Compliance vs Engagement

goldfish-taking-actionDoing the basic job required of us, in most cases, is easy to do.  In fact we can often do much of what we do without having to really engage, invest and stretch ourselves. 

We learn from an early age to follow instructions. To have our creative thinking ordered with a set of pre-determined decisions to create structure, harmony and order. 

Certainly it helps to learn the consequences of taking actions that are outside of what is expected of us. However do we consider the dangers to progress if we merely look and teach others to comply?

How often do you hear “I do this because that is what is asked of me.”  Or “I don’t do this, because the rules say not to.”  In business we can often provide more processes, instructions and parameters to reduce risk and error margins, but what happens when it stops people from thinking or taking ownership all together?

In this past week, I saw two separate cases where perfectly intelligent and capable people were discussing a problem within their working environments.  In being challenged as to why they did not see those problems as ones they could solve, the dutiful responses were offered around it not being their job, it wasn’t done that way, there was red tape, a usual way to solve this etc.

In reality, they had become compliant.  Stopped thinking, stopped ownership, stopped engaging with the broader objectives and motivations for their companies and themselves.

It didn’t take long to unlock their thinking and to see alternate ways to own and solve the problems they were facing. 

Unfortunately once I started looking for examples of compliance over engagement elsewhere, I started to see it everywhere – in customer service across multiple businesses, in my children, and in me.  It has made for an interesting point for reflection.

Key to solving passive compliance is engagement ourselves and encouraging engagement in others.  It is not enough to just observe or be present.  Not enough to comply even if it gets you over the line and off the hook.  What is required of us is to really engage with a problem you see and view it as something you can own, influence and drive towards a solution. 

In these cases I refer to this week, by engaging with the problem didn’t mean these clients had to make the problem their own completely and feel the pressure to solve it on their own. 

In both cases it was enough to shift the thinking from it being someone else’s problem to being “our problem” to solve.  And to get them thinking about how they could lead and influence change.  To think about possible options and opportunities.  

Seeing the bigger picture and not being hamstrung by barriers – perceived or real, allows for progress. 

By engaging fully with what you are hoping to achieve and not the process of getting there, promotes critical thinking and creativity. It brings action and results.

Where do you need to switch gears and move from compliance to engagement to really generate progress?

The “If not, why not” diversity question your organization needs to be asking now

This article was first published in VALIDITY COACHING’S FORETHOUGHT newsletter:

The “If not, why not” diversity question your organization needs to be asking now

gender_equality_by_meppolThere has been considerable debate in recent media and boardrooms following the announcement in December 2009 by the ASX Corporate Governance Council of their proposal to expand the Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations to require each entity listed on the Australian Securities Exchange to adopt and disclose a diversity policy that includes measurable objectives relating to gender.

Within their suggested diversity policy, listed entities will be required, on an “if not, why not?” basis, to disclose in their annual report:

  • Their achievement against the gender objectives set by their board; and
  • The number of women employees in the whole organization, in senior management and on the board.

Alongside the new recommendations, changes will be made to the guidance commentary to:

  • Encourage nomination committees of listed entities to include within their charters a requirement to continuously review the proportion of women at all levels in the company. Commentary will be required to highlight the responsibility of the nomination committee to address strategies on board gender diversity and diversity in general.
  • Require that the performance review of the board include consideration of diversity criteria in addition to skills
  • To disclose what skills and diversity criteria they look for in any new board appointment.

There has been much lip service paid to the issue of gender balance in the past, and with the council expecting to provide an exposure draft of the proposed changes to the Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations for public consultation in early 2010, with an anticipated implementation date of 1 July 2010, soft-discussions will no longer suffice.

Many organizations who have promoted an equal opportunity and pro-women position, still have considerably fewer numbers of women in senior executive level positions or at the board than their male counterparts.  When they do, they tend to skew towards what is perceived to be the “soft skilled” roles of Human Resources, Customer Services and Marketing.  Evidence has proved that a more balanced gender representation across organizations has not necessarily followed the talk.

It is expected that by placing this issue firmly at the boardroom table, the question of “if not, why not” will be applied.  However every manager at all levels of an organization should be looking at the answers to the question of “why are we at this point at all?”

What are the barriers to building greater gender diversity?

One of the biggest barriers to gender diversity is an organization’s (and broader profession’s) cultures built around people’s historically-based and inherent beliefs, behaviours and biases. Generally these are around the previously designed and seen to be successful roles of the “perfect worker” and that of the “perfect mother”, which can also be culturally and socially reinforced.

It is unlikely that organization’s today would have an overtly discriminatory or conscious block to women progressing with equal opportunity into senior ranks. In the majority of cases the barriers are more likely to be delivered through indirect organizational messaging and policies, poor role-modelling, inconsistent behaviours, little formalized support, too little flexibility and too few examples.

In a Catalyst research paper of 2007 that collected responses of 1231 male and female participants across US & EMEA titled “The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Dammed if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t”, found that women faced clear predicaments in the workplace that their male counterparts didn’t.  Some of these were around stereotyped expectations and behaviours. The Predicaments found for women in the research included:

  1. Extreme Perceptions – Too soft, too tough, and never just right. When women acted in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes, they were viewed as less competent leaders and when women acted in ways that are inconsistent with such stereotypes, they were considered unfeminine.
  2. The High Competence Threshold – Women leaders face higher standards and lower rewards than male leaders. Respondents’ comments revealed that women leaders are subjected to higher competency standards. On top of doing their job, women have to prove that they can lead, over and over again and manage stereotypical expectations constantly.
  3. Competent but Disliked – Women leaders are perceived as competent or liked, but rarely both. Respondents’ comments revealed that when women behave in ways that are traditionally valued for men leaders (e.g. assertively), they are viewed as more competent, but also not as effective interpersonally as women who adopt a more stereotypically feminine style.

In summary, gender stereotypes misrepresent the true talents of women leaders and can potentially undermine women’s contributions to organizations as well as their own advancement options.

The consequences of not dealing with culture can be dire to organizational strength.  Here in Australia, Melbourne Business School associate professor Isabel Metz (as reported in The Australian Financial Review), managed to survey 44 senior women who left the banking and finance sector to verify their reasons for departure.

Although the sample was small, the findings speak volumes.  Almost half (45 per cent) of the interviewees who left their jobs after returning from maternity leave, abandoned plans to continue working for their organisation because of unfriendly work-family rather practices that didn’t give them a fair opportunity to return or to continue to work, such as a lack of part-time positions or expectations of very long work hours.

And Twenty-seven per cent of the women cited broken employment promises and legal obligations upon their return from maternity leave as a primary reason for their departure.

The reason we don’t hear much about these soft-discriminatory practices in organizations is the negative stereotyping or consequences in future employment for women who are seen to be “taking up the torch” or “mounting campaigns” that promote the rights, opportunities and equal numbers of women in the organization.  Women can also feel the consequences of resentment amongst her peers and her seniors from those who see the argument as one-sided and that the issues of unfriendly work-family practices impact both male and female workers equally. 

Some women who have made it to the top and have children and who are seen to be making themselves available 24/7 can also face negative stereotyping by others who believe they are not meeting their family responsibilities or are not setting the right example of balance to others.  This issue of stereotyping is unlikely to be applied in the same way to their male counterparts working in the same way.

Needless to say the question from most should be “what type of organization puts pressure on female and male employees to be available to work 24/7 or excessive hours over long periods of time”.   The burning and churning of talented and professional people, whilst maybe fuelling innovative SME start-ups, eventually takes its toll on larger organizations. 

Organizations are looking to see how they can address the issues of work/life balance and flexible work practices to ensure talent growth and energy-sustainability and to secure a continuous tap into the much wider and more experienced talent pool. It is about having the courage to allow talent to spawn in organizations – without trying to camouflage it with gender biases.  The financial benefits will follow.

Organizations of the future will see the question of gender diversity not being about the issue of developing women as a “special needs” program – it will instead focus on creating contexts in our eco-systems that provide women and all employees with opportunities to deliver value.

Organizations will focus much more around the greater opportunity of individual talent management and contribution.  If you have a star performer or developing talent with loads of potential, irrespective of gender, the organization will work to provide a custom program of development to help them realize their success in all aspects that are important to them – in their careers, personal, health, spiritual and social lives. The real job of managing will be to remove barriers, provide employees with the right resources, step out of the way and allow them to shine.

The way employees work, where they work, when they work will be inconsequential to how they successfully deliver the desired results and work with others in the organization.  No single rule, no single mould nor “one rule to suit the majority” will prevail. 

This type of flexible work environment will require some overhaul and change of existing systems, but these usually follow the change first in expectations and determinations of an organization’s working culture.

Supporting Gender Diversity through an organizations culture:

In addition to setting quota targets, there are some practical considerations you and your organization can consider today in answering the question of “if not, why not”:

  • Include in management agendas and communications messaging and discussions designed to bring desired cultural and behavioural changes to address gender diversity
  • Look at the requirements of the positions and determine if there are any gender bias and overhaul the specifications focusing on what business outcomes are looking to be delivered.(Research has shown that traditional managerial roles are set-typed as masculine, meaning that characteristics deemed necessary to be a successful manager are stereotypically associated with men).
  • Expose career paths & all aspects of business to your talented people.  The more visible the paths are to the top, the more choices provided to get there, the more experiences made possible and clearly made available to all talented employees irrespective of gender across the organization, the more likely the balanced take up from both sexes.
  • Identify & name your top talent – equally looking for talented female and male candidates who may be at different stages of their careers and develop custom programs to help them realize their career potential and aspirations.
  • Introduce a strong mentoring & coaching program – engaging both external and internal coaches to help executive women plan, prepare and realize their career aspirations
  • Identify where corrective coaching and changes are required to remove perception, stereotyping, behaviours and other barriers or current limitations across the senior leadership and management team
  • Encourage, introduce and financially support official networking engagements (professional & social), cross-function teamwork & leadership groupings.  Encourage these networks to be built both within and external to the organization to ensure exposure to strong role models, mentors, and key decision makers  
  • Develop and suggest strategies for promoting flexible working environments, removing barriers that allow people to deliver in diverse and flexibile environments and time frames
  • Invite, encourage, promote and champion advocates and change-drivers for gender diversity (& diversity in general) in your organization.
  • Encourage female senior executives to take an active role at mentoring, coaching & championing what is possible and identifying the key ingredients for their success.  

The old adage of “what gets measured gets done” is one of the implied principles of the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s recommendations.  One step short of enforced quotas, it relies more on the position of “naming & shaming”.  The more visibility bought to specific numeric gender targets, strategies and progress, the more likely they will be achieved. 

It is a shame that it will take legislation to put this issue and opportunity for business growth on the table.  There is much evidence to prove that diversity in the workforce is something an organization can capitalize upon.   

Our roles and responsibilities as leaders, as investors, as employees, as industry representatives – will be to hold organizations accountable for gender diversity.  Action is required and the clock is ticking. 

VALIDITY COACHING is a key sponsor of the HR Summit 2010.

Committing to your commitments

Pinky Swear PromiseHonesty in a Pinkie promise by Fiona Macfarlane of fishakaiHonesty in a Pinkie promise by Fiona Macfarlane of fishakaiWe have all made them.  We have all accepted them.  We have good intent when it comes to making or accepting commitments.

However we also know the feeling of disappointment when someone does not deliver something that they have committed to.  Sometimes delivered late or not as expected, sometimes with an excuse (including those quite plausible), sometimes without an excuse.  Just an expectation you would know that the best was done on the day. 

Years back when the first Quality Assurance certifications were being sought and I had to lead a business through the process of earning certification, the pursuit of quality was less about everything being the highest quality it could be.  It was more about setting a standard of quality and then always delivering to it.  Consistently, confidently and reliably. 

From a branding perspective, it was proven to be much better to choose a standard that could always be delivered, than to pursue the greatest and then only sometimes reach that.  Any form of inconsistency in the delivery of quality (goods or services) would plant a seed of doubt into the recipient.  No longer could they rely or have confidence in the standard you would deliver.  If there was doubt in the recipient, then your brand would immediately be impacted by feelings of distrust and uncertainty.

Lately I have been working with some executives on personal branding.  Thinking about what they aspire to represent and then considering how well they deliver it.  Identifying the behavioural gaps between what we hope to project, to what we are projecting.  Identifying the gaps between what we say we are and will do and what we really are and what we really deliver.

While the subject of personal branding is much broader than any one aspect, it is interesting to observe how often people fail to see the connection between the meeting or failure to meet a commitment they have made on their personal brand.  Many will make promises, or agree to deadlines, then fail to deliver or even worse, fail to reset expectations.  Not every time, not even often, just sometimes.  You only need to not deliver or not reset expectations once and an element of doubt automatically creeps in to the minds of those you are working or interacting with. 

The good news is, this is an easy personal quality to manage once you first value your word and your commitments.

Be clear about what it is that you will deliver, when you will deliver it, identify what risks may be associated with delivering it and mentally map how and what is required to deliver to your commitment.  

If anything changes in your ability to deliver what has been promised, then make sure you reset expectations.   Whilst it is always safer to underpromise and overdeliver, it is much better to be honest about what is the most likely scenario and then make sure that is what you deliver.  Associate reliable with trust and confidence.

If you want to be someone people trust, someone people rely upon, someone that people value and have confidence in , then really value and commit to the commitments you make.

More for Less for More

Earlier this year I was at a conference and was lucky enough to hear Dr. R.A. Mashelkar  present an inspiring address on Gandhian Engineering.  A concept that incorporates the principles of doing more (providing more features, more services, more  value) for less cost to make it more accessible and available to much larger numbers of people.  Hence the phrase “More for Less for More”.

Tata Nano Car WhiteAn example of this was the launch earlier this year of Tata’s radically innovative car, the Nano.

Speaking at the unveiling ceremony at the 9th Auto Expo in New Delhi, Mr. Ratan N. Tata, Chairman of the Tata Group and Tata Motors said, “I observed families riding on two-wheelers – the father driving the scooter, his young kid standing in front of him, his wife seated behind him holding a little baby. It led me to wonder whether one could conceive of a safe, affordable, all-weather form of transport for such a family”.  He challenged his organization to think differently about the problem and they did.  Only a few years later they delivered the Tata Nano, a “comfortable, safe, all-weather car, high on fuel efficiency & low on emissions” for approx US$2000.

Tata received more than 200,000 orders in the 3 week period following its launch in March. Today they can produce approx 3,000 cars per month.  A small number considering the demand . 

However with increased production capacity being addressed, we will see over time improvements in quality and consistency, and the addition of features likely to be provided at an even lower price.  And of course the competition will follow benefiting greater numbers of people.

Already there are announcements by a number of car manufacturers that they too will be entering this low end/low emission category including the bigger, more well-known names.   The Japanese car industry turned the car industry on its head once before.  They lead with price and followed with quality.  The same is happening with Korean cars now and we will soon see the same with Chinese and Indian automobile brands to follow.  Large-scale change can and will occur and accessible and affordable cars will be available to those who require a safe form of transportation, and who were previously locked out, in the near future.

The challenge is certainly there for businesses to think about how best to serve and care for the 6.8 billion people we have on this earth.  There are two aspects which drives the need for businesses to broaden their current thinking:

  1. The ubiquitous nature of the internet & wireless technologies – the increasing speed of technology for increasingly commoditized (and thus reduced) pricing is making it easy for people all around the world, including within developing nations,  to connect and transact with anyone, anywhere, anytime.  The flattening of the world opens up additional markets – more product choices for people, more potential customers for business. The greater the global demand, the more solutions will exist in logistically moving or upgrading goods and services around the world.
  2. The expanding social and environmental conscience – the ever-increasing pressure to evaluate our footprint on the world and the increasing gap awareness in wealth between nations.  This will continue to grow as the consequences of our current policies and actions continue to become better understood, and the forums for voting with your feet become more common.

With increased competition as the world continues to flatten, businesses will require greater creativity and innovation from their people.  Without a model for constant and differentiated innovation, businesses will suffer and ultimately become irrelevant.  Increased competition from the developing nations will continue to place pressure on value for money. 

And as price drops due to competitive and consumer pressures, so will margins.  Thus there will be a requirement (not just an opportunity) to sell to more people together with an increased requirement to build meaningful, personal relationships with customers.  This will drive the way organizations will think about their product or service offerings in the future.

A decision will need to be made by businesses. 

Do they cater for a few customers and charge a premium or do they rethink their business model and approach with the objective to do “more for less for more”?  Both models will require continuous innovation and competition will require them to define how they are going to keep doing it better than anyone else.

I applaud the technology, medical, science and engineering organizations who are already thinking this way.  Interestingly this approach increases profits for most of those organizations. But real revolution starts with awareness by a bunch of like-minded people that things need to change for the better.  Revolutionaries’ prophesize through education, communication and real example, encouraging more and more of the general population to follow and take action.

It poses an interesting question to every one of us:  What responsibility can we take in our every day decisions to stamp out oppression, poverty, hunger, poor health, and environmental damage?

 In every decision we make – either business or personal – how can we make an impact on providing equal opportunities for people to thrive no matter where they are located?  Can we offer more for less for more people?

The questions may seem big, the actions we make may seem little, but every one of them will make a positive difference.

Utegate – A question of trust

According to a recent Harvard Business Review Advisory Council Reader’s Survey dated January 2009, it was considered that trust had eroded in top executives – by over 76% in US based companies and 51% in non-US companies.

That is a lot of trust to lose. 

Watching the recent shenanigans* of our government and opposition spat over the so-called Utegate scandal, it certainly raises the question of what possibly were they hoping to gain?  Given no-one seriously thought it would result in a resignation of the Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader, all that really is at stake here is the public’s trust in their leaders. 

 Rudd and Turnbull

We can only assume the motivation that is driving them to behave, attack and defend their actions as they are, is to help protect and uphold Australia’s values, ethics, security,  competitiveness, health, safety, education and all the other reasons that they were voted into office as our leaders.  I would not be the first to say that connection is difficult to make. Even if it can be found, would we rate it as the most important issue that we would like our leaders of our nation to focus on?  And at what point did or does the motivation change from pursuing the truth to pursuing personal agendas?

In this global economic environment we are seeing increasing pressure on businesses and executives.  This is a test of character for most. And we are seeing plenty of examples of organizations’ cultures crumbling, trust being eroded, candor turning into clandestine, and ethics and values once clear now murkily represented. 

Trust is something that requires careful building.  A coherent and transparent position that is understood, chosen and lived by those who lead and those who follow.  It is very easily dissipated.  And even harder to rebuild.

So how do you ensure trust not only remains in-tact but grows over these challenging times?  The key thing is of course to know who you are and what you stand for.  Trust is not a job responsibility, it is a choice in which you wish to offer and earn.

The basis of trust in leadership

  1. Know oneself  and take a clear position on your beliefs and values – communicate and live by who you are and what you believe in
  2. Be transparent and candid in communication and decision making – share why decisions are being made, share the process, those engaged, and progress.  Your organization and personal values should have a common base otherwise the differences will quickly show and allow room for corruption.handshake on house trust
  3. Share – share information, good, bad, challenges, disappointments and wins.  Help explain what is clear, what is grey, what is not being shared and why.
  4. Tell the truth always – you may suffer consequences of telling the truth, but it can never be as bad as the consequences of not telling the truth.  The most important thing at stake here is your integrity.  You can’t deceive and retain integrity.
  5. Encourage, invite, create forums for feedback – this is all about creating a culture that encourages open discussions and the sharing of ideas and information.  It is also important that you regularly hear, see and feel the truth and reality of a situation.
  6. Get directly involved and see first-hand any situation that you need to represent – the more layers you have between yourself and what you represent, the more likely the room for spin, softening, misinterpretation of the truth etc.
  7. Evaluate how you are living your word – reflect regularly on your behavior and that of others, call yourself and others to question and do not accept anything that can be considered untrustworthy or against the values of your organization.
  8. Champion Trust – encourage it, live it, recognize it, reward it. 

Friedrich Nietzsche, German classical Scholar, Philosopher and Critic of culture once wrote “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”

To lead in today’s environment, you need to be trusted.  Don’t compromise.
 
* Definition of shenanigan “1: a devious trick used especially for an underhand purpose2 a: tricky or questionable practices or conduct —usually used in plural b: high-spirited or mischievous activity —usually used in plural (Merrriam-Webster online).  A most apt description!

Progression post recession…

escalatorjpgWith great caution, we are seeing reports of “Australia avoiding a recession” with claims the worst has passed.  And whilst I sincerely hope that is the case and no-one suffers further or unnecessary financial hardship, I do wonder if we as a nation have spent enough time considering just how we will compete and sustain our economy over the long term.  Have we invested enough in understanding the global economic crisis?  The reasons for the global crash and the questions it raises about our understanding and demands on the companies’ (or investments’) integrity, values and responsibilities that we invest in?

One beauty of financial uncertainty is that it forces us to think about what is important to us.  It certainly forces us to review where our priorities and responsibilities lay.  In business it brings clarity to what is the true means of competitive differentiation and how best to go-to-market.  If your company’s survival is at stake, it forces you to define clearly where your markets are (or could be) and how sustainable they are.  It allows you to explore different possibilities and opportunities.  And it should be a time where you encourage and promote innovation and change within your organization and empower your team to help find the path to future growth and financial strength.

In the March quarter national accounts, it still showed domestic spending falling by one percent, the sharpest fall since December quarter 2000.  We avoided a technical definition of a recession by a GDP expansion mostly due to imports contracting and exports remaining positive. “Overall, GDP growth was positive because imports contracted by an extraordinary seven per cent allowing net exports to contribute 2.2 percentage points to GDP growth and ensuring a positive result” stated Westpac’s chief economist Bill Evans.

Let’s not exhale the sigh of relief that the worst has passed us.  Use this time to consider what you need to do to emerge stronger.  How can you innovate and compete strongly in the global markets?  What is your true means for sustainable competitive differentiation and how do you focus on those?

Back to integrity, values and responsibilities, what does this mean for your company and what (if any) are the lessons here?  What should you avoid next time and what do you need to ensure you do next time?  What measures need to be in place to help ensure you don’t forget those lessons?

And finally, as we consider the lessons in these times, how in finding your means for financial strength and security will you balance your desire for greater profits against your responsibilities to your employees and to the greater community moving forward?

What will your story of progression post recession (or near recession) be?

As Albert Einstein said “in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity”.