Middle Managers Squeezed by Change: How to Cope

Many, if not most, management employees spend most of their careers in middle management. A typical career path in a manufacturing or service-oriented firm is to spend a few years managing hourly employees, and then to get promoted to managing other managers. Where you may stay for many years. Given the pyramid structure of most companies, few middle managers move into “upper management,” where they have division-level responsibilities.

Ethan Mollick of Wharton Business School has argued that middle managers have more impact on company performance than any other group in knowledge-based organizations.  Although their function may seem bureaucratic, middle managers allocate the resources that determine what work gets done in the organization.  They also set the tone of the workplace in terms of encouraging innovation and creativity.
While top management may decree what the company’s direction and strategy should be, these decisions do not get implemented without the support of middle managers. Many change management efforts in organizations fail because senior leadership fails to get the buy-in of middle managers.

Despite their critical role, middle managers often do not get much respect.  In July 2012, David K. Williams wrote in Forbes that middle managers are on their way out and will not be missed, because organizations need leaders, not managers.   In January 2011, Lynda Gratton wrote a column for the Harvard Business Review titled “End of the Middle Manager.”  

No wonder, then, that the Center for Creative Leadership reported in their October 2012 e-Newsletter  that middle managers are squeezed and suffer the most stress of any role in the organization. Middle managers suffer the worst work/life balance and feel the least job security.

In that same e-Newsletter issue, another CCL article stated that change is ongoing and relentless. Middle managers are the ones squeezed by the change. They are pushed from both above and below.

In her article in the Harvard Business Review, Gratton argued that for middle managers to survive in the information age, (1) they need to develop unique and valuable knowledge or competencies, and (2) they need to expand their knowledge into “adjacencies” so that their knowledge grew broader as their responsibilities increased. In other words, middle managers are in the middle of constant change and growth.

Despite the time pressures on middle managers, CCL says that it is critical for them to take time to reflect on the following questions:

• What could you accomplish at work?
• What goals can you set?
• How might your personal life be better?
• How could your relationships improve?
• How would you feel if these improvements occurred?

Although middle managers are squeezed, they are responsible for themselves. Some of my earlier posts on empowering yourself might offer more suggestions. Here are links to those posts:

Step One: Determine the Current Reality 
Step Two = Choose to Assert Your Own Powers
Step Three = Recognize and Use Office Politics Positively
Step Four = Recognize the Difficulty of Change

What do you do to take responsibility for empowering yourself at work?

How Do You Deal with Conflict? Use of the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory in Mediation

Picture of TKI from
http://www.edbatista.com/2007/01/conflict_modes_.html 

Mediators spend a lot of time thinking about conflict management styles. They want to be able to quickly assess how parties in a mediation deal with conflict.

One useful model for conflict management styles is the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory (TKI). The TKI describes five ways that people can deal with conflict: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.

These methods of handling conflict differ in whether you look more to your own needs or to the needs of others. Competing and collaborating are more assertive methods of conflict management that focus on your needs and desired outcomes; avoiding and accommodating are less assertive.  Collaborating and accommodating are more cooperative methods of resolving the problem that focus on the needs of others; competing and avoiding are less cooperative. Compromising fits in the middle.

Ralph Kilmann and Kenneth Thomas developed the TKI in the 1970s. The TKI is based on dimensions similar to work by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in "The Managerial Grid" (1964). Blake and Mouton described management styles along the dimensions of "concern for people" and "concern for task."

The TKI instrument is available through CPP, Inc. For a short, free conflict management model you can take to assess yourself that is similar to the TKI, see the Peace & Justice Support Network of the Mennonite Church  USA.

Here are some points to keep in mind when thinking about which style describes best how you deal with conflict:

• We all have biases in favor of one or two of the styles. That is, we prefer to handle conflict in certain ways.  The TKI instrument can help you identify your preferred styles.
• Our preferred styles can vary based on the situation. Many people deal with conflict differently when they are at work and when they are with their families, or when they are interacting with bosses and subordinates. You might want to take the TKI a couple of times, thinking of yourself in different situations each time.
• No one style of managing conflict is right in all situations, and all styles can be appropriate in some situations.  For example, if your spouse says something that annoys you, you might choose to ignore it (avoiding conflict). However, Penn State got into serious trouble when its leaders avoided conflict by confronting Jerry Sandusky.

As a mediator, it is important to know how you respond to conflict. Many mediators have taken the TKI, the Myers-Briggs Personality Type test, and similar personality assessments. These tools help mediators understand their preferences in dealing with others and how they can adapt their behavior comfortably to work with people who have other preferred styles.

It is also important for the mediator to quickly assess how each person in the mediation is dealing with the conflict. Is he or she competitive? Accommodating? Avoiding the issues? If you as the mediator want a lasting resolution, you will have to find ways to pull the avoiders into the negotiation and to tame the competitors.

For successful conflict resolution, you need all parties to buy into the solution. Where they have not all contributed to the resolution, they are less likely to buy in. It is the mediator’s responsibility to facilitate the parties in reaching a solution to their conflict.  You can best facilitate a good result by understanding yourself and others.

How do you prefer to deal with conflict? When has your preferred style worked well for you, and when has it not?

Diversity and Development: Cohesion & Comfort v. Stuffing the Pipeline

My law school class more than thirty years ago was only about 20% women; today, most law schools have 50% or more female students. I recall attending a meeting of the Women Law Students Association, and realizing how nice it felt not to worry about gender issues, not to feel like I was “out of place.” I was probably less circumspect in my comments during that discussion than I would have been had I been in the minority as a female.

As a white professional and manager in a corporate setting, I was typically in the majority by race, but I recall two instances when I was the only white in the meeting.

One time was in a meeting to discuss a particular employee’s performance – all but one of the managers in this employee’s chain of command happened to be African American, and that white manager was not at the meeting. I was a white attorney outside the chain of command there to provide legal advice. On that occasion, I recall feeling that my company had “arrived” on the diversity front with this random occurrence of a mostly African American chain of command. But of course, it had taken many senior managers in that division many years of recruiting and development work before this happened.

The other occasion where I was the only white in a meeting was at a session during a Black MBA Convention where I was recruiting. On that occasion, I recall being very conscious of my race, and realizing that that is how most minorities feel most of the time.

Unlike my reticence in my male-dominated law school classes, I felt very free at that Black MBA meeting to voice my opinions.  I wondered, however, whether my outspokenness was due to (1) the maturity I had gained in the twenty or so years since law school, or (2) my “status” as a member of the majority race, whereas in law school I had been of the minority gender. I will probably never know the answer to that, but at least I was self-aware enough to recognize my behavior and to ask myself the question.

I wonder how many white males would have had that same awareness. When I told my husband this story, he had no idea what I was talking about. Although diversity sensitivity and self-reflection are not among his strengths.

The Wharton School of Business published an article on their Knowledge @ Wharton online newsletter on August 29, 2012, entitled “Race, Gender and Careers: Why 'Stuffing the Pipeline' Is Not Enough”. The article describes research by Wharton professor Katherine L. Milkman and Harvard Business School professor Kathleen L. McGinn, which found that placing professionals of one race or gender all in the same work unit led to lower retention of those professionals.

Although there was greater social cohesion in these work groups – like I had found with the Women Law Student Association – the members of the groups perceived they were competing against each other for limited opportunities for advancement. They perceived there were “quotas,”  whether there were or not. In addition, they perceived structural marginalization – the saw their work unit as a “ghetto.

The conclusion of this research:

"Attempts to design employment practices that are blind to the demographics of candidates are likely to succeed only if all candidates perceive and receive equal mentoring, sponsorship, and peer support regardless of their race and gender."

Milkman is quoted in the article as follows:

"Having mentors and role models who look like you is important. But, more interestingly, we see these negative effects associated with being in a work group with lots of competitors for promotion who resemble you demographically."

In other words, it may be helpful to have opportunities in cohesive groups for interaction, but the workplace with its competition and race for advancement needs to be open.

What has your experience been with race and gender in homogenous work groups?

Empower Yourself with the Truth: Step Three = Recognize and Use Office Politics Positively

In my last post, I wrote about asserting your own power, with themes from Chapter 6 of Geoffrey M. Bellman’s book, Getting Things Done When You Are Not in Charge. This week, I am commenting on Chapter 7 of Bellman’s book, on the fascinating subject of corporate politics.

I once had a guy who worked for me who said he hated corporate politics. He was a direct communicator and despised people he thought spent their time positioning themselves to look good. But there is a huge difference between office politics and sucking up.

So how do we deal with corporate politics in a positive way?

1.       Recognize That Corporate Politics Are Real

The theme of this series of posts about Bellman’s book is “empowering yourself with the truth.” The truth is that any group of people is political. The words “politics” and “political” come from the Greek word for “city” or “townspeople.” Any time people gather, politics are involved.

Get over your dislike of politics. It’s real, and it’s everywhere. Bellman says

“Politics has been called the art of getting things done. . . . They are not basically good or bad; they are neutral, to do with as we will. Political goodness or badness flows from the intent and impact of our actions.” 

It’s your choice whether your involvement in corporate politics is good or bad. What are your intentions and impacts in your organization?


 2. Base Your Actions on Your Principles

As Bellman points out, being a political actor does not mean giving up your principles. In fact, here is a summary of Bellman’s steps necessary to integrate your politics with your principles:

• Know your principles 
• Acknowledge the reality of corporate politics
• Recognize that you are a part of the politics in your organization
• Understand that you will have to consider the political ramifications of what you want to get done
• Be clear ahead of time about what you will and will not do to use politics – who you will engage to support you and how. 

If you take these steps, you can participate in the politics of your organization without feeling like you are compromising your principles. Perhaps my colleague who so disdained politics needed to think about these steps.

3. Support Healthy Behaviors in Your Organization 

Bellman’s book, written in 1992 before the age of constant email and chats, is a little dated. He prefers face to face meetings over phone calls, memos and faxes.

But his point is that relationships are important in any organization, and relationships are best built face to face. How will you foster your relationships in today’s environment? In some situations, there is no substitute for the feedback and nuances of communication you can get in a face to face meeting.

Regardless of the communications techniques you use, you should find ways to connect with others in your organization. Determine what goals you share and how you can understand each other, even if you do not always agree.

Have your perceptions of office politics changed as a result of anything you read in this post?

No One Has It All – We All Make Choices

The Internet this past week has been full of discussion about an article by Anne-Marie Slaughter in the Atlantic, titled “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All?”  Ms. Slaughter writes about the difficulties she experienced in holding a high-level policy position in the State Department, and why she ultimately returned to her role as a dean at Princeton University in large part because she needed to spend more time with her family.

She argues in the piece that women cannot “have it all” in today’s society, for a number of reasons. She says that we tell ourselves half-truths about “having it all,” such as believing we can “have it all” if we are committed enough, or if we marry the right person, or if we sequence our lives right.

But in fact, we cannot have it all.

And here I state my own beliefs, based on having lived most of my professional and family life:

          No one has it all.
          Everyone makes compromises.

I posted in March about women “opting out.” The truth is, we all opt out of some things and opt into other things.

I worked for more than 25 years in demanding positions in corporate America. You would recognize the name of my employer if I named the firm. I worked 60 hours/week, and managed to stay married and raise two children. I had many of the advantages that Ms. Slaughter had, but not all. I probably had other advantages she did not have.

And through it all, I made choices.

• I chose not to take job opportunities that could have separated my family and would have required a long-distance marriage and parenting.

• I chose not to have more than two children.

• I chose to leave work in time to be home for dinner most nights, and chose to quit working at home at  bedtime, rather than pulling all-nighters (though I had many sleepless nights from stress).

• I chose to live in the Midwest, instead of on the East or West Coast, where life seems more frantic.

Along the way, my husband made his choices as well. Some of his choices enabled my career, and some made it more difficult. And my choices had positive and negative impacts on his career and other activities.

Could I have done more at work? Yes. I held several senior positions in my company, but I could have risen higher and had more authority. Some of why I didn’t rise further was probably due to my choices, and some was probably due to how others perceived me, correctly or incorrectly.

But I had a very good career, and I left on my own terms. And I raised two children who are now successful young adults. I look back on these accomplishments with satisfaction, no matter that I could have had more.

I didn’t have it all, but I had most of what I wanted. And I was responsible for my choices.

I hope that my children – son and daughter alike – have more choices than I had. I hope they worry less about the choices they make. But the odds are, their lives will have some of the same difficulties as well as new ones that develop in the 21st century.

Life doesn't permit any of us to "have it all." It's not meant to be easy. Nor even fair.

Make Your Work/Life Balance a Conscious Choice

Some family events this past weekend caused me to reflect again on work/life choices -- this time on the choices of three generations in my family.

Like most in their generation, my parents had a traditional marriage, in which the husband worked for pay and the wife worked at home. My father was a workaholic, leaving for the office before dawn each day. He was usually home for dinner, but worked a lot on evenings and weekends, and traveled frequently for his job. My mother took care of house and kids, by herself when she had to.

My husband’s parents had a situation like my parents, except they lived in a smaller town and my father-in-law could come home for lunch each day. But the realms of husband’s and wife’s responsibilities were as separate as in my family.

Like many in our generation, my husband and I struggled to find a path where we both worked and both cared for the household.  We had professional jobs in the same field, and each stayed with our firms for an entire career.

We divided childcare and home responsibilities in ways that made sense to us. We argued over who worked more, or didn’t do their share of chores. We scrambled to find time for everything, and often our time together was the first thing to go. But somehow managed to stay married till our children were grown and life returned to some semblance of sanity.

Our young adult children are now launched in their careers. I see each of them working long hours.  They have jobs they like, but they aren’t wedded to them. Each talks about moving on in a few years; whether they will or not, remains to be seen. And neither as yet has a spouse or children, nor prospects of changing marital status soon.

Three generations, three models, three sets of choices. The models don’t separate by generations – people in each generation have chosen each model. There is no right way to manage work and life.  After more than thirty years of trying to balance work and life, I don’t even think of it as work and life anymore; it’s simply life.

What I encourage my children to do – and what I encouraged younger employees that I mentored to do – is to make their choices consciously, and to re-think those choices regularly.

And so I encourage you, too, to make conscious choices.  Whatever you choose, make it a life that suits your values and leaves room for the discretionary things in life that are important to you.

A few months ago, Dr. Donald E. Wetmore published a post on AMA Net that listed seven things NOT to ignore in your work life balance: 

• your health

• your family time

• your financial health

• your intellectual development

• your social contacts

• your career path

• your spirituality

That’s a pretty good list, and fits well with the areas mentioned in the book Standing at the Crossroads: Next Steps for High-Achieving Women, by Marian N. Ruderman and Patricia J. Ohlott, which I have found helpful for self-assessment.

Where in your life do you need more balance?

What Do You Want Out of Life (and Work)?

In March, I wrote a post on Getting Things Done When You Are Not in Charge, by Geoffrey M. Bellman.  I want to return to Bellman’s message today, as we head into the summer months.

In many organizations, work slows just a little through the summer as employees take vacations. My favorite time of year when I worked in a corporate setting was when my boss was on vacation.  I could catch up on existing projects before I got hit with new ones.

1.  Explore Your Life Goals: This summer, I encourage each of you to think about what you want out of your life. You will need some time for reflection. So as you

           walk the beach,
           or hit some golf balls,
           or hike the mountain,
           or simply try to keep the kids from killing each other,

           pause. 

And ask yourself: What do I want out of life?

Write down your answer. It can be as long or as short as you want, but you’ll probably be able to fit it on one sheet of paper.  Come back to this paper at least three times during the next few weeks.  Add to it, edit it, make it yours.

2.  Explore Your Work Goals:  And then, ask yourself: What do I want out of work?

For most of us, work is a huge part of our lives.  If your work goals do not align with your life goals, you will be unhappy, both with work and with your life.  Where do you see disconnects between your life goals and work goals? What do you want more of? Less of?

Only you know what you want, out of life and out of work.  There is no right answer or wrong answer.  There is simply what you want.

Once you know what you want, you can seek to get it.  But first you have to be able to articulate what you want.

You are responsible for aligning your life and your work with your life goals. Now, take charge of yourself.

3.  Explore Your Staff Members' Goals:  Chapter 4 of Bellman’s book outlines how you can ask your staff to explore their wants at work also.  Once you are comfortable with your own wants and goals, you might follow Bellman’s example.

Leading change requires that you know where all your constituents are coming from. Work with your staff to see how you can get your work done while satisfying everyone’s wants.

I'd love to know what you learn from this exercise. Please leave a comment.

Change Yourself to Change Your Business

Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about change.  I'm involved in a project that I don't really want to deal with.  I believe in the mission of my organization, and I know the project is necessary, but I don't like how we got to the point of needing this project, and I'm resisting full participation.

How can I change my attitude?  No one else is going to do it for me.

At one place I worked, we used to say “Change is good . . . You go first!”  That saying was indicative of how hard change is.  It’s easy for a leader to say “we need to change.”  It’s much harder to get people to really change.  And if you can’t get yourself to change, how are you going to get the people you manage to change?

Last week I read a post on TLNT: The Business of HR that was titled “The World Has Changed – So Why Isn’t HR Able to Change With It?”   People have been asking that question since I was new to HR decades ago. 

The answer then, as now, is for HR managers to get out of their silo and work with the business leaders to move the business where it needs to go.  But that, of course, requires that HR managers change, that they actually learn about the business and not just learn more about HR. That's what I need to do – focus on why this work is needed and learn from the organization's leaders.

People resist change.  A recent post on the Fulcrum “Build Best Bosses Blog”  talked about six steps to dealing with resistance:

     1. Consciously acknowledge to yourself that you are encountering resistance.
     2. Center yourself – whatever works for you.
     3. In your own mind, consciously grant them permission to take the position they are adopting.
     4. Explore, investigate, become curious about their resistance – enter a dialogue.
     5. Declare your own perceptions, expectations, requirements and rationale.
     6. Resolve/decide/act as you see fit.

Maybe these are the steps I need to take with myself.  Maybe I need an internal dialogue about why I feel the way I do, then declare my expectations of myself and act accordingly. 

Changing myself to change my leadership . . . the theme of a third post I read last week by Mary Jo Asmus of Aspire Collaborative Services.

What are you resisting in your work today?  How will you counter your own resistance?

Don’t Ask Permission To Succeed

This past week was a chaotic one for me in my personal life, which meant that it was a difficult professional week also.  But I read one article that made good sense to me – Don’t Ask Permission, Ladies, by Jill Flynn, Kathryn Heath and Mary Davis Holt, co-authors of Break Your Own Rules: How to Change the Patterns of Thinking That Block Women’s Paths to Power (Jossey-Bass, September 2011).

Most of the advice these authors give the women they coach on how to succeed in business rang true for me and my career:

1.  Don’t wait for permission

The authors of Break Your Own Rules say not to wait for a boss to tell you what to do.  I was never one to wait for a boss’ permission.  I typically did what I thought best in my professional life, and hoped it would work out.  Usually, it did.  In fact, the times when I got into the most trouble were when I did what someone else told me to do against my better judgment.

2.  Act like you mean it

Flynn, Heath and Holt advise that women speak honestly and directly, without qualifications.  This suggestion has never been a problem for me – I’ve always been pretty direct with people.  Maybe too direct sometimes, but I didn’t get in much trouble, because I did try to be respectful, even when talking to someone for whom I didn’t have much respect.

3.  Break a few rules

The writers of Break Your Own Rules suggest doing things your way, rather than following the rules.  This is one piece of advice that it took me many years to learn – I’ve always been a “by the book” person.  But I did get to the point in my career where I had to do things my way, because no one was giving me the kind of direction I felt I needed to advance.  The only solution was to make it up as I went along.

4.  Be the best (or best-known) at something

Flynn, Heath and Holt say to develop deep technical skills, or good sales ability, or something else that makes you unique in the workplace.  For me, being a technical expert – being a “go to” person” gave me great satisfaction.  But then I changed careers, and was at a loss on how to stand out until I developed new skills. 

Along with being best known for something, the authors of Break Your Own Rules suggest that you toot your own horn, to let people know what you are good at.  I wasn’t as skilled at that, and I was overlooked sometimes as a result.

5.  Be the dissenter

To be assertive, you also need to take opposing positions sometimes.  But you had better have your arguments lined up to support your opinion.  Along with being direct, I was able to do this reasonably well.  Sometimes, however, your superiors will not go along with your position.  You need to know when to cut your losses and decide whether you are comfortable following a course of action that isn’t your first choice.

6.  Don’t overdo it

The last point Flynn, Heath and Holt make in the portfolio.com article is to be assertive, but not aggressive.  Stand up for yourself, but don’t be mean-spirited.  I think I did all right in that regard.

What about you? Which of these pieces of advice are easy for you, and which are difficult?

Getting Things Done When You Are Not in Charge

The first business book I ever bought for myself was Getting Things Done When You Are Not in Charge, by Geoffrey M. Bellman.  At the time, almost twenty years ago, I was still in a staff job and hadn’t yet become a manager.  Bellman’s messages hit home with me, particularly his starting sentence: “You are not in charge.”

None of us is in charge of every aspect of our lives.  But we can all take charge of far more of our life than we do.

This post outlines Bellman’s model for success when you are in a support role (as we all are in some aspect of our life).  The questions to consider in each section are mine. 

1. Understand the job of helping others succeed. 

Recognize that you are not the person in charge, but appreciate the value and expertise you bring to your organization.  And remember that you are in charge of your life – you are responsible for making decisions that are congruent with your values. 

Consider:  What choices and decisions do you make to align your role with the business and the business with your values?

2. Lead when you are not in a position of authority

Just because you are not in charge does not mean you should not lead.  Your leadership grows out of your belief in yourself, in the people you work with, and in the value your profession brings to the business.  According to Bellman, you lead through vision, intuition, and appropriate risk-taking.  These traits are not limited to line managers – everyone in the business possesses them to some extent. 

Consider:  How do you use your vision, intuition and risk-taking to influence the business?

3. Understand and influence change

There are many models of change dynamics.  Bellman’s is a triangle of (1) who the players are, (2) what the players want, and (3) what the current state is – basically, how the players can get from what is to what they want.  Then Bellman puts YOU in the middle – how can YOU help the players get from where they are to what they want. 

This is a basic model of customer service – which is the function of any staff role.  And most line roles also have customers.

Consider:  What do the people who are your customers want? What is the gap between what they want and the current state? How can you help them get what they want?

# # #

This brief summary doesn’t do justice to Bellman’s book.  It only addresses the first of six parts of his book.

Combine Bellman’s three-part model for success in a staff role (any role where you are not in charge) with the concept of discretionary time I wrote about several weeks ago, and you have a roadmap for taking charge of your life.

Are you interested in learning more about leadership in a staff position?  If so, please let me know in the comments below. 

I’d also appreciate any comments answering one or more of the questions posed in this post.

How Mediators Manage Their Own Biases

Many people ask me how I can be a neutral mediator when I have firmly formed opinions on the laws, proper workplace behavior, and many other topics that are at issue when I mediate.  I have several answers to this question.

First, don’t assume that someone’s experience and background determine how that person will view the facts of any particular lawsuit.  I’ve found that my experiences often lead me to want to favor the employee in workplace mediations.  I was a manager for many years, and an attorney representing management for even more years.  But because I have opinions about how managers ought to manage, I am quick to judge them when they fail to live up to my expectations.  I need to control my urge to impose my standards on other people (as we all do in so many situations in life).

Second, what is most important for mediators is not whether they express their opinions, but that they are aware of their biases.  Only when they have this self-awareness can they decide what to do about their prejudices.  Most of the time mediators can put their biases aside, sometimes they can disclose their opinions, and let the parties decide whether to proceed, and occasionally mediators – if they do not think they can manage the process openly and fairly – should step away from the case.

Finally, as a mediator I know it isn’t my decision whether or how a case should be resolved.  I am not the judge or jury.  My job is to help the parties come to a resolution that they both agree is better for them than a trial.

I believe strongly in the value of mediation, so I can generally put my opinions aside.  When I think it will help the process, I will give my opinions to the parties (known as being an “evaluative” mediator), but if I can’t put my opinions aside when needed, I shouldn’t be mediating the case.

But in most situations, it isn’t necessary to give my opinion.  I can manage the process toward what the parties think is an equitable result, even if it isn’t the best result from my perspective.  If the parties are satisfied, then I must be satisfied also.

Have you had experiences with someone who was supposed to be neutral who didn’t seem to be?

Being right v. Getting it right

A couple of months ago, Stephen L. Guinn, Ph.D. and Gary A. Williamson, Ph.D., posted an article on AMAnet.org entitled “Eight Habits of Effective Critical Thinkers.”  Most of us would like to be thought of as effective critical thinkers, so what are the eight habits?

• Habit #1: They are more concerned about getting it right than about being right.
• Habit #2: They avoid jumping to conclusions and rushing to judgment.
• Habit #3: They do not accept information at face value.
• Habit #4: They avoid over-analysis that leads to paralysis in decision-making.
• Habit #5: They are continuous learners and work to stay well-informed.
• Habit #6: They show flexibility in their willingness to consider alternative ideas and opinions.
• Habit #7: They use critical thinking on themselves.
• Habit #8: They have a distinctive behavioral style.

All of these habits are important, and most of us have seen these habits observed and violated during our careers.

On reading this article, I was struck in particular by Habit #1: Worrying more about getting it right than being right.

How many times have we seen leaders fail to change course when presented with new information, primarily because they don’t want to look stupid?  Or acting without the information they need, because they don’t want to admit they don’t have the information?  In fact, it is a fiduciary responsibility of leaders to act in the best interest of their organization, not of themselves.

Unfortunately, it is a human tendency to act in our own best interest.

Have you ever been guilty of worrying more about being right than getting it right?

Which of the other habits do you think are particularly important?

Please leave a comment.

Discretionary Time: Making a Difference at Home, at Work, and in the Community

I believe in finding inspiration wherever we can. Earlier today, I tweeted an article on leadership using Tim Tebow as an example. This afternoon, I found this post in Legal Rebels by Patrick Lamb, which also struck a chord with me.

As Lamb asks, “What are you going to do about your personal situation? About the world’s?” We each have an obligation to make a difference to our families and friends and colleagues, and also to the greater community in which we live. We all have endless possibilities in how we conduct our lives – at home and at work. And the choices we make are what defines us.

I remember learning of the concept of “discretionary time” about twelve years ago. A diversity consultant was talking to my management team about how improving diversity in our firm was up to each of us – if we didn’t spend time on diversity-related activities in the workplace, no one else would either. And each of us, no matter how big or how small our job was, had some time that we could control, some time to spend on what was important to us.

I’ve tried to apply the concept of discretionary time each day since then. I try to spend some time on an activity of my choosing. Not what my boss wanted me to do, not what my subordinates asked for, not what family members thought I needed to do.

Even if it was just fifteen minutes reading an article on a topic where I needed development, or stopping by a colleague’s office for a casual discussion, or attending a community event, I did something that showed what I thought was important in my life.

What can you do with your discretionary time? Please comment below.

Self-Awareness & Leadership

Self-awareness is important for leaders.

A good book I’ve used to improve my self-awareness over the last several years is Standing at the Crossroads: Next Steps for High-Achieving Women, by Marian N. Ruderman and Patricia J. Ohlott.  Although this book focuses on a survey of high-performing women and what made them successful, I think its themes apply to everyone. 

Ruderman and Ohlott advocate five steps that high-achieving women undertake to be successful:

1.       They act authentically

2.       They make connections

3.       They control their own destiny

4.       They achieve wholeness

5.       They gain self-clarity

These steps are all intertwined, and all require awareness of what is critically important to each of us as an individual. Only when I know what is important to me can I decide how much of my energy to devote to the workplace and where I want our careers to go.Only then can I go about achieving what I want to achieve.

Self-awareness isn't only important for leaders -- it's important for all of us who work in or with organizations. That's all of us.

Find Standing at the Crossroads at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.