Category Archives: Developing managers

Revisiting the positive qualities of more traditional methods of recruitment


By Elisabeth Goodman, 27th May 2019

Illustration from: Your Approach to Hiring is all Wrong. Harvard Business Review, May-June 2019, pp. 49-58

Peter Cappelli, George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School, and director of its Centre for Human Resources, has written a really helpful overview of how newer methods of hiring have lost some of the positive qualities of more traditional methods.

(See: Your Approach to Hiring is all Wrong. Harvard Business Review, May-June 2019, pp. 49-58.)

Here is a summary of his main points.

Comparing the features of the newer methods, with those of the more traditional ones, and the resultant impact.

More external sourcing vs. internal sourcing

The actual or potential impact:

  • Losing some of the benefits of internal promotion
  • Not developing or retaining internal staff
  • More time needed to shape new recruits to internal ways of working
  • Having to pay more to attract external staff

Seeking out “passive” vs. active applicants

Recruitment or head-hunting agencies will trawl LinkedIn and other sources for likely candidates, who may not actually be seeking to move jobs at this time.

The actual or potential impact:

  • “Passive” candidates who are not thinking about moving jobs may need to be paid more to encourage them to move
  • “Active” applicants may be better motivated to take on the new job, and for other reasons than money e.g. because they are seeking a greater challenge, or an area of work that is more suited to their interests.

Creating a large funnel of candidates vs. encouraging a smaller number of ‘better fit’ candidates

Recruitment agencies will strive to create a large number of candidates.  Companies are also being encouraged to post “phantom” jobs: ones that don’t actually exist, just to keep the number of applicants coming in.

However:

  • It will take a company more time and cost to whittle down a long list.  In addition, a long list is not necessarily a high quality one.

Some suggested good practices

The comparisons above raise some fairly obvious arguments in favour of more traditional methods.

Here are some other suggestions from Cappelli’s article – many of which are reflected in our RiverRhee courses on Recruitment and Interview Skills

Take time to clearly define the post that you wish to fill

This way, candidates will self-select to exclude themselves from the recruitment process, or to continue with it as appropriate.

Some organisations are creating online tests with visible scores, or gamification programmes.  These help candidates to better understand the nature of the work and the potential match with their interests and capabilities .

Understand the limits of internal referrals

Some companies encourage their staff to make internal referrals, and may even have some form of reward for doing so.  However there is a risk that this can result in a reduction in the diversity of the workforce, as people may refer people who are like them.

Suggestions that may help internal referrals be more effective:

  • Have the internal referrer help with on-boarding the new member(s) of staff
  • If you pay people for making referrals, do so about 6 months after the new person is in place

Measure the results of your recruitment / interview processes

Measurement of any process is good practice: it helps you to identify what is working well, and what could be improved.

Possible approaches include:

  • Monitoring turn-over and attendance level of those recruited through different routes
  • Looking at results from your Performance Review process
  • Getting qualitative feedback from the managers of new hires on their degree of satisfaction with their recruits

Enhance your interview skills

There is no doubt that competency-based questions are the most effective way to find out whether the interviewee has the experience, attitude and capability to match the job.

However, it takes time and skill to formulate these questions, and to ensure that all your interviewers are using the same questions consistently across all candidates.

As Cappelli says:

Just winging it and asking whatever comes to mind is next to useless.

It is important to ensure that those doing the interviewing have the skills to conduct effective interviews.

This is something that we could help you with through our RiverRhee courses on Recruitment and Interview Skills.

NOTES

If you found this article useful, you might also like to read:

Tips for hiring the best people in rapidly growing Biotech and Life Science companies by guest blogger and RiverRhee Associate Alison Proffitt.

Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.)  Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.  RiverRhee is a member-to-member training provider for One Nucleus. 

Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner. She is a member of CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals) and of APM (Association for Project Management) in which she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.

Advertisements

Working across silos – leadership in the matrix and in multi-functional projects


By Elisabeth Goodman, 14th May 2019

7 Seismic Shifts for Leadership. Based on Michael D Watkins. Material used in RiverRhee and PERLA’s course “Transition to Leadership”, delivered to members of One Nucleus working in the Life Sciences.

Working across silos – an enabler for developing leadership skills

I recently delivered one of RiverRhee‘s and PERLA‘s Transition to Leadership courses where we share, amongst other information, Michael D Watkins’ “7 seismic shifts” for new leaders.

An essential skill, when moving into a leadership role, is the ability to become familiar with the vocabulary, systems, structures and cultures that are unique to each area of the organisation.  Those working in specific technical fields – such as biology, chemistry, clinical, IT – will have their own ways of communicating and understanding each other, of working and of making decisions, which will be quite distinct from those working in HR or finance for example.

To be effective, a leader must be able to engage with people right across the organisation, and so shift from being a specialist in their field, to becoming a generalist across all areas.

Delegates at RIverRhee's Transition to Leadership course

Delegates discussing the “7 seismic shifts” at RiverRhee and PERLA’s recent Transition to Leadership  course.

Working across silos, in an organisation that may already have a matrix structure – where people are assigned to functional departments, but also work on multi-functional projects – is a great way to develop this broader awareness and understanding.

There are valuable tips on this whole topic in: “Cross-silo leadership.  How to create more value by connecting experts from inside and outside the organization”, by Tiziana Casciaro, Amy C. Edmondson and Sujin Jang, Harvard Business Review, May-June 2019, pp. 130-139.

Shifting the emphasis from vertical to horizontal collaboration

The authors of the HBR article share their findings from conversations with individuals in companies around the world.  They found that whilst people prioritise the vertical relationships (i.e. those that they report to, and who report to them) in their day-to-day work, it is the horizontal relationships, across functional groups in the organisation that will bring the greatest value to customers.

Horizontal relationships, across functions, is where there is the greatest scope for innovation and for the larger scale projects that will support integrated research, development and customer service.

As the authors say, these kinds of horizontal relationship can be the most challenging for people, as they need to learn about and relate to people who may have very different ways of thinking and learning.

As with all the best HBR articles, the author have some tips for helping leaders and those who work with them to operate horizontally, across the silos in an organisation.

Developing and making use of “cultural brokers”.

Some people are well-placed to bridge the gap between different parts of the organisation.  Examples of these, in the organisations that RiverRhee works with, are project managers and leaders on cross-functional projects.

The authors of the HBR article suggest that there are two types of “cultural brokers”: those who act as go-betweens, translating the language of the two domains in more one-off , or time-restricted collaborations; and those who take the time to facilitate collaborations in a way that will be longer-lasting and able to function without the “broker”.

Either type of “cultural broker” will need to develop the multi-functional and/or multi-cultural skills, enhanced with strong interpersonal skills, to enable them to facilitate this kind of rapport and collaboration between others.

Encouraging and developing skills in asking good questions

We all know that asking questions is a powerful adjunct to learning – it’s a technique that we teach in RiverRhee’s courses.

Instilling a climate of curiosity is a great way to foster collaboration and hence activities such as innovation and continuous improvement – as described in a previous blog (Curiosity, Continuous Improvement and Innovation).

The authors suggest that the best practices for asking good questions include:

  • Asking open questions – rather than those that just require ‘yes’ ‘no’ answers.  And what’s more, questions that contain as little of the questioner’s preconceptions as possible such as: “How are things going for you?” [This is also referred to as “clean” language.]
  • Transitioning to more specific questions as the collaboration develops – ones that will reveal and so allow sharing of greater depths of knowledge such as: “What can you tell me about x?”
  • Checking your understanding by playing back what you’ve heard and understood – saying something like: “Can you help me check that I have this right?  What have I missed?”
  • Checking in with the other contributor(s) on their perspective of how the collaboration is going – asking something like: “What can we do to work together more effectively?”

Getting people to see things from others’ perspectives

The HBR article gives some very interesting examples of organisations that have taken novel approaches to this.  The main thing is to recognise that most people that we interact with have different perspectives to our own, and this may be even more so if they are working in different parts of a company.

Apparently whilst most people have the skills to understand other people’s perspectives, they are not necessarily motivated to do so.  It is therefore a leadership responsibility to role-model and to encourage this form of behaviour to support a more collaborate approach across an organisation.

Building internal and external networks

This is another way that leaders can role-model and encourage others to develop skills and habits for working beyond their more immediate (vertical) work group:

  • Create cross-functional projects, meetings and agendas that encourage horizontal networks, conversations and collaborations
  • Encourage employees (give them the time and resources) to explore networks that go outside their areas of expertise.  The authors advocate crossing domains between art, science, technology, business etc. – as the basis for true innovation.

Conclusion

Working across silos will help leaders to develop essential skills which will enable them to be more effective.  This way of working already exists, at least in part, for those operating in a matrix organisation and/or working on large cross-functional projects.

It’s a way of working that offers greater potential for innovation, solving complex problems and meeting customer needs.

It requires encouragement, role modelling by leaders, training and support to enhance the take-up of this form of horizontal collaboration across all parts of an organisation.

notes

Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.)  Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.  RiverRhee is a member-to-member training provider for One Nucleus. 

Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner. She is a member of CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals) and of APM (Association for Project Management) in which she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.

Influencing skills for Project Management – lessons from the military


By Elisabeth Goodman, 27th April 2019

Photograph of Emma Dutton MBE by Louise Haywood-Schiefer for “How to win wars and influence people” in Project, Spring 2019 pp.22-27

Project is the APM’s (Association for Project Managment) regular publication for its members.  This spring’s issue carries a fascinating article by Ben Hargreaves, editor of Project, featuring Emma Dutton MBE.  The article describes how she has founded a consultancy, the Applied Influence Group, to apply what she has learnt from gathering intelligence for the British Armed forces in Afghanistan, to the world of Project Management.

Parallels between military influencing and influencing projects

The article highlights some of the points made by Emma Dutton in her talk to the APM’s recent National Conference for Women in Project Management.  The parallels between the two worlds of influence include:

Multiple, complex stakeholder relationships

Shifting loyalties and volatile environments

A [or some] very demanding client[s]

The first and last points are certainly ones that the Project Leaders / Managers in the Life Science companies that we work with at RiverRhee would echo:

  • They often have to work with a range of stakeholders within and outside their companies, with different cultural backgrounds and communication styles, and with high expectations of the project team.
  • Although the loyalties are perhaps more stable, and the environment not as volatile as those which Emma Dutton experienced, there is often a high degree of uncertainty as to the possible outcomes of the scientific work

Emotional intelligence at the heart of good influencing skills

Emma Dutton makes an interesting observation from her experience of working in Afghanistan that is quoted in the article:

Afghanistan is a country built on relationships.  Afghans’ interpersonal skills are much more developed than the average Western person’s.  That’s how they survive.

and:

The mission was to influence hearts and minds as much as it was to collect information.  You had to be genuinely empathetic.  We are all humans, and we know when people are being real.

Emotional intelligence is a strong component of RiverRhee’s training, workshops and coaching for project and operational leaders, managers and team members.  See www.riverrhee.com for details of our various courses, including those on influencing and communication skills.

This, together with what Emma Dutton describes as “emotional management” or regulation of ones emotions, is also described by Daniel Goleman* and others as emotional and social intelligence:

  • being aware of our own emotions, attitudes, behaviours and those of the people we are interacting with
  • making conscious choices about how we express or adapt these emotions, attitudes and behaviours in order to get positive outcomes for all parties

These are the qualities that will enable project managers and leaders to influence the diverse and challenging stakeholders that they interact with.

Emma Dutton’s advice seems very wise indeed:

[do] your work  before you get in the room. Understand the people you are talking to.

As Ben Hargreaves concludes in his article:

Understanding drivers, likes and dislikes, motivations, anxieties, interests, attitudes and beliefs is all-important for the influencer.

Notes

*Daniel Goleman et al are authors of a very helpful series of booklets “Building Blocks of Emotional Intelligence” that Elisabeth Goodman has reviewed in earlier blogs as listed here:

About the author

Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.)  Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.  RiverRhee is a member-to-member training provider for One Nucleus. 

Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner. She is a member of CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals) and of APM (Association for Project Management) in which she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.

Finding that ‘sweet spot’ for collaboration


By Elisabeth Goodman, 3rd April 2019

The five positions of conflict

Illustration from RiverRhee’s training on Assertiveness and on Dealing with Difficult Situations

Exploring ways to find the “sweet spot” in collaborating with others is a particularly salient topic in the current political climate.  Thomas Kilmann’s model is an excellent guide on how to do this, which we illustrate in RiverRhee’s training on Assertiveness, and in our management training on Dealing with Difficult Situations, with a story about two sisters sharing their last orange.

Thomas Kilmann’s model teaches us about the importance of having open conversations, and of deploying our best listening skills to understand what is most important to the other person.  The idea is to find some common ground which may lead to a solution (the “sweet spot”) that might be even better than mere compromise. In the case of the sisters, they discover that they want the orange for different purposes, and so are able to share it in a way that meets both their needs – the zest for one, the juice for the other.

The story about the orange is of course extremely simple compared to some of the issues facing us today, and especially where there are more than two people involved!  However, the principles may still be relevant.

So it was with great interest that I read Lisa B. Kwan’s article in the March-April 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review on “The Collaboration Blind Spot”, pp.67-73.  The author explores what can happen in cross-group initiatives, and how to address the defensive behaviours that might arise.

(By the way, you might recognise, as I did, that both the behaviours and the ways to address them can apply to individuals involved in one-to-one collaborations with each other.)

Defensive behaviours demonstrated in cross-group collaboration initiatives

Lisa Kwan reminds us that if we are seeing or experiencing defensive behaviour between groups, the chances are that they are feeling threatened in some way.

She lists the kinds of behaviour typically demonstrated as:

  • Overt territorial assertions: “we’re in charge here”, “their opinion does not matter”
  • Overt attacks on others: public criticism of the other group
  • Power plays: calling high-profile meetings and excluding the other group from them
  • Covert blocking behaviours: making the other group’s work so difficult that they can’t play their part in the collaboration
  • Covert manipulation of boundaries: framing the other group’s expertise in such a way as to over-emphasise one’s own group’s strengths, or the other group’s so-called weaknesses

Threats to identity – purpose, roles and responsibilities

Lisa Kwan categorises the threats that lead to this defensive behaviour under three fairly closely related headings, the first of which is identity.

A group may feel that there is a threat to their on-going ‘reason for being’ as a result of the collaboration.  Will their role disappear?

A leader can address this by being very (even publicly) clear about:

  • the purpose of the collaboration
  • the reason why he or she has asked these particular groups to collaborate
  • the very clear differences in the roles that they can each bring to bear to the discussion
  • his or her expectations of what is in or out of scope in terms of the nature of the discussion and the outcome

If appropriate, the leader could also grant the individual groups greater ownership of roles not associated with the collaboration in question.

Threats to legitimacy – value and reputation

This threat is to do with the groups’ and the parent organisation’s perception of the value that they bring.

Lisa Kwan suggests that the answer here lies in publicly re-asserting:

  • why each group was created in the first place
  • the value that they have brought in the past – to the organisation as a whole
  • the value that is anticipated they will bring to the collaboration
  • the critical role that they play or will play

Threats to control – decision-making and autonomy

A collaborative initiative may threaten a group’s sense of control, decision-making or autonomy.

A potential solution involves:

  1. Identifying the broad topics, processes, products, services, equipment etc. and general decisions involved.
  2. Defining which of these each group is responsible for: their “landmark” categories
  3. Defining which of these require shared, uncertain or ambiguous control
  4. Identifying where there might be an overlap between the “landmark” categories, and the shared ones – this is where they might be a “control threat”
  5. Exploring ways to reduce this threat – or acknowledging it and perhaps finding ways to offset it by giving the relevant group greater control over some new area

Conclusion – reminders for leaders and those involved in potential conflict situations

Lisa Kwan’s article represents the results of eight years of research, including six years of doctoral research.  She has observed cross-group collaboration in global companies, and conducted extensive interviews.  Her conclusions certainly resonate with what I have more informally observed and I think provide invaluable insight for leaders, as well as for individuals involved in conflict situations.

Lisa Kwan suggests that leaders should “check for their blind spots” when asking groups to collaborate to pick up and act upon the potential behavioural risks involved.

I believe that her advice could help both leaders and individuals find the “sweet spot” for collaboration!

About the author

Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.)  Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.  RiverRhee is a member-to-member training provider for One Nucleus. 

Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner. She is a member of CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals) and of APM (Association for Project Management) in which she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.

 

 

Creating effective “personal learning clouds” for leadership development


By Elisabeth Goodman, 25th March 2019

Illustration by Nathaniel Spain in Elisabeth Goodman’s “The Effective Team’s Facilitation Workbook”, RIverRhee Publishing, 2018

The March-April 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review features an article by Mihnea Moldoveanu and Das Narayandas on “The future of leadership development” (pp. 40-48).  The article focuses on the need to build “personal learning clouds”(PLCs) that embrace remote learning platforms to compensate for the shortfalls of more traditional forms of face-to-face training.

There is no doubt that those shortfalls do exist, and that MOOCs (massive open online courses) and other forms of online learning platforms (see notes) can help to address them as part of an individual’s PLC.

(See also previous blog: “Research on online courses confirms imperative for company learning and development strategies”.)

However, at RiverRhee , we are still experiencing a growing demand for our face-to-face courses.  So I thought it might be helpful to the HR contacts, senior leaders and delegates that we work with to reflect on how to make any form of training in their “personal learning clouds” as effective as possible.

Here then are my thoughts on some potential ways to address the shortfalls identified by Moldoveanu and Narayandas.

Anchor individual learning goals to those of the organisation

The authors highlight the fact that organisations don’t always benefit as much from any learning intervention as the individual does.

We always ask individuals to reflect, before our courses, on their learning objectives or expectations from the training.

HR and other senior managers could help to anchor individuals’ learning to the goals of the organisation by discussing these goals with individuals before they identify and take part in specific learning interventions.

This reminds me of a previous HBR article which my colleague Liz Mercer wrote up as a blog: “Why leadership training fails..”  This article also highlighted the leadership team’s responsibility for articulating the organisation’s strategic goals and how talent development should be linked to it.

Gaining organisational value from investing in learning was also the theme of a RiverRhee newsletter in June 2017 which featured a CIPD report “Driving the New Learning Organisation”.

Choose and influence learning interventions so that they are tailored to your requirements

Given that HR and other senior managers, and the individuals concerned, can indeed choose what form of training interventions they use, why not make sure that these reflect requirements as closely as possible?  This should be possible for online as well as face-to-face courses. After all, time and money are involved, so it’s important to make sure that these are well spent.

Moldoveanu and Narayandas highlight that one of the problems of traditional executive learning programmes is that they focus on such things as strategy development and financial analysis.  They argue that this creates a real gap in terms of the “interpersonal skills essential in thriving in today’s flat, networked, increasingly collaborative organizations”.  What is more, these leadership skills are needed by employees across the board, not just at the very top levels of the organisation.

These are skills that are receiving growing attention in RiverRhee’s offerings, both within our supervisor, management and leadership courses, and as stand-alone offerings in courses on communication and assertiveness.

And, we get a tremendous buzz when we know that what we are offering has really ‘hit the spot’.

So talk to us, and other training providers like us, to make sure that what we deliver really does meet your requirements.

Ensure that the learning context is as close to real life as possible

The HBR authors quote the results of a century of research into cognitive, educational and applied psychology, and more recent work on the neuroscience of learning.

This research emphasises the importance of close links between several factors that will impact the effectiveness of training:

  • Time. New learning is easily forgotten unless it is applied straight-away. Make sure the learning happens as close to the time as it will be applied as possible.
  • Space. Whilst attending a course away from the place of work can help minimise distractions, it might also create a barrier to applying the learning. Weight one against the other for the learning required.
  • Other learners. If the other learners that the individual is interacting with are doing similar work, then that will better support an effective exchange and development of knowledge.
  • Subject matter.  Learning interventions that include case studies and discussion that are related to the individual’s area of work will also reinforce their learning.

We ask delegates to commit to how they will apply their learning, and, in most cases, follow-up with a mini-coaching session about 4 weeks after the course to see how they have got on.

Most of our training takes place within a very tight geographical location in the UK, and our one-to-one coaching is mostly delivered ‘in situ’.  It would be interesting to see whether travelling to courses from elsewhere in the UK, and from other countries, has had a negative impact on our delegates’ learning.

Our open courses brings delegates together from related industries and/or disciplines.  Our in-house courses make that connection even more robust.

We have delegates bring their own case studies and challenges as examples to focus on throughout their learning.  Delegates at one of our recent courses on Project Management said that what they valued most about the course was:

“Opportunity to apply learnings to real life situations”

“Felt very relevant”

“Real case study”

How could you, if you are an HR practitioner or other senior manager responsible for identifying training interventions, ensure that individual’s “personal learning clouds” are as close to ‘real life’ as possible?

Measure return on investment to demonstrate value and for continuous improvement

If an individual’s development goals have been clearly defined before any learning intervention, then it should be possible to measure return on investment, to demonstrate value, and to provide feedback for continuous improvement.

RiverRhee’s June 2017 newsletter on gaining value from investing in learning, describes Kirkpatrick’s four levels for measuring the impact of learning:

  • A ‘happy sheet’ at the end of a training course (level 1)
  • The level of learning gained (level 2)
  • How it has been applied (level 3)
  • What impact it has had (level 4)

Whilst levels 1 and 2  can, to a certain extent, be determined immediately after the learning intervention, levels 3 and 4 will come some time after.  RiverRhee’s follow-up 4 weeks later will help to obtain this feedback.

It is up to those responsible for an organisation’s learning and development programme to routinely collect and make use of information on the effectiveness of individuals’ “personal learning clouds” – both online and face-to-face.

Conclusion

There is a wealth of useful information in the HBR article on accessing online resources as part of an effective “personal learning cloud” for leadership development.  However, those organisations and individuals that still want to make use of face-to-face learning interventions, can also benefit from just a few tips to make those interventions more effective.

Notes

Platforms and other resources for a “personal learning cloud” identified in the HBR article include Coursera, edX, 2U, LinkedIn Learning, Skillsoft, Degreed, Salesforce Trailhead, McKinsey Solutions, McKinsey Academy, BCG Enablement, DigitalBCG, SmashFly, Yello, Phenom People).

About the author

Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.)  Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.  RiverRhee is a member-to-member training provider for One Nucleus and a CPD provider for CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals). 

Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner. She is a member of CILIP and of APM (Association for Project Management) in which she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.

 

A more effective approach to feedback?


By Elisabeth Goodman, 4th March 2019

How to give ‘negative’ feedback is one of the most frequent questions posed by delegates on RiverRhee’s management courses.  It’s a topic we get into during our course on Performance Management and Development too.  And it’s a question that arises when we explore the difference between coaching and mentoring.

WordItOut-word-cloud-3645948

Word Cloud (https://worditout.com/word-cloud/create) generated from this blog on Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall’s article “The Feedback Fallacy” in the March-April 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review (pages 92-101) 

Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall’s article “The Feedback Fallacy” in the March-April 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review (pages 92-101) is a gold-mine of information on this subject.  And by the way, it also reminds us about why ‘positive’ feedback is so important, with fabulous guidance on how to do that well too.

Dispelling three feedback fallacies

Traditional approaches to feedback rely on three fallacies which Buckingham and Goodall masterfully dispel through the use of analogies and neuroscience research results.

1. The source of truth

Our new managers are often uncomfortable about giving feedback. Although their reasons for feeling so may vary, the HBR authors assert that we are not necessarily the best judge of what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘the right’ performance.

They point out that we will each have a different perspective of this – they call this the “idiosyncratic rater effect”.  The analogy they use is how different people will rate the redness of a rose – asking more people will only create more diversity in the interpretation of the truth of that redness!

Instead, the authors suggest that people are better at assessing their own performance (as they would assess their own level of post-operative pain).

In this situation, as Buckingham and Goodall say: “all we can do – and it’s not nothing – is share our own feelings and experiences”.

In our courses we suggest that managers emphasize what they have observed when they give feedback. This would still seem like a good starting point.  They could then add to that, “When you did this, I felt that”; or “Here is what I would have done in that situation.”

2. The theory of learning

The authors confirm something that we know from the field of Appreciative Enquiry: that people will learn (most) effectively if they build on strengths and what’s working well, rather than on weaknesses and what isn’t working well!

As they say: ” Learning is less a function of adding something that isn’t there than it is of recognizing, reinforcing, and refining what already is.”

Buckingham and Goodall cite insights from neuroscience as evidence of this:

  • Our brains build far more neurons and synaptic connections where we already have more of them i.e. in our areas of strength, than in our areas of weakness.
  • When we focus on areas that we need to correct, our sympathetic “fight or flight” survival system kicks in and actually impairs learning.
  • When we focus on  dreams and how to achieve them, our parasympathetic or “rest and digest” system is stimulated and fosters openness to learning.

This reinforces the need for managers to draw individuals’ attention to their strengths and explore with them how they might develop these strengths further.

3. The theory of excellence

This is perhaps the most exciting of the authors’ three theories.  They point out, again with analogies, from comedians, and sports, that each person’s example of excellence is unique: no two people will excel in the same way.

The trick then is to help individuals recognise their moments of excellence, and how they can top up their learning to make these repeatable.  The authors call this a “highest priority interrupt”.

We can do this by giving feedback at the moment that we spot some great performance – what it was that we observed and how we felt about it – and asking for instance: “What was going through your mind when you did that?”.  (Hence reinforcing the “rest and digest” performance of the parasympathetic system.)

And by the way, the authors explain how studying failure and how to avoid it will help to plug gaps in performance and fix flaws, but is unlikely to lead to excellence!

Coaching vs. mentoring

The observations in this article reinforce our approach to coaching: that it’s about creating the conditions and asking the open questions that will help the individual build on their strengths, further their learning, and excel.

Buckingham and Goodall give an excellent framework for helping people think through what they might need to do going forward:

  • Start with the present, and encourage them to think about what is working for them right now.  (This stimulates oxytocin – the “love or creativity drug”.)
  • Then get them thinking about the past: what example can they think about of when they tackled something similar that worked well – what they did or felt.
  • Then focus on the future – what do they already know that they could do; “What would you like to have happen” (an example of clean questioning).

There is still a need to give instruction and feedback on aspects of work where there is a need to do things in a certain way – for health and safety or otherwise critical steps.  This is more like mentoring.

And we can also share how we would do something, but this will only be a starting point for an individual’s reflection.

NOTES

About the author. Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.)  Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.  RiverRhee is a member-to-member training provider for One Nucleus and a CPD provider for CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals). 

Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner. She is a member of CILIP and of APM (Association for Project Management) in which she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.

Inspirational Leadership – through the lens of Emotional Intelligence


By Elisabeth Goodman, 5th February 2019

12. Inspirational Leadership, in Building Blocks of Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman et al, Key Step Media, 2017

Here we are at the twelfth and last of the booklets that I have been working my way through in these blogs, and in my RiverRhee newsletters (see full list in the notes below.)

Each booklet has provided me with some terrific insights, and ones that we have also endeavoured to share in RiverRhee’s courses for managers, leaders and individual team members.

So here are some key points from this last booklet and some other sources …

What is inspirational leadership?

I wrote previously, in a RiverRhee newsletter, about some characteristics of inspirational leadership based on a book of that title by Claudio Feser.

Feser suggested that the basis of this type of leadership is to have a strong focus on the goal to be achieved, to influence people in such as way that they are committed towards a course of action, and to encourage and support them to take ownership for their actions.

Goleman et al define the competency of inspirational leadership in a very similar way, as:

“..the ability to inspire and guide people to get the job done, and to bring out their best.  With inspiration, you can articulate a shared mission in a way that motivates and offer a sense of common purpose beyond people’s day-to-day tasks.”

These are Goleman’s and the other author’s suggestions for how to make this happen…

articulate a vision, mission or purpose – share it and keep it alive

We know from the work of Dan Pink and many others that having a clear sense of ‘why’ we are doing something is a great motivator.  Goleman cites an example of Medtronic, which makes medical devices, inviting patients in to talk about how their devices had saved their lives.  I had a similar experience when working at GSK where our Chief Medical Officer interviewed patients or their carers in the auditorium to give us an insight on how our work could make a difference to their lives.

The people working in the small and medium sized Life Science organisations that we work with often have a clear vision of what their organisations want to achieve.  And they have a passion for that.  Leaders who can keep that vision and passion alive, and articulate it clearly and with conviction, will be more effective than others.

As Annie McKee points out, it is all too easy to lose touch of what she calls “the noble purpose” of an organisation.  It can become buried by short-term goals and pressures.  The larger the organisation, the easier it is for this to happen.

Here are some things that she suggests leaders can do to keep that vision and passion alive:

  • Develop your own self-awareness: tune into what is important to you in your work, keep your energy and attention focused on that, communicate it in the conversations that you have with others
  • Take some time out, as a leadership team, to reflect and reconnect with a joint sense of purpose.
  • Initiate discussions throughout the organisation to help everyone reconnect.

Engage with the heart as well as the head

Matthew Taylor builds on some of the ideas above, for example by saying: “For leaders to truly inspire they must get out of their heads…, into their hearts.., and authentically connect to their people.”

This means connecting at an emotional level with what is important to you, and with what is important to the people that you work with.  It requires not only self-awareness, but the ability to truly listen and observe.

In fact, as Matthew Lippincott says, inspirational leadership requires all four parts of the authors’ emotional intelligence model: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management.

Mette Miriam Boell puts this very well: “It [a systems approach to leadership] calls for a quieting down internally, so that leaders can be present to the interconnected nature of our lives.  That’s why refinements of emotional and social skills are as important as any cognitive processes for a leader to truly come into character.”

This cognitive and emotional awareness will give leaders what they need to enable them to influence others – something that is more explicitly explored in Claudio Feser’s characteristics of inspirational leadership

It is possible to develop your own and others’ skills as inspirational leaders

Claudio Fernández-Aráoz takes us through his own, and a Japanese female manager’s journeys into becoming inspirational leaders.

He suggests that individuals need to start with some underlying potential, and then have “a combination of best practices for development and the right partner for your change process”.

Underlying potential

In the case of the Japanese manager’s case study, the underlying potential seemed to be a combination of curiosity, insight, engagement and determination.

Mette Miriam Boell reminds us that leaders can be found at every level of the organisation – not just at the top.  She also reminds us that the Latin origins of to inspire (inspirare) is “to breathe life into”.  So that an inspirational leader is able to share their vision in such a way that it is owned by everyone in an organisation, so that they too become leaders, and so that the vision becomes a collective aspiration.

Boell tells us that for a leader to do this requires a certain humility, a willingness to step aside and make room for others to step up to leadership, and a courageous openness to the unknown and the uncertainty that might result from this.

Matthew Lippincott adds integrity and vulnerabity to the list.  Also an active interest in the personal and professional wellbeing, and in the development of others (both technical skills and personal growth).

Best practices for development

Fernández-Aráoz’s case study of the Japanese manager showed how giving her the opportunity to lead strategic initiatives, combined with leadership training and support from a mentor was instrumental to her development as an inspirational leader.

Lippincott shares another case study where the CEO in question developed the leadership potential of others in a number of ways including:

  • Rotating his team through such responsibilities as managing meetings
  • Training team members in public speaking and developing presentations
  • Providing continuous, improvement-oriented feedback in internal meetings
  • Assigning reading and dialogue among team members to foster better understanding of customer service, integrity and quality
  • Creating a mindset that “passionate arguments” are acceptable and, handled constructively, are a vital part of the creative process and of personal and team development

Concluding thoughts

Do you have the qualities and the opportunities to become an inspirational leader?

How are you, and how could you develop others to become inspirational leaders within your organisation?

NOTES

Blogs on the other booklets in the Building Blocks of Emotional Intelligence series:

About the author. Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.)  Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.  RiverRhee is a member-to-member training provider for One Nucleus and a CPD provider for CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals). 

Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner. She is a member of CILIP and of APM (Association for Project Management) in which she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.