Why not "Relationship Development"

Posted on August 17, 2007 by pdncoach

It strikes me as unfortunate that in common business vernacular we have “organizational development” and “professional development”, yet what we really need is relationship development. One could argue that relationship development falls within the domain of “personal development” or the ubiquitous “human development”. Of course, what really happens when we think we have identified a “relationship problem”? Someone is referred to human “resources”.

Learning has sour roots, but pleasant fruits — Proverb

I admit that I have long advocated that too often organizations try to solve problems at the relationship level, yet their definition of “relationship” is too narrow and confined merely to interpersonal relations. I receive frequent phone calls and emails from owners and managers on what amounts to a training request. In other words, they ask for a workshop on team building, communication or conflict management (these are the three most common requests, anyway). My first response goes something like this:

What is going on with your team or organization that makes you want a workshop on “fill in the blank”?

“Well, if people would learn to just get along and start focusing on the work that needs to be done rather than focusing on each other’s personalities, my life would be better,” is a typical response.

May I ask another question? [the answer is always, “yes”] What are the goals of your team or organization?

“Wel-l-l-l-l-l, I suppose they are…” and the person usually rattles off three to five things that are close to being goals. Sometimes they ask me wait while they pull them off the wall or dust off the strategic plan, but not often.

May I ask another question? [the answer is always, “yes”] Let’s suppose you gave me permission to randomly ask the people who you want to participate in this workshop the same question I just asked you, that is, “What are the goals of your team?” Do you think they will give me the same answers you just did?

“You’re not going to do that are you?” is a typical response. Actually, that is exactly the words used on three separate occasions – three different people from three different organizations. In short, they are beginning to recognize something meaningful, but I can tell they are not sure, so I help.

I explain that most organizations try to solve problems at the relationship level because that is where some of the most annoying symptoms appear. My experience is this:

  • When a group of people working together share a clear understanding of the same goals;
  • When they each understand their individual (or business unit) roles related to those goals;
  • When they are “playing” by the same set of rules (written and unwritten);
  • When these three things are clear, shared and in place, relationships are more productive, positive and focused on results. In fact, relationships, conflict, diversity and all that goes with them, can then become productive elements of learning, creativity, innovation and performance.

All this is not to assert that there are never interpersonal relationship problems, maybe even at the core of a problem. (Very often the problem lies in what the Arbinger Institute accurately describes as self deception.) More often than not, however, the root cause is a basic need for clarity and mutual understanding at the Goal, Role or Rule level.

So why “Relationship Development”?

I do believe there are key questions about relationships we should ask that include but are not exclusive to interpersonal relationships, such as:

  1. Who am I in relationship to my family (and individual family members)?
  2. Who am I in relationship to my vital friends?
  3. Who am I in relationship to my values?
  4. Who am I in relationship to my goals?
  5. Who am I in relationship to that which I serve?
  6. Who am I in relationship to my purpose?

I could go on but I think you get the idea. How would your life be different three months from now if you focused on Relationship Development?

Join me at the Intersection of Purpose & Now.
Posted in personal development, relationships | Leave a comment

What if you hired for attitudes and habits?

Posted on July 18, 2007 by pdncoach

Most company hiring processes bring in new people based on their experience. Likewise, most hiring managers look first and foremost at experience when making hiring decisions. When you hire for experience how long does it take to develop an employee’s attitude? What if you hired people based on their attitude? How long would it take to develop their experience?

Rather than work experience, which in many cases is merely one or two experiences repeated over and over for years, I suggest that one’s record of work habits are more telling about future performance. Identify what a person does out of habit and I believe you will have the pulse of their future performance as well as the “ease” of their development potential.

Of course, habits come in three basic forms:

  1. things you should stop doing
  2. things you should keep doing
  3. things you should start doing

The same is true for attitudes, which, after all, are really habits of thought:

  1. things you should stop thinking
  2. things you should keep thinking
  3. things you should start thinking

The Big Difference Between Success & Failure

Earlier in my career I was a career coach and outplacement consultant. During that time I worked with many people with disabilities and people who were facing other significant barriers to employment. I learned a critically important lesson about people and personal success from my clients.

For example, many of my clients had severe disabilities (physical, emotional, cognitive). As a result they faced significant physical barriers in their communities, especially barriers to employment. They faced significant “attitudinal barriers” in their communities – discrimination. I learned there was a key difference between those who were successful in achieving their goals within a reasonably short time and those that took much, much longer or perhaps never found what I refer to as “right livelihood”.

The difference between success and failure was not the disability; it was not the physical barriers or the degree of discrimination people faced in their job searches. The difference between those who achieved their goals within a short time compared to a long time, if ever, centered on two key variables:

  1. Attitude about their circumstance. Their attitude about their disabilities, about barriers in general and specifically how they were being discriminated (and they were being discriminated – we all are in a job search!) was a key difference between success and failure.
  2. Daily habits. An amazing fact for me at the time was that, sometimes, those who succeeded and those who failed did the same activities. The difference was their attitude, for one, and the time in which they did those activities. The most successful people had the same level of activity over a six-day stretch as others did over a six-month period! Time is measured in hours and energy and successful people had a habit of putting a lot of energy into a few hours work!

How can I know?

How can you discover and hire people based on their attitudes and habits? First, use validated assessments including but not limited to behavioral assessments. Assess how people think and what they value as well. Contact me directly for recommendations or assistance.

Incorporate your new focus on attitudes and habits into recruitment, selection, orientation and training processes. What kind of people, industries, companies, occupations might attract the kind of attitudes and habits we want to hire?

You may already ask behavioral questions in your selection process. Begin to explore the attitudes more behind those behaviors. When you took those actions, what were you thinking? What do you suppose other people were thinking? You probably ask questions that require candidates to speculate about what they think about what might happen in the future if you hire them. Why not ask questions that encourage and allow them to speculate about what they think has happened based on their reported experience? Based on your experience, what assumptions would you change? What would you keep thinking? What would you start thinking?

Ask questions that uncover a person’s daily habits. What does a typical day look like for you? Listen for activity, the actions they take, and the results they produce daily. What does an atypical day look like? What actions did you take? Ask them directly about their habits and require examples. Based on your experience, what would you stop doing? What would you keep doing? What would you start doing?

Knowledge is NOT Power

People most often get hired because of their skills and knowledge. That’s typically where all the training money goes, too. People typically get fired because of their attitudes and habits, which is also why star performers succeed and excel. Knowledge is not power. Applied knowledge is power and attitudes, habits and goals determine the degree of application more than any other factors. Put a high performance race car with a lousy driver against a world-class driver in a lesser car and I will pick the world-class driver ever time to win. How about you?

Join me at the Intersection of Purpose & Now.
Posted in attitude, experience, failure, habit, hire, hiring, success | Leave a comment

Think to Talk or Talk to Think?

Posted on June 8, 2007 by pdncoach

I have two colleagues with whom I participate in a “coaching trio” every Wednesday night. Our “Fab Three” of Certified Business Coaches serves several purposes, including these key three:

  1. I recieve excellent coaching each week from which I benefit personally and professionally. The more I am coached and coach others, I continue to be amazed at the breakthrough thinking, actions and results that can be achieved.
  2. I am able to observe and share my observations with two other experienced coaches in a highly constructive, safe and helpful format. Likewise, my coaching is observed with a critical ear as well. Through both observing and being observed I am able to learn and develop among friends.
  3. I am able to coach two more extremely “coachable” subjects each week. My coaching partners on Wednesday evenings know the value of bringing real issues to bear, which helps keep my coaching abilities sharp with all my clients.

It is this final value of our “Fab Three” relationship that has my special attention this week. When coaching Cindy, sometimes she will open our coaching session with a long, detailed description of her situation, providing both context and intricacies of the opportunity or challenge she is working on. I admit that sometimes I wonder if she just wants to “think out loud” or if she’ll allow me – or even needs me – to ask a helpful question. On the other hand, when coaching Cheryl, she is very succinct and to the point. I find myself asking many questions just to keep her talking.

Do you talk to think or think to talk? This was the subject and title of a recent article in Fast Company by Marcia L. Conner, an expert in informal learning. Conner writes:

“Just as some people move faster or slower, some react quicker while others speak up more slowly. If you talk to think, as you go along you talk about what you’re doing and learning. If you think to talk, you usually keep your thoughts under wraps until you have something specific to say, until you understand how to proceed, or possibly until the learning part of what you’re doing ends.”

Cindy is a “talk to thinker.” Cheryl is a “think to talker”. Each requires a different approach to coaching. Since they are friends, I can say they require a different kind of patience for a “talk to thinker” like me. With Cindy, I need to be patient in that I don’t interrupt her. When Cheryl is coaching Cindy, she doesn’t seem to have that challenge. In fact, Cheryl has a reputation for asking just the right questions and nothing more. With Cheryl as my subject, though, I need to pace myself much differently, giving more “pregnant” pauses, allowing Cheryl to continue her thinking in silence and perhaps even making a few notes. (Cindy and I typically take notes for each other – we can’t stop talking/thinking long enough to write anything down!)

Conner observes in her article that, unfortunately, most learning opportunities do little for either type of learner – whether it be a meeting, a casual conversation over lunch, a quick session in an office cubicle, or in a formal classroom. Talk to thinkers have too little time to speak. Think to talkers have too little time to reflect.

Do you talk to think, or do you think to talk? How does this affect the results you get in your relationships, in meetings, while working with a collaborator or team? How do you go about making decisions and solving problems?

Do other people ever comment about how you ask too many questions? Do you ever find yourself “talking over” others? Do you even wonder why other people in a group are saying so little that you “might as well” keep talking. If you are a talk-to-think learner you likely talk continuously while learning and sounding out ideas. You tend to say what’s on your mind or “think out loud”. “Because you rely on other people’s responses, you may prefer to work in a group or on a team. Even when you’re alone, you might catch yourself talking to yourself,” Conner writes.

Do you find it hard to think while in groups, especially when the pace of conversation is moving quickly? Do you best ideas – your best thoughts – seem to come long after a meeting or conversation has ended? Do you wonder why other people seem to talk so much? If you are a think-to-talk learner you wouldn’t conceive of saying something out loud until you had given it ample mental consideration, prefering quiet time to formulate a response. Conner explains further, “You may prefer to work alone or in a pair and you might want to take your time when facing a challenge. I suspect you’ve learned you make better decisions when you reflect on all the aspects of the problem.”

Conner lays out several helpful development tips for both learning/thinking styles in Do You Talk to Think or Think to Talk, and I encourage you to read her aricle yourself. Understanding your own style and the styles of those around you will help you learn more. You might also consider taking an Innermetrix Personal Talent Profile, a unique assessment that measures how you think and make decisions. Write me a note to learn more.

Finally, this whole subject reminds me of the irony I have experienced while working with international teams. All too often, there is at least one white American male who tends to dominate a conversation or problem-solving/decision-making session among internationals, particularly groups including people from Asian countries. I have raised this issue in facilitated debriefs before and on two occassions was surprised by the American’s response, which went something like this: “Well if they had something to say they would say it.”

Ah, but they wouldn’t, would they, if they are “think to talk” learners!

Join me at the Intersection of Purpose & Now.
Posted in Informal Learning | Leave a comment