that new ideas need nurturing and support. They also know that having an idea is good but acting on it is more important. Results are what count.

Five steps to building inclusive teams

Teams that excel at diversity and inclusion reach more customers, and serve them better. They design and build better products and services. They attract and retain the best talent. Their employees are engaged and want to make a contribution.

There are five basic principles for leaders who want to build more-inclusive teams:

1. Operate outside your comfort zone. "As a leader, you will encounter people from different cultures, ethnicities, genders, ages, and beliefs," . "Explore, ask questions, probe, and value their thoughts and contributions to the team."
2. Be aware of differences. The key to success lies in your team members' differences and multiple viewpoints. "Embrace the differences and do not attempt to change them," he advised.
3. Get good at listening. This is critical for leaders, and information sharing needs to be two-way. Inclusive leaders "must draw out the thoughts of others who are reluctant to talk because of past experiences. The road might be bumpy, but once trust has been established, innovation and team success will follow.
4. Focus on the individual. Inclusion really takes place at a personal level, and is rooted in respect for the individual.
5. Everyone can contribute. Everyone has something to contribute to the team. When leaders are inclusive, "Company ended up with the best answers for people, clients, and shareholders."

Learn How To Be A Good Listener, Listening Skills Show Respect To The Speaker

Have you ever been in a middle of an interview or even in a conversation in that matter, when the person you are talking to just gets up and walks away? Or fiddles in the chair? Or even looks everywhere but at you? How does this make you feel? Most people feel hurt. The listener acts as though he or she is absolutely not interest in what the speaker has to say or already said. And yet, when it is their turn to talk, they expect, if not demand, attention.

Have you ever been in a heated conversation and realize that your partner has no idea what you have been saying? It could very well be the manner that you are delivering the argument or speech, or it may even be that your partner is a poor listener. Poor listening skills seem to be the majority and not the minority of fresh graduates. Since Malaysia is so used to being fast paced in all matters, we often forget how to slow down and just listen.

So how can one learn to be a good listener? Below are some common tips that can help poor listeners work wonders in all situations not only during interviews.

1. Learn to listen by using lots of eye contact:
   Let the speaker know that you are interested in what is being said



2. Be slow to speak:
   Sometimes, people speak to think out loud. Sometimes, all they really want is a shoulder to lean on and a willing ear to listen. By being slow to speak, you are allowing the speaker to work out or solve problems themselves. Also, one must think before he/she speaks
3. Keep the secret:
   People trust you with information because they believe that you will not gossip and spread slander. Keep their trust by keeping things private; between the two of you
4. Be Attentive:
   Learn to actively listen. Let the speaker know that you are actually listening, although you are not speaking, by saying things like, "yeah, hmmm, I know, that's true, okay, that makes sense," and so forth. This shows that you are in tune with what they are saying and also following what they are saying
5. Show Gratitude:
   Let the speaker know that you feel honored that they were able to open up to you. If nothing personal was said, than let the speaker know that you had a great time listening and that you learned a lot. In a society that forgets to show gratitude, a simple use of kind words, can make someone's day a little brighter. Showing kindness and appreciation will also help you with the interviewer
6. Stay in Tune:
   Do not simply disappear in the middle of any conversation because your mind wandered. Whether you actually get up and walk away or let your mind wander elsewhere, it is just being plain rude. If you find that your attention span is small, actively repeat what is being said to you as the speaker is speaking

10 Signs On How To Recognize a Good Listener

Do You Know What To Look For?

A good listener is worth their weight in gold and one of the most important foundations in a relationship is for both partners to be good listeners.

So whether you are already in a relationship and are looking for a good listener to use as a role model or if you are looking for the love of your life and one of your criteria is someone who is a good listener, it is always good to be able to recognize a good listener. So the following are ten signs of a good listener:

You Can Feel That The Listener Is Fully Present And In the Moment With You:

You can tell the difference between someone who is fully in the moment with you versus someone who has their mind on something else is when you are talking to the unfocused person you will get an urge to rush through what you are saying versus when you are with a person who is totally focused on you, you will feel at home and that you have all the time in the world to say what you have to say. With a person who is totally focused on you, you will almost feel like sighing because you feel so supported and because you feel like you are truly the centre of their attention.

The Listener Will Keep Eye Contact With You:

The listener will keep constant eye contact with you, only looking away on occasion to prevent staring or awkwardness.

The Listener Will Nod, Smile And Give You Auditory Feedback:

A good listener will nod, smile and give you auditory feedback such as "Mm hum", "Yeah" "I see" or "No, really?" in a sincere and interested way to encourage you to continue and to indicate that they are listening.

The Listener Will Encourage You To Continue Talking:

As you are talking, they will encourage you to continue talking. For example they will say things like "That's really interesting" or "I find that interesting, please continue "or "I'd like to hear more."

The Listener Will Parrot Back What You Are Saying When Appropriate:

Every once in a while, a good listener will parrot back what you say to indicate they are paying attention and that they are right in your story with you.

The Listener Will Only Finish Your Sentence When Appropriate:

A good listener will only finish your sentence when the timing is right, not to try to rush you through your story or to help you out when you are at a loss of words, but to show that they are on the same wave length as you.

The Listener Goes By the 80% Listening, 20% Talking Rule:

A good listener knows that the art of being a good listener (whether that is because they just intuitively know or because they are actually aware of the rule) will listen approximately 80% of the time during the course of the conversation and spend only 20% of the conversation talking.

The Listener Will Keep The Conversation Focused on Your Topic of Discussion:

There is nothing more annoying than to open a conversation with someone and they change the topic on you in the middle of what you are trying to express. This often happens when the person gives you an example about themselves to show that they understand what you are saying but then they keep going with their example or take the opportunity while the attention is on themselves to switch topics. A good listener if they feel the need to use an example to back up what you were saying will keep it short and will return the conversation back to what you were talking about.

The Listener Will Ask You Thoughtful and Open-ended Questions About What You Are Talking About:

A good listener will ask you thoughtful questions that will lead you into opening up into further detail about your topic of discussion. For example, they may say something like " So you work in the Marketing Department, tell me about some of the duties that you are in charge of or what specifically are in you charge of or what aspects of your job do you love?"

The Listener Knows How to Empathize With You:

When a good listener feeds back how you are feeling, their description of the feeling or emotion will actually match how you are feeling. If they are off, they are dedicated to finding out how you are truly feeling versus throwing out a bunch of descriptions of how you are feeling in hopes of eventually guessing the correct feeling or emotion.

If you recognize a good listener in your life, tell them you how much you appreciate them. If you are still looking for a good listener to come into you life, it is both worth the search and the wait, because not only will they create a wonderful communication foundation for your relationship, they will always make you feel special and supported in expressing yourself.

How to Chair Meetings Effectively

A chair should learn how to chair meetings effectively and decisively. Chairmanship is a unique skill worth practicing and nurturing.

Chairmanship is a learned skill. It has to be practiced and perfected. A chair is considered successful when he provides opportunity for everyone to be heard, gives appropriate rulings and protects the minority while abiding by the majority decisions.

Ten Commandments for the Chair

1. Be Prepared. The number one rule for effective chairmanship is to be prepared well in advance for the meeting. He should, with the help of the secretary of the organization, draft an agenda for the meeting which reflects the purpose of the meeting. He should see to it that all committees and subcommittees are given equal chances to be heard without hindrance. He should contact the chairs of various committees and check what they are going to deliver. Prioritize the items according to importance. If some topics are current, motivate the concerned committees to present their reports. Spread the agenda evenly to provide for everyone to be heard. Being prepared will enable the chair to guide the meeting in the proper direction rather than allow it to drift aimlessly. Adhering to proper formal meeting procedures by the chair will uphold democratic principles and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures.
2. Be Prompt. Prompt responses to the members’ opinions and suggestions are very important in keeping the meetings under control. Use common sense. Never let the discussion linger on. Never let things get out of your command.
3. Be Punctual. A chair should be the first to arrive at the meeting place. He should realize that time is very precious. A chair must insist that meetings start on time and end on time. Frivolous discussion should be discouraged.
4. Be Strict. A chair should be strict without being rude. Always see to it that the rule and decorum of the organization are observed by the members. Never allow personal attacks and ego boosting performances by the members.
5. Be Impartial. Many a times, the discussions may reach a point where the chair will have to make a ruling depending on the preceding discussions. The general trend of the discussion may have gone against the chair’s own conviction. But the majority should always be given weightage. Chair may mention his reservations while proclaiming his rulings, though.
6. Be Honest . Being honest and open is the best virtue for a chair. Even though the chair has to stick with the majority decision, the chair will be respected if he reveals his own caliber and credibility.
7. Be Rational. Common sense and reasoning can be of great virtues for a chair. A rational chair will be efficient in judging the members’ moods and guiding the discussion in the appropriate direction.
8. Be Humorous. A humorous chair can convert the most monotonous meeting into a colorful and enjoyable experience. The humor should be spontaneous and well timed.
9. Be Current. Keep updated on the current affairs of the organization, the society, the nation and the world. This will come handy during the discussions.
10. Be Knowledgeable. Above all, the chair should have a sound knowledge of the parliamentary procedures and rules governing the conduct of a meeting. He should have the Robert’s Rules of Order on his fingertips to guide the meeting in the desired direction. A basic knowledge about different types of motions will be a useful tool while chairing a meeting.

Never undervalue your experienced support technicians

Takeaway: Perhaps the biggest IT management oversight in the solar system is the undervaluation of these experienced technicians.

Malcolm Gladwell begins his book Blink with a story of an art dealer, Gianfranco Becchina. In 1983, Becchina offered the J. Paul Getty Museum a marble statue he claimed dated from the 6^th century BC. The sculpture, known as a Kouros, was of a nude male youth standing with his left leg forward and his arms at his sides.

Becchina’s asking price was, in essence, a ten million dollar question: “Is the statue legitimate or a superb forgery?” The Getty museum kept the statue on loan and spent 14 months trying to answer that expensive question.

The Getty brought in a geologist from the University of California, who examined the statue over two days with a stereomicroscope. He believed the statue was very old, of dolomite marble from the Cape Vathy quarry on the island of Thasos.

Stereomicroscopes, apparently, can be deceiving. Gladwell explained,

The Kouros had a problem. It didn’t look right. The first to point this out was an Italian art historian named Federico Zeri. When Zeri was taken down to the museum’s restoration studio to see the Kouros, he found himself staring at the sculpture’s fingernails. In a way he couldn’t immediately articulate, they seemed wrong to him.

Thomas Hoving, the former director of the Metropolitan Museum in New York looked at it. His first thought was “fresh.” “And fresh,” Gladwell notes, “is not the right reaction to a 2000 year old statue.” Having turned to the Getty’s curator and asked if he had paid for it, then said, “If you haven’t, don’t, if you have, try to get your money back.”

In the end, the letters Becchina supplied to the Getty tracing the sculpture’s previous ownership turned out to be fake. The sculpture was a forgery. Very similar to a fragment produced by a forger in Rome in the early 1980’s.

The adaptive unconscious in technical support

Gladwell believes the art historians took a look at the statue and a part of their brain did a series of instant calculations. The part of the brain that constructs these quick conclusions from a large storehouse of data is called the adaptive unconscious. I believe the use of the adaptive unconscious is common in people with a lot of experience in technical support. (This definition of the “unconscious” is distinct from the “unconscious” defined by Freud. Don’t even go there.)

Rarely do experienced troubleshooters consciously think about what they’re doing (the process) when diagnosing a user’s problem because they’ve done it so many times. We ask general, but essential, questions first. After four or five general questions, we start asking specific questions.

We’re not following a script. Our questions are dynamic and are formed based on the answers the users give to the previous questions as well as our experience, which places their answers in a larger context.

Without even knowing it, we filter potential problems through our large “experiences” database and rank suspected causes on a scale of probability. Then, by process of elimination, we go after the issue, checking the most likely cause first. The effectiveness of our unconscious is directly related to the amount of relevant data stored there. There has to be a significant sample size of pertinent experiences to draw from; which we adapt to our current problem.

When we use the term “gut feeling,” we’re talking about the adaptive unconscious. But my point is our unconscious also contains a ton of loosely cataloged, objective information as Gladwell’s story illustrates.

Of course, some problems are so simple we just use conscious memory. We’re like a blindfolded passenger in a car driven by a lost user. In our memory is an excellent map of the town. Our job is to ask the user questions to give us some landmarks so we can tell them where to turn to get home.

The two key factors affecting productivity: Personnel and processes

So what you ask? Perhaps the biggest IT management oversight in the solar system is the undervaluation of these experienced technicians. An expert has been described as anyone with a briefcase over 50 miles from home. While that may not be the beginning of your story of the worst experience you’ve had with consultants, we all agree it does not an expert make. Daniel Levitin in his book, This is Your Brain on Music, gives a more accurate definition of an expert: “Someone who has reached a high degree of accomplishment relative to other people.”

Are experts made or born? Levitan says studies have shown that, “ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert - in anything. In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again.”

The belief one can pull together a fine service desk, (level 1 and 2), with lightly experienced techs is ludicrous, whether in-house or offshore. Try it and the result will be disgusted users whose expectations are so low they feel, for some strange reason, they are fortunate when they are told their problem is going to be “escalated.” The word “escalated” in not synonymous in any dictionary with the word “resolved.” Inexperienced technicians, if that is all you have, are a significant personnel problem.

Another very common occurrence in technical support is having too much distance between the person with a problem and the person with the solution. Putting the person with the answer within one phone call of the end user 80% of the time is pricey — but it is less than the cost of separating them. Because that distance, measured in time, equals lost productivity which equals cost. A gatekeeper between the user and experienced technicians is a significant process problem.

End users know when they need their problem fixed. It is pretty much, “now.” That’s why they’re calling. “Now” should be a reasonable expectation the majority of the time. Put end-users and real tech support pros in immediate contact and watch customer satisfaction and productivity skyrocket.

On the other hand, providing users a technician to fix their computer problems who can’t fix 80% of a caller’s issues is claiming to have a genuine asset, when in fact, you don’t. And that doesn’t take 14 months to figure out.

Kent Blake works to create higher standards of customer support in a technical environment. He is a consultant and can be contacted for golf at kent@blakenow.com. He combines a journalism degree from Ole Miss with 15 years experience in various capacities in technical support and management.

Soft Skills and ROI

There are two measurements involved in the assessment of a manager's soft skills, just as there are when measuring quality.

First, there is measurement of the manager's compliance with using soft skills. This requires precisely defining those skills just as one would define quality standards.

Second, there is measuring the effect of the result of the use of soft skills or the use of quality standards. This would mean measuring productivity resulting from the use of soft skills, just as one would seek increased sales and consumer satisfaction as a result of quality controls.

I think that we know how to make the second measurements, but we don't have defined metrics for soft skills. As a starting point, I would recommend a simple test consisting of the 10 questions below. Rank a manager on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best or almost always performs the action and 1 being the worst or almost never performs the action. Add up the points for each question. If the score is close to 100, I would expect that employees will be over 3 times more productive than if the score was 30 or less. In addition, with a score close to 100, employees will unleash their full creativity and innovation, love to come to work and have very high morale.

Does the manager:

• Provide regular and frequent opportunities for employees to voice complaints, suggestions and questions, provide reasonable and timely responses, and give employees what they say they need to do a better job? (At least weekly?)
• Elicit answers/responses from the team and get them to use their brainpower to solve problems?
• Listen to employees with 100% attention without distraction, without trying to figure out a response and with the use of follow-up questions to obtain missing details and suggested fixes?
• Refrain from giving orders since by their nature they demeaning and disrespectful and destroy innovation and commitment?
• Treat members better in terms of humility, respect, timely and high quality responses, forthrightness, trust, admission of error, etc than they are expected to treat customers and each other?
• Publicly recognize employees for their contributions and high performance and never take credit him/herself?
• Openly provide all company info to employees to the extent they need/desire?
• Use values and high standards of them in order to explain why certain actions are better than others?
• Use smiles and good humor with subordinates, not frowns or a blank face?
• Generate in employees a sense of ownership?

Remember that leadership is science and thus the results of your leadership are fully measurable and every manager, executive, boss should go about setting and reaching leadership metrics. The impact on your organization in terms of ROI has been proven to be considerable. With attention paid to the areas listed above, you can increase productivity, retention, innovation, creativity, morale, and revenue.

When Managing People, What is the Goal?

Before deciding what you are going to do or how you are going to do it, you need to decide where you want to go, right? Let's first then define a universal goal when it comes to managing people - really the best goal.

How we manage employees has some striking similarities to how we manage anything in business. And one striking difference.

Managing anything is simply the act of directing or controlling the use of that thing. Management in a business environment would also entail making the most effective use of that thing or resource, whether it be money, machines, material, supply chains, accounting, engineering, people or whatever.

So what is the most effective use of people?

The answer would be obvious for a machine: as a starting point, use the machine as it was designed to be used and operate it in accordance with its operating manual. But effectively using it must include maintaining it in good condition (well oiled, appropriately fueled or powered, well overhauled, parts replaced when worn, etc, etc).

Very few managers are unaware of the fact that if we only used the machine and never properly cared for it, the machine's capacity would degrade rather steadily over time and eventually suffer a casualty which would render it useless. It is clear then, effective use includes routine preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance in order to "maintain" the machine in tip-top operating condition. The better we maintain it, the better its output. No rocket science here.

In such respects, are people any different than machines? What is tip-top operating condition for people?

Is a tip-top condition extremely high morale or very low morale or somewhere in between? Is it a strong sense of ownership for their work or no sense of ownership? Is it acting like a robot or is it maximizing their creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation and commitment for their work? Most notably, management and leadership experts indicate the difference between the top and bottom of this performance spectrum is about 500% in productivity. That is quite a difference.

To be successful at maintaining machinery or a function like accounting, one must thoroughly understand that machine or function, how it works and what is required for optimal performance. Is it any different in the case of managing people? The answer is not really.

There is one significant difference between machines and people. People have a brain completely capable of deciding what they should do, when they should do it, how they should do it and then actually doing it. This would seem to imply that managing people is more about maintaining the natural capabilities of the "machine" (the person) than about operating it.

So the primary goal of managing people is to maintain them at a high performance level and to even enhance their natural capabilities.

How Managers Create Low Morale In Their Employees

Everyone knows that the sports team with the highest morale wins. In fact, every manager wants high morale in his or her group. So why do most managers create low morale in their employees?

But given the societal, educational and workplace related influences, it would be amazing if managers did not create low morale and severely damage employee motivation.

From birth, most of us are told what to do. We receive a rather overwhelming number of orders, directions and policies from those who believe we should follow their dictates; parents, teachers, churches, government and finally bosses in the workplace.

This is commonly referred to as the top-down command and control management model. Having been literally bombarded with this model, it is unsurprising that the vast majority of managers adopt it as their own.

But what of the people being managed with this model? Unfortunately for managers, no one likes to take orders and all consider it to be demeaning, degrading and disrespectful. This teaches and leads employees to disrespect their customers, their work, each other and bosses.

In addition, employees also feel demeaned and degraded if no one listens carefully to their ideas and whatever else they have to say. Every human has a need to be able to put in their two cents and are turned off if not able to do so.

But the command and control model implies that employees should listen to the leaders and that leaders have no need to listen to employees. So managers spend most of their time trying to figure out their next order, goal or target and rarely if ever take the time to really listen to their people.

And there are more negative effects on morale and workforce motivation associated with the command and control model, specifically from not listening to employees and not dialoguing with them over workplace problems. Without continuous input for lower level personnel, managers are denied the only available firsthand view of problems from those living with them up close and personal every day.

Without these facts, orders and directives from managers rarely address the real problems and more often exacerbate them. This leads employees to distrust and disrespect management and causes further reductions of morale and workforce motivation.

And there’s more. Failure to listen and dialog over perceived problems denies employees information which only the manager has and which is necessary to being able to understand the true cause of problems or the seriousness of them. Lacking this information, employee expectations and criticisms are quite often unrealistic, thus causing the manager to disrespect employees.

Thus, low workforce morale, poorly motivated employees and greatly reduced employee performance quite naturally result from using an authoritarian based command and control model.

Our educational system is of little help. It is excellent at teaching management of “things” like engineering, marketing, finances, supply chain, and quality, but it rarely teaches the soft skills, the whats, whys and how-tos of managing people. In addition, the tools learned for managing “things” actually reinforce the authoritarian, “just do as I say,” approach to managing people.

As a manager, I spent 12 years stuck in this model, stuck with much lower morale and performance than I believed was possible. Fortunately, life provided me with two revelations which allowed me to transform my methods and subsequently prove that a level of employee morale and performance far beyond my wildest dreams can be achieved.

Why Employees Are Not Highly Motivated And Committed And What You Can Do About It

Doesn’t every executive and manager want highly motivated and committed employees?

Yes, certainly. Everyone knows that highly motivated people are continually striving to do their very best. In fact, these employees use 100% of their brainpower on their work when on the job and often when not on the job and that makes them extremely valuable employees.

According to Stephen Covey, the difference between poorly motivated and highly motivated employees is about 500% in productivity. I would not want to appear to disagree with Covey, but I have proven the difference to be at least 300%.

Everyone's creativity, innovation and productivity come from their brain. Their brain is also the source of motivation and commitment.

In addition, being highly motivated about “something” unleashes all of one’s brainpower and thus all of one’s creativity, innovation and productivity on that ‘something.’ Every person has the ability to become highly motivated about something, but whether or not that something includes their work is mostly a function of the work environment their bosses create.

So why are employees not highly motivated and committed? Because most bosses use top-down, command and control management techniques. These techniques demean, disrespect and demotivate employees. Employees thus become highly frustrated and highly stressed. In order to protect themselves often become apathetic toward the workplace. In this state, their brains are consumed by “oh, poor me” and other totally negative thoughts. In this state, bosses are lucky that they show up for work much less apply their brainpower to the work or be highly motivated.

So how does a boss cause an employee to apply 100% of their brainpower on their work and achieve excellence?

High motivation cannot be ordered or given to employees. Motivation is created by the brain from a great number of considerations.

Increasing financial rewards may motivate a few employees to produce more, but rarely can these rewards be significant enough to cause more than a very few to become “highly motivated and committed.” Carrots and sticks constitute influences that provide consequences for employees to evaluate, but they are not effective in creating a “highly motivated” workforce.

Then what is effective?

The answer is to allow employees to develop a strong sense of ownership of their work. To understand this, look at the lifespan difference between rental cars that drivers don't own and the cars they do own.

Rental cars rarely last much beyond 2 years while cars individually owned last for 10, 20 and even more years. Have you ever seen anyone washing a rental car? And don't ignore the difference in treatment received by an expensive sports car as compared to very inexpensive clunker.

Everyone is willing to apply themselves most diligently to something which they own, but far less so if that something is owned by someone else. They will take great pride in making it “shine” if they own it, but not so if they don’t. This is human nature.

Therefore, if employees feel a strong sense of ownership of their work, they will become highly motivated to do the very best work they can and will be up to 5 times more productive than if poorly motivated.

But will employees ever get to “feel” that strong sense of ownership in today’s workplace? Concerning orders, goals and policies, designed by the command and control system to direct the employee's every action, will bosses stop these in order to cease making employees feel demeaned and demoralized?

Will bosses regularly, daily or more often, listen to what their employees say they need in order to do a better job and then give it to them? Will bosses stop shooting the messenger?

Will bosses allow employees to control their own workplace while assisting them in any way they can to make the work easier and safer to accomplish?

Will bosses consider their employees more important than themselves and treat employees accordingly?

Will bosses prevent bureaucracy from frustrating their employees and actually force bureaucrats to serve employees?

If the answers to these is a resounding yes, you will be on your way to achieving a highly motivated and committed workforce.

Or will a top-down command and control model continue in use with all its “just say no” bureaucrats controlling those awful workers?

So, I ask you. Why is it that most employees are not highly motivated and committed about your workplace? The fact is, most employees are highly motivated and committed about something, just not their work and for good reasons.

A Story About the Power of Listening

Forty union mechanics were voicing their complaints, suggestions and questions to a senior manager. Their General Manager, line supervisors and I, as Vice President, were present.

The mechanics were members of a 1,300 person organization charged with overhauling powerhouse boilers, turbines and major auxiliary machinery. Top executives considered the group grossly unsatisfactory. I had taken over about a year before this meeting, directed to either get rid of them or fix them. I had spent a lot of time correcting deficiencies reported by employees and their performance had greatly improved. However, all was not yet well.

A union steward claimed mishandling of asbestos made working very dangerous. The manager denied these allegations. A loud argument ensued. Other attendees reacted negatively.

Sensing that they were getting nowhere, the general manager took over but was soon in a shouting match with the steward. Audience body language turned more negative.

Seeing that the meeting was accomplishing exactly the opposite of what we needed, that being trust between workers and management, I took the lead from the General Manager. I said nothing, took out a 3x5 card and began taking notes. The steward continued his tirade in a loud voice. Body language of the group showed they were becoming more interested.

The steward stopped shouting, there being nothing to shout over, but said many nasty things about management. I continued taking notes.

The steward stopped after a few minutes. In the lull, I asked if he had more facts about the situation. He started again, but only with more words about how he hated management and how bad they were. When he stopped, I asked again if he had anything more he would like to add. He sheepishly replied no.

I then commiserated with quite a few compassionate work, the main message being that I'd be unwilling to work for such terrible people. I talked of the adverse effects on his mental and physical health and that of his family, concluding with the suggestion that he find work elsewhere in order to protect himself and his family.

Body language had become very positive toward me and very negative toward the steward. The steward had overplayed his hand while I listened. I said I would personally review the entire situation and report back to the group. Poised to take more notes, I asked the group to give me any comments they had about the issue raised by the steward.

Attendees then spent time essentially refuting what the steward had said. I also asked for suggestions on how we could improve and received a couple, but mostly accolades that things had improved greatly and please to continue those changes.

I gave the meeting back to the manager and things proceeded very positively thereafter with the manager following my lead, listening rather than arguing.

Listening begets respect, trust and commitment, and constitutes superior leadership in how to treat work and people including customers.

Don't Shoot the Messenger

We have now seen how gathering data or Listening depends on gaining answers to carefully designed questions. Since questions are naturally threatening to people, they can cause defensiveness as well as anxiety. Just being in the presence of a boss increases our anxiety and the higher the boss the greater the anxiety (non-5Star only). Therefore, a major goal of any questioning process must be to relax fears and prevent anxiety.

In view of this, I have chosen to present to you the procedure a boss should use to receive a problem report, certainly a most challenging situation loaded with pitfalls. Since reporting problems is our most important management rule, the procedure must certainly not Shoot the Messenger, but must welcome the bad news as another opportunity to excel. Done correctly, messengers will not be terrified to make the report and some few may even feel glad to do so. The boss will have made problem reporting something for which no one has a valid Excuse not to perform. So here's the Procedure.

1. Train yourself to physically clap your hands for joy and smile warmly as soon as you realize that standing before you is a messenger of bad news. Add a few words of welcome to reduce anxiety. Clear your brain to concentrate on listening.

2. Then allow the reporter to continue without interruption while you smile warmly as if you have heard some of this before (you probably have). Perhaps you can start to take some careful notes. Note taking always keeps us occupied, keeps us from missing anything and permits us to slow down the reporter.

3. At the end of the person's report, ask very politely if that's all there is or if there is more. Send the clear message you are in no hurry and that quality in getting all the details is your only desire.

4. The reporter may be ready to discuss corrective action and if so, take it now before you start asking questions. You might desire to reverse this, but remember we are far more worried about the reporter's feelings than yours. So do whatever the reporter wants. When the reporter stops, ask if there are any more details worth knowing. Do not assume that the report is complete until there is a definite statement to that effect. Then worry that some details have been left out.

5. Now give thanks for the information and appreciation for the person's effort to tell you. Perhaps a reference to your reporting rule (Chapter 5, Supporting, What Can I Do For You, requires that all problems be reported up the chain) can be made and how important that is to your being able to do your own job. “Well, that's quite a load, George. Thanks a lot for bringing it. You know I've got this rule about reporting all problems, so I am really grateful that you did so. If you don't report the problems, I'll never be able to do my job. This is really important to me and I appreciate your report.”

6. Only now can you ask questions. At this point, you should have been able to gain composure and prepare yourself. You have had plenty of time to mentally note what's not been said, what's been implied that needs amplification, what the reporter's body language gave you that was missed in words and what was said but not clearly enough for you to understand. The reporter's body language should have sent relative importance, degree of hazard, whether there is more to the story and the like. You have also had time to compare this event with others in your experience so that you may now apply previous lessons learned.

7. So go back over the problem carefully with your questions, even to the extent of full repeats. Do not be accusatory or in any way place the reporter on the defensive. Remember, the person is on your team and vice versa so the questions must be professional, unemotional and matter of fact. You set the Tone. You might even explain this fact and that you want to ask some questions so you will fully understand the nature of the problem, and after all, making things worse by taking inappropriate actions is not your intent.

8. Beyond the problem itself, there are root causes which are the people problems of this book. Your questions must probe for these possibilities. Frequency of occurrence, similarity to other problems, association with particular groups or individuals, as well as the reporter's tone and body language can be great signposts. “I don't want you to criticize your peers (or boss), but what do you think, George, about how the problem got started? How can we do better?” Careful, circumspect probing that begs for possible answers is the rule.

9. Any need for fixing people problems will slowly become apparent as problem understanding and its solution are developed. People problems can only be understood after some detailed discussion. The wrong order, miscommunication, the wrong goal, the wrong training or tool or procedure are so pervasive that laying blame on a people problem is not possible until the very end of the process. Do not attempt it in the beginning as it will really shut down the problem report.

10. Ask if the reporter has any recommendations as to how we should proceed, if not already provided. Ask questions to get all the details and the reasoning. People who spend time using their brainpower to figure out actions must be recognized and praised.

11. So the careful, not aggressive but firm questioning is done. The quality of the report will dictate the number and variety of the questions. There may be just a few. A by-product will be an understanding of the reporter and perhaps some practical training for the reporter to the extent his/her own homework was not completely done. After the above process, rest assured his/her next report will be of higher quality and will require less questions on your part.

12. Now ask if there is anything else which might be important to know in designing what we do from here.

13. At the very end, thank and appreciate once again, and with a smile and a lilt to your voice, let the messenger go. "Thanks again for bringing up the problem. I know it is not easy for you, but it is very important to me. Thanks especially for bearing with my questions and being so open with your responses (whether true or not, because this makes the next time better).

I recommend blind adherence to the above and a solid attempt to have your body language exude the positive, bright and cheerful Tone intended. Every boss should welcome the tough problems with open arms because without them you would not be needed. Bosses can only truly earn their pay in times of great difficulty. If they get tough when the going gets tough rather than get unhappy or vengeful or rattled or reactive, what a great example, what great leadership!

Did I say leadership? Did the script above pass all of the Value Standards of chapter 4 with an 8-10? Check it for positive attitude and enthusiasm and smiles and cheerleading! Check it for humility, fairness, forthrightness and do unto others as you would have them do unto you! Do your own evaluation!

Please make one important observation. The boss gave no answers, opinions or conclusions, rather choosing to concentrate on getting every possible input which the reporter could provide. The boss paid close attention to the reporter and not on thoughts, conclusions and whatever inside his/her own head. Most bosses are so busy with their own thoughts and deciding what they will say that they miss half or more of the communications emanating from the reporter. This is interpreted as being egotism or selfishness and leads in the wrong direction, away from selflessness and fairness. From such, reporters learn they will not be heard.

If the boss consciously uses the above procedure for receiving any problem from anyone, whether initiated by the boss (“How are your tools?”) or not, it removes all pressure on the boss to somehow perform as the provider of all answers and all knowledge. It also allows the boss to concentrate on Listening, questioning and not missing anything. Besides, after you have completed pumping everything possible out of the reporter, time for thought on what to do will be available. Many other people may need to be involved and should have a chance to provide input before proceeding. Do not jump to conclusions or make quick decisions or pronouncements. You only have one report, one of many sides. Be careful to get all sides covered before you err by trying to manage something which needs more facts to reach a conclusion or should be decided at a lower level in the chain of command, etc. Many possibilities exist and most of them indicate that keeping your mouth shut is the best policy until careful thought is possible. Don't be a loose cannon.

Bear in mind that the previously covered Value of quality is a real key to the above. Taking a chance on providing guidance or direction or judgment which is of less than the highest quality, when there is no emergency or other condition which requires immediate response, is unnecessarily chancing poor leadership. Lack of quality always comes back to haunt us and using the wisdom of “anything worth doing is worth doing right” will pay you back many fold. Do not be pressured into being a hip-shooter. Deliberately stop and show respect for the gravity of the situation, for the needs of leadership in general, and most of all, for the people involved. Take the time to do it right. This is termed "attention to detail" for bosses.

Listening, a Tool for Leadership and Commitment

Listening is the doorway to superior leadership for every executive, manager and supervisor and is also the doorway to gaining the commitment of subordinates. Really? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Listening is the most important of all leadership skills. Leadership at its best is a coherent strategy to cause employees to utilize their full brainpower in performing their work; to be highly creative, productive, motivated and committed rather than turned off and poorly motivated as in leaving their brain at the door. Although the full strategy is well beyond the scope of this article, let’s see how leadership itself really works.

Leadership Through Support

We all know that every boss is responsible for providing support to the workforce. Support generally includes such elements as training, discipline, rewards, tools, parts and materials, technical advice, guidance and direction, planning information, documentation, procedures, rules and, last but not least, peace of mind.

Each element of support projects certain value standards. For example, tools can be of high, medium or low quality. They can be clean or dirty, easily available or hard to get, of the latest technology or the oldest, always or rarely there when needed, easy or too difficult to replace, complete with or lacking in adequate documentation, always or rarely operable, or somewhere in between these extremes. The same is true for every other element of support. Taken collectively, they constitute the boss‘ leadership, actually the leadership of all bosses in the chain above the worker. This leadership stares in the face of every worker every day.

So now that it‘s out there for all to see, what does a worker do with all this leadership, these hundreds if not thousands of leadership messages? The vast majority of workers use these messages to determine how; industriously or lazily, safely or unsafely, courteously or discourteously, knowledgeably or ignorantly, expertly or sloppily, cleanly or uncleanly, openly or close to the vest (admit to errors?), caringly or uncaringly, honestly or dishonestly and so forth to do their work.

Did I say caringly? Yes, the worker figures out from the quality of all this support whether or not the boss cares about the worker. In addition, whatever that standard for caring is, the worker turns around and uses it to treat the company’s customers and other people in the workplace.

Did I say honestly? Yes, if the boss states that a particular tool or piece of equipment is adequate while the worker knows this is not true, the worker assumes that the boss knows better and thus concludes that the boss is being dishonest. The message is that a low standard for honesty is OK. “If you can do it so can I” takes over from there.

So! How is listening the doorway to superior leadership?

From the above, you may now realize that your leadership is sending some messages that need fixing. So, how can you improve your leadership? The solution is to go out and listen— listen to complaints about your support, messages of low standards. Then correct that condition and do it to the reporter’s satisfaction. This corrects the problem thereby making the worker’s job easier, corrects your poor leadership from misleading others and provides living proof that you really care about your people. In addition, this process of detection and correction teaches workers how to solve problems, how to treat customers and how to use value standards in the workplace. One stone kills a lot of birds.

Luckily for you, these workers don’t use the value standards they got from you to judge what goes on around them. What they use are their own value standards and all of their values are good, for instance everyone believes in honesty. Since each worker has different standards compared to the next worker, each will be bothered more by one thing, less by another. Taken collectively, they disclose most if not all problems. And by the way, if most of them line up against one particular thing, rest assured that thing requires major fixing.

So get out with your people, listen to their complaints and suggestions, and take corrective action. Corrective action may be just an explanation of certain details unknown by the worker. Whatever it is, corrective action must be timely, of unquestionably high quality and must include getting back to the originator to find out if your intended fix is acceptable (don’t put the fix into action before getting feedback). As I explained in leadership through support, this is your leadership and you want it to reflect only the highest standards for every value. The values of significance are: honesty, confidence, industriousness, positive attitude, compassion, humility, admission of error, perseverance, fairness, forgiveness, forthrightness, trust, courtesy, grit, heroism, knowledge, integrity, quality, loyalty and selflessness.

Listening itself must be conducted in such a way as to reflect high standards of the above values. Your tone of voice and attitude are crucial. You must make clear that you know you are making the worker’s job more difficult than it should be, albeit without intending to do so, but that you are willing to make needed corrections. Let them know you are the supplier of support and they are your customers. Act like it, body language, facial expressions, smiles, etc! The customer is always right so act that way and say it several times. In addition, you may have to ask questions to flesh out the problem or to get the worker to talk. Suffice it to say that bosses are scary people in general and you need to gain the worker’s trust before they can really open up. Making clear that you are their servant as concerns support issues is a big step in the right direction.

After you start hacking away at the forest of your bad or low quality leadership, workforce performance will improve almost in lockstep. Don’t be surprised, just keep at it. It makes no difference if you are a lower or higher level boss, the effect on the people for whom you are responsible is the same.

Listening has a large number of associated positive effects as well as opportunities for superior leadership not mentioned herein. The only additional effect I will discuss is commitment.

So! How is listening the doorway to gaining subordinate commitment?

To understand the true leadership power of listening we must first understand putting in our two cents—a stimulant known to cause brainstorming!

First of all, problems and difficulties occur in any work group with a predetermined regularity dictated by the extent to which employees are motivated/committed and the difficulty of the work. The lower the extent and the higher the difficulty, the greater the number of problems and the longer each remains before resolution. Highly motivated and committed workers continually strive for excellence. The more committed they are, the more they act to find resolutions to problems. The less committed the less energy and thought they devote to correction and the more time they spend causing problems.

Secondly, I have heard many, many employees in the midst of a bad workplace say all they want is for someone to listen to them once in awhile. They state how great that would be even if little is ever done. That's real hunger! The obvious question is why should they turn on their brainpower in the morning if no one will listen? Why try to be creative to make improvements for the sake of productivity or quality, or make suggestions to reduce cost if no one listens? The answer is, it would be dumb to try if NO ONE WILL LISTEN. “To hell with them! Why make an effort if they don't care what I think?” Leave your brain at the door!

The sad thing is many bosses, high and low, are so busy giving orders and direction that subordinates do in fact decide to leave their brainpower at the door. This is very common. People with suggestions are viewed as troublemakers or complainers. “Shut up and get back to work.” In this mode, no one can participate or be involved. They can only be a number or a pawn, and they know that no one Cares.

• WHAT IF people could put in their Two Cents any time they chose and management would always listen and get back to them with possible actions and/or answers?
• WHAT IF they were allowed to add their Two Cents again on this response and the process would continue until management had decided on a course which seemed reasonable to everyone?
• WHAT IF management only changed things after conducting this dialogue?
• WHAT IF in response to questions, our bosses were FORTHRIGHT and provided the real answers and their Whys?
• WHAT IF management took this one step further and went out of its way to provide information relevant to job, company and anything which might affect or be of interest to each employee?
• WHAT IF the working level could get in on the ground level with work plans and policies before they turned to cement, get in on what work and how it was to be done before starting?

Would you like to be the boss of such a workplace? Think what you could accomplish if suddenly your own brainpower was multiplied by the number of employees you have.

Gaining Commitment

To be committed, one must have ownership. To have ownership, one must be able to influence. And to influence, one must be heard and be reasonably answered. So when management does the WHAT IFS, subordinates are in reasonable control or ownership of their workplace. When nothing is done without their knowledge and all useful knowledge is shared with them, applying their brainpower to every aspect of the workplace becomes a worthwhile effort. They are suddenly released to their own motivations, otherwise known as being turned-on! In this mode, control is rationally effected through the worker’s self-control and through commonly held value standards since they and only they are used as criteria to decide what is “right.”

The above is also a part of the answer to the question of trust. With protected rights to knowledge, reasons and planned outcomes before execution, subordinates own the outcomes and can freely trust all because they themselves did it. The question of trust becomes less important and peace of mind prevails. There may be threats of external competition, but with knowledge and rights of ownership everyone will get behind slaughtering the opposition.

Note that in this mode, the boss provides information and assistance in moving toward being highly motivated/committed so each subordinate can take charge and come to their own conclusions rather than sit around and follow. In this mode, the boss has faith that people will effectively resolve issues on their merits and believes that authoritative declarations are self-defeating.

But too often direction gets in the way of ownership and this preempts commitment. This is a “cart before the horse” error common to many management techniques and styles. The most basic reason may be that bosses have no faith or trust. They don’t trust juniors to arrive at reasonable conclusions and thus deny them information, rationales, value standards and listening. These bosses are greatly limiting their own success. Leadership is trusting your subordinates to provide valuable input and it is rewarded by their trust in you and their commitment to the job. It has significant positive bottom line implications to your company!