16 settembre 2014 § Lascia un commento
NON E’ MAI TROPPO TARDI PER CAMBIARE
questo potrebbe essere la corretta introduzione all’articolo che vi proponiamo
UN LEADER DEVE ESSERE IN GRADO DI METTERSI IN GIOCO, CAPIRE QUALE E’ IL MOMENTO DI CAMBIARE E COME SI POSSONO SVILUPPARE LE ATTIVITA’ IN FUNZIONE DEL MONDO.
by Joseph Grenny
When leaders want to create an open culture where people are willing to speak up and challenge one another, they often start by listening. This is a good instinct. But listening with your ears will only take you so far. You also need to demonstrate with words that you truly want people to raise risky issues.
Take the former president of a major defense company, whom I will call Phil. No one at the 13,000-employee firm believed Phil when he announced that he was going to create a culture of candor and openness. And why should they? He already had three strikes against him: his workforce, his past performance, and his manner.
First, Phil’s workforce had successfully repelled every attempt at culture change in previous decades. Well-intended change efforts had continually failed. Why would this time be different? Second, his own leadership history was not exactly one of give-and-take. He had a command and control style and the closest he got to dialogue was one-way “management briefings” he held monthly with his “chain of command.” And finally, he was imposingly large, his face was one of studied expressionlessness, and his voice had an involuntary imperiousness even when asking you to pass the salt.
And yet, Phil needed to dramatically improve quality and costs at the 60-year-old tactical aircraft designer and manufacturer — and he knew that the stifling culture was suppressing the very ideas he needed. Once he set out to better engage his employees, however, within a matter of months he succeeded at transforming the company culture.
Like many leaders, Phil’s first attempt at fostering candor was by using his ears. And it immediately fell flat. At the end of a highly scripted management briefing he announced, “I will now take questions. You may ask anything you wish.” He scanned the audience for raised hands. None. Thirty painful seconds later he would have been happy for even a twitch to indicate engagement. Crickets.
While some executives would have blamed the audience for its timidity, Phil understood the problem was a lack of safety. He reasoned that the behavior he was trying to encourage was so counter-cultural that any rational person would be terrified to try it.
With the studied intensity of a good engineer, he decided to demonstrate that this defense company was a safe place to talk about anything. Employees had decades of data from their own painful experiences that told them taking a risk to raise controversial questions was quickly punished. Phil and his senior team needed to produce enough disconfirming data to call these fears into question.
Phil did four things that went beyond listening:
Praise publicly. He created a safe forum for people to raise questions—then spoke publicly about those who asked them in laudatory ways. It may sound like small potatoes, but simply adding a column called “Ask the President” to the weekly internal newsletter was a daring move. He instructed his communication team to forward him the most universally asked and highly sensitive questions. He personally penned every response. He was careful to sympathize with the questioners and to validate their concerns. The workforce took note—seeing evidence that disagreement would no longer be treated as insubordination. Questions could be asked anonymously or not, and over time more and more of the questioners identified themselves — which gave Phil a chance to commend them in the newsletter for their candor. Public praise is more about influencing those who hear it than those who receive it.
Prime the pump. Phil began meeting regularly with groups of opinion leaders from throughout the organization — encouraging them to bring their toughest questions. One topic that never came up was criticism of a major reorganization Phil imposed two years previously. So he primed the pump. In one of these sessions he said, “How are you feeling about the IPT/Team structure we started two years ago? I’m sure there are frustrations with this one. What barriers are you facing? What isn’t working?” When people don’t feel safe speaking up, leaders can show that it is safe by saying the hard things themselves. By saying the unsayable, and doing so with a tone of voice that suggested respect for this view, Phil created a little more safety. And the dam burst. For the next 90 minutes the group poured out their views on the inadequacies of the new structure. Phil acknowledged their concerns and invited them to discuss modifications to the model. Most importantly, this influential group began spreading the word that Phil was sincere about being open to criticism.
Lead by teaching. Phil went beyond encouraging openness to teaching it. He and his senior team taught hour-long sessions on how to have what my colleagues and I call “crucial conversations” — how to diffuse strong emotions, how to speak candidly without provoking resistance, how to quickly build rapport, and so on. As people acquired these new skills, their confidence in speaking up increased. The fact that Phil personally taught the skills showed how invested he was in having open conversations.
Sacrifice ego. On one memorable occasion Phil said in front of a group of middle managers: “I’ve been told I am unapproachable. I don’t know what that means. I would appreciate any specific feedback any of you would be willing to offer me.” The rest of the group looked on in awe as one brave soul, a manager named Terry, raised his hand. “I would be happy to, Phil.” Terry met later with Phil and gave a couple of suggestions – which Phil then shared publicly. Phil sacrificed his ego to show how much he valued candor and openness and that people were safe with him.
For two years my colleagues and I measured the frequency of people raising risky issues with peers, subordinates, as well as with senior managers at this defense company. Within the first few months of Phil’s campaign, these measures shot up by double digits, and continued to increase during the rest of this period. For example, employees were 15% more likely to report that they were comfortable sharing bad news up the chain of command—a remarkable change from the past.
Listening matters. But sometimes you’ve got to open your mouth too and make positive statements to generate the safety people need.
31 ottobre 2012 § Lascia un commento
Vi invito ad guardare questo breve video, dove viene sottolineato il fatto di cambiare il modo di pensare e di approcciarsi, guardandosi dentro
26 settembre 2012 § Lascia un commento
Essere un buon Leader non è semplice ma credo che il Video di seguito vi possa spiegare cosa deve fare…purtroppo non tutti hanno la capacità di essere un buon leader
nasce una domanda…esistono i Leader?
esiste qualcuno che voglia prendersi le responsabilità?
4 febbraio 2012 § Lascia un commento
Quante volte si è parlato di leadership, ma ancor di più se ne sente l’esigenza oggi.
Di seguito un articolo che descrive a pieno e in maniera molto semplice cosa vuol dire Leadership
Voi avete queste caratteristiche?
This may seem like a fairly simple question. As an author who has written, trained and spoken on leadership for a number of years, I know there are nearly as many definitions as there are people to define it.
If you are, or aspire to be, a leader your personal answer to this question is important; it will, knowingly or not, inform and guide many of the decisions you make and the tasks that you perform while leading.
My goal in this article is to share some things that leadership is, and some things that it is not. I hope my insights will cause you to think and – whether you agree or not – to use these ideas to help you form a clearer definition of what leadership is.
What Leadership Is
Complex. In visiting with an experienced aerospace engineer (a.k.a. a rocket scientist), I asked him which was more complex – rocket science or leadership. His response was swift and simple. “Leadership is much more complex. In my world we can come up with the right answer. We know the equations and formulas. If we put the right numbers into them, and do the right things, we will get guaranteed results. But as a leader you are dealing with people – and people are inherently more complex. And the issues, while perhaps not as dramatic as sending a rocket into orbit, are far more dynamic and contain tremendous amounts of gray area.” I couldn’t have said it better. Leadership isn’t easy or simple. And, like rocket science, it is something that requires lots of study and practice to become skilled.
Action. Leadership is often considered a thing, i.e. “She is the leader.” From a dictionary perspective leadership is a noun, but it also is a verb. Leadership is not really something to have or possess; it is something to do. When you think about leadership, think actions; think behaviors. It is with better actions and behavior that you will gain better results.
Responsibility. If you are placed in or accept a formal (or informal) role of leadership, you have taken on a responsibility. It is easy to think about that if you are President, a C.E.O. or a business owner. The fact is that every leadership action carries responsibility – no matter your “title” or job description. People are looking to you. If you are leading, people are following you. You have a responsibility therefore for more than yourself and your own results.
Opportunity. As a leader you have an opportunity to make a difference: for Customers, for the organization, for those you lead, for the world at large. When you exhibit the behaviors of leadership you are actively trying to create new results that will make a difference in the world. Few things hold greater opportunity than this.
What Leadership Isn’t
Management. The skills of management are focused on things, processes and procedures. The skills of leadership focus on people, vision and development. Both are valuable skill sets and in many cases we need to exhibit both, but great leaders aren’t necessarily great managers and vice versa.
A title or position. You are a leader when people follow you. That action of others isn’t guaranteed by a job title, the color of your desk or the size of your office. A title that proclaims you a leader doesn’t make you a leader any more than calling a lion a zebra creates black stripes.
A power grab. Others giving you power as a leader is different than people who want power. True leadership comes from your relentless focus on serving others, not wanting to be powerful. Leaders inherently have a great deal of influence, and therefore a certain amount of power, but that isn’t a true leaders focus.
A gift from birth. Leadership skills aren’t doled out in the genetics of some while others are left wanting. Everyone is given a unique bundle of DNA that can allow some to become highly effective, even remarkable, leaders. Do some people have innate strengths that help them as leaders? Of course, but so do you – even if they are different strengths. None of that matters though if you don’t do the things to use those strengths and do the things to improve in areas that are harder for you. Few things are sadder than unfulfilled potential. Leadership success isn’t nearly as much about genetics as it is learning and improvement.
This isn’t a complete list in either case – creating some sort of compendium wasn’t my goal. My goal, as stated earlier, was to give you food for thought. I’ve set the table, now I hope you sit down and eat at this table of ideas to help you build your own definition of leadership.
Potential Pointer: Your definition of leadership will have a huge impact on how you behave and perform as a leader. Time spent thinking about the role and your beliefs about it will have a drastic influence on the results you see as a leader. Because of this, time spent thinking about and answering the question, “What is leadership?” is time well spent.
29 gennaio 2012 § Lascia un commento
Buongiorno a tutti
Sviluppare Leader oggi Leader, è oramai da considerarsi fondamentale, senza di essi le aziende non possono progredire; in questo momento solo chi è in grado di prendere decisioni in breve tempo in maniera consapevole può rimanere in “Vita”, proprio così, rimanere in Vita, non vi sono altre parole per descrivere questo momento complesso dove il negativismo sta colpendo anche chi si trova in una situazione, come dire positiva, ha il timore a muoversi, a fare ogni singolo passo
Di seguito, viene spiegato come e quanto sia importante avere consapevolezza e avere leader
Organizations invest billions annually on a success curriculum known as “leadership development,” which ends up leaving so much on the table. Training and development programs almost universally focus factory-like on inputs and outputs — absorb curriculum, check a box; learn a skill, advance a rung; submit to assessment, fix a problem. Likewise, they leave too many people behind with an elite selection process that fast-tracks “hi-pos” and essentially discards the rest. And they leave most people cold with flavor of the month remedies, off sites, immersions, and excursions — which produce little more than a grim legacy of fat binders gathering dust on shelves.
What if, instead of stuffing people with curricula, models, and competencies, we focused on deepening their sense of purpose, expanding their capability to navigate difficulty and complexity, and enriching their emotional resilience? What if, instead of trying to fix people, we assumed that they were already full of potential and created an environment that promoted their long-term well-being?
In other words, what if cultivating a successful inner life was front and center on the leadership agenda?
That was the question Todd Pierce asked himself in 2006 after years of experimenting with the full menu of trainings, meetings, and competency models in his capacity as CIO of biotechnology giant Genentech. He had just scoured the development reports of some 700 individuals in the IT department and found that “not one of them had an ounce of inspiration. I remember sitting there and saying, ‘There’s got to be a another way.'”
At the time, Pierce was benefiting personally from work with a personal coach and had recently woken up to the power of the practice of mindfulness. He called in a kindred soul, Pamela Weiss, a long-time executive coach and meditation teacher, to help design an experiment that would cast out the traditional approach to leadership development to focus instead on helping people grow.
“If you want to transform an organization it’s not about changing systems and processes so much as it’s about changing the hearts and minds of people,” says Weiss. “Mindfulness is one of the all-time most brilliant technologies for helping to alleviate human suffering and for bringing out our extraordinary potential as human beings.”
Pierce and Weiss distilled a set of principles that form the basis of what became the “Personal Excellence Program” (PEP), now heading into its sixth year inside Genentech (Pierce left the company this fall after 11 years to join salesforce.com). Together, these pillars offer up a short course in unleashing human capability, resilience, compassion, and well-being (and they’re unpacked in even more detail in Weiss and Pierce’s entry).
1. Developing people is a process — not an event. “Development is all too often considered a one-time event,” says Weiss. She and Pierce designed PEP as a ten-month-long journey that unfolds in three phases, with big group meetings, regular small group sessions, individual coaching, peer coaching, and structured solo practice.
2. People don’t grow from the neck up. Too much training focuses on the the mind — it’s about transferring content. “We talk about the head, the heart, and the body,” says Weiss. In fact, they do more than talk about it — they enact it every day at the start of every meeting. The “3-center check in” is the gateway drug to mindfulness. As Weiss describes it: “You close your eyes for a moment and you notice, ‘What am I thinking — what’s happening in my head center,’ then you notice, ‘What am I feeling — what’s happening in my heart center.’ then, ‘What am I feeling — what’s happening in my body.’ It’s a way in which people start paying attention and practicing mindfulness without ever practicing meditation.”
3. Put mindfulness at the center (but don’t call it that!). Weiss and her team were careful to keep the language of specific belief systems and religions out of PEP. The program revolves around three phases: reflection on and selection of a specific quality or capacity you want to work on (patience, decisiveness, courage); three months of cultivating the capacity for self-observation; and the hard work of turning insight into deliberate, dedicated, daily practice.
4. It’s hard to grow alone. “People grow best in community,” says Weiss. “People don’t grow as well just reading a book, getting an online training, or just taking in information. There’s an exponential impact in having people grow and learn together.” That’s why the PEP “pod” (small 6-8 person group) is the main vehicle throughout the year.
5. Everybody deserves to grow. Pierce felt strongly that PEP should be available to people across the board — not just the usual “stars” — and that it should be voluntary. “The program is by application and not declaration,” he says.
As PEP heads into its sixth year at Genentech, some 800 people have participated in the program. (Weiss added a graduate curriculum and a student training program to create “PEPtators” as few people want the journey to end.) The impact has been nothing short of transformative for individuals and organization alike. When Pierce took over the IT department in 2002, its employee satisfaction scores were at rock bottom; four years into the program, the department ranked second in the company and is now consistently ranked among the best places to work in IT In the world (even in the wake of Genentech’s 2009 merger with Roche Group — always a turbulent and dispiriting experience).
Pierce attributes that to “the emotional intelligence of people and the capacity to change” developed in PEP. But don’t take his word for it. The data-obsessed Pierce commissioned a third path impact report on PEP. It came in glowing: 10-20% increase in employee satisfaction, 50% increase in employee collaboration, conflict management, and communication; 12% increase in customer satisfaction; and nearly three times the normal business impact.
“Through PEP we have created a smarter, more agile, and more responsive organization,” says Pierce. “The reduction of suffering, the capacity to deal with difficulties, the level of engagement — these things are very powerful and you can’t call a meeting to get them or give people stock options and have them. These are skills and qualities you have to cultivate and practice.”
So how’s this for a new year’s resolution for hard-charging leaders: turn every ringing, pinging, tweeting, and blinking thing off — especially your mind — and just breathe.