Age of the Standing Desk & the Virtual Team

As I stand here, writing this blog, I’ve realized how normalized the standing-desk phenomenon has become. I remember interning in undergrad. The back closet/office/ice box did not afford such a stylish leisure! But, now we know why standing is helpful for our health and why sitting all day is “out.”

Similarly, virtual teams did not exist prior to the geographical expansion of companies – this big booming occurrence of globalization, paired with technological advances. The digital culture isn’t going away – in fact it will only continue to rewrite office dynamics as we know them.

So. How do we get virtual teams right?

Teams comprised of individuals in varying locations continue to rise. I repeat: they aren’t going away. If you want to scale your company but think you have all the talent you need in your backyard, good luck to you. Our virtual world of laptops, wi-fi, chat tools, video, etc., allow people to work from anywhere (and be effective).

Benefit to employees?

• Flexibility.

• Global interaction with colleagues.

• Efficiency (nothing says “kill the productivity,” to me, like a shared space of noisy banter).

Benefit to companies?

• Spend more money on the talent, not the real-estate.

• Empower employees by trusting them. (Hip-hip hooray for the empowerment culture!)

Hold the phone: When we re-write the rules of workplace interaction, there will also be downsides, unquestionably. Client expectations can fail, tasks get lost in the ether, and workers feel overwhelmed by the number of communication forms. [Uh, Sally, I sent that to you… I think it was via Skype – no actually email… Hm, no, actually slack?]

Without rules of virtual engagement, expectations can slip through the cracks. We all make the joke: the hardest part of our “Gotomeeting” is getting it to work before our call begins. When people don’t show, there’s background noise, reception is poor, or you’re half-engaged, problems will arise.

However – and virtual grumps pay attention(!) – well-managed dispersed teams can actually outperform those that share office space. They can also increase productivity, according to an Aon Consulting report, by 43 percent.  

If you’re still a mis-believer in how successful a virtual team can be, I’ll help you through (but not until next week). Stay tuned.

What's the Difference? Leadership + Management

This week I was asked to explain the difference between leadership and management, and this is a fair question. Often, I use “leadership” and “management’ as interchangeable terms. Yet, there have been ample disagreements about the definition of each over the years, and the innate variance the terms hold. Thus, it seems helpful to reveal some key differences, and explain why the pairing of the two is most helpful to achieve our interpersonal, team, and corporate goals.

I should note, first and foremost, we are not comparing apples to apples here. Leadership is a notion, practice, term, ideology, etc., that has many spins, approaches, and theoretical concepts. In fact, “There are almost as many definitions of Leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” (Stogdill, 1974)

To further make this point, let’s take just two definitions of Leadership (from a lengthy list):

• Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p.46)
• Leadership is “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization…” (House et al., 1999, p. 184)

OK, back to our core premise: what is the difference between leadership and management?

Managers are concerned with doing things right. Their primary goal is to be efficient, and to make their teams efficient. Conversely, leaders are concerned with doing the right things. In this context, the “right things” means “to be effective” i.e., effectiveness.

Does this mean there’s no crossover? Of course not. But understanding the core can help us be conscience about the rhetorical nuances. (And their undeniable synergy, regardless of the mutual exclusivity.) It may be useful for you to know if your company places more importance on management or leadership. Further, you may want to understand if, as a manager, you will also be awarded credit for leading, not just managing.

While the core of these terms differs, this does not mean a single person cannot possess the skills to be both a manager and a leader.  Great minds have differentiated between the two – from core processes to intended outcomes. But rather than picking apart what each isn’t, let me give you some distinct differences for your own comprehension.

In the spirit of simplicity, I liken management and leadership to one of my runs in Central Park. Leadership is the long game – that is what’s going to get me home. My intended path, my pre-determined endurance, or the element-appropriate workout gear.  Management is what I do to test my agility, make sure my ankles don’t turn on rocks, and ensure I’ve taken the steps to prevent a muscle strain.

If my analogy didn’t do it for you…

Leaders influence relationships. There’s a defined line between leaders and followers – leaders are followed joyfully. Leaders seek change, and intentions are often very clear. Leaders are often charismatic, insightful, motivational, well-spoken, and practice truthfulness.

Managers tend to identify as authority figures and it's not uncommon to associate subordinates with managers. Management is correlated with a defined goal: team members are responsible for the selling of goods or services. Metrics are recorded and KPIs are crafted. Managers and their teams are also very closely correlated. It is rare to see a manager who has very little working knowledge of the task for which their subordinate is responsible. The idea of management is to provide a connected link, resource, and subject matter expert to the subordinate. 

Point is this: they're different, but I'd argue you need both (and that they work best in tandem). Why do you think a manager may be more effective with leadership traits, or vice versa? Understanding this for ourselves, and for the environments in which we work, will only lead to self-realization and further contentment among those we serve. 

Failure: Don't Be the Cause

People fail. Employees fail. It’s a fact of life. However…

The problem is often assumed to be that of the employees. But what if we were wrong? What if it was our fault? (Assume “our” classifies the boss or manager in this scenario.)

Spoiler: an employee’s poor performance can be blamed mainly on his or her boss.  

This syndrome has been titled “set-up-to-fail.” Jean François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux researched the topic at length. I’ll review the basics to help managers be aware of the syndrome itself and, if all seems too familiar i.e., you’re living the examples shared, I’ll provide recommendations to help you address.

The negative cycle of set-up-to-fail is just that, cyclical. Destructive behaviors from a boss fuel less favorable behaviors from the subordinate, and with each stroke the synergy between two individuals, splinter.

What happens is this:
When workers are perceived to be mediocre, they often continue to achieve those expectations. Namely, a team member (subordinate) may make an error. It could be the first, but the manager feels it’s a slippery slope if the error is not addressed. Regrettably, the way of “addressing” is to tighten the rope. The boss’ hope is to boost performance by managing closely. Instead, the scrutiny causes the employee to be insecure and he or she feels there’s a lack of trust and confidence in them.

In time, the employee doubts their performance and they lose motivation. If the manager is going to correct, critique, or minimize, it’s no wonder ownership diminishes. Sadly, this feeds into the syndrome. With absence of enthusiasm or performance, the manager sees this as proving them right. The team member is ill-equipped.

The real kicker here is this: Employees whom you’ve identified as weak performers are living down to your expectations! Let’s look at a standard flow of this self-fulfilling process.

The relationship is workable/functional. ---> Something happens that’s unfavorable (a deadline is missed or a performance was lackluster) thus you begin to micromanage. ---> The employee starts to doubt him or herself due to your (the manager’s) confidence in delivery. They begin to avoid making decisions (aren’t you going to make them, anyway?). ---> Manager views this behavior as proof of mediocracy and tighten the rope further.

The behaviors go ‘round and ‘round and worsen with each spin.

What's the cost of set-up-to-fail?

• Employees are defeated (no longer ask for help, or offer suggestions, and grow defensive).

• The organization no longer gets the most from their employee(s) who suffer from this.

• Team cohesion decreases as more effective members are asked to take on more responsibilities, and the weak are given menial tasks. Unfair separation of work causes tension. There's also discomfort watching one team member be belittled.

• The boss/manager loses energy. He or she is spending it (energy & time) in destructive ways --following the "lesser employee" around. They may even earn a harmful reputation (e.g., micromanagement, being unfair, etc.).

How do you reverse this situation?

You don’t want your team to fail. It hurts you and it hurts the company for which you work. Here are some tips to help you reverse and/or avoid the SUTF syndrome:

• Set expectations early. Recorded expectations may be my favorite proactive step in the workplace. It demonstrates transparency, ownership (for all parties), and it minimizes ambiguity. If someone doesn’t follow-through, there’s a clear record.

• Convey openness. This is a big one. If you say you’re "open to openness" – even difficult conversations – and then never set the stage for these discussions, that’s on you! Consistency, and following through, is important and helpful for building a functional working relationship.

• What are the facts? The moment you feel someone is under-performing, or they missed a deadline, review the facts. Were there expectations? If there were, did you set them to accomplish a task they weren’t qualified for? Should this change your opinion of them as a person? [This is not a feeling-based assessment. This is about challenging your perceptions with facts.]

The truth is, the difficulty of undoing full-blown SUTF syndrome can be challenging. People are more perceptive than we give them credit for. They know when they’re part of an out-group and they know when there’s no trust.

If you think you have team members who are wearing the SUTF cap, there are clear steps to take to help the two (or more) of you get back to a healthy working paradigm. If you want to make sure you’re not falling into the trap, drop me a line. We can come up with a clear and actionable plan that’s tailored to your team.

Your Options for Handling Conflict

You're now well-versed on the four major types of work conflict. Now let's discuss your options for handling them. 

1.) Do nothing.

What this isn't: It's not storming away or acting disgruntled. This isn't an excuse to act poorly. This is simply an option to keep the discontentment to yourself, rather than raising the issue.

At times, a colleague may have been very stern in their delivery of a statement -- the point was clear. It may be worth asking yourself if the topic is worth pushing, even if you disagree. Do you expect a different answer?

Red light: If these issues are recurring, you may begin to resent the other party. You don’t want to react or behave poorly. This is why actively choosing to do nothing is an option in handling conflict. When it goes beyond tolerable, a different approach may be
necessary. This is not a pass to be passive aggressive.

When should you use the "do nothing" philosophy? 

• You don’t have the energy or time to invest in having a conversation
• You suspect the other person is unwilling to have a constructive conversation

2.) Address indirectly.

This can be tricky. Addressing a conflict through superiors can be seen as passive. However, it can be just the thing to do in certain scenarios. An interesting cultural note here: in Western cultures, you may be perceived as weak or passive. Conversely, in many Asian cultures, a direct confrontation is unacceptable. Thus, you must understand your environment. Sometimes speaking in metaphors may educate a person about an issue, but you run the risk of this person missing the point.

When do you use this "indirectly" tactic?

• When it's unacceptable to engage in confrontation (i.e., cultural variance)
• You think the other party would not react negatively to receiving feedback from a third party

3.) Address directly.

A direct confrontation is when you speak to the other person (in the moment, or later in
time). Personally, I find I am best at addressing conflict later in time but indeed choose the "address directly" option. Knowing your tendency is incredibly useful when you're figuring out how to address conflict. Does your team deal with conflict similarly? Or, perhaps they are avoiders? This knowledge provides us insight into one another's preference, as well as providing insight into ourselves. If you are always an "address directly" type, do you have a reputation for being combative? The answer is likely yes, unless you're taking the appropriate steps to manage your behavior well.

In brief, to address directly, you explain your side of the conflict, listen to the other side, and then ideally reach a resolution. The key is to manage appropriately (we'll get to that). 

When to use address directly:

• When there's lingering resentment 
• You’ve tried doing nothing but the problem persists

The primary reason I prefer this method is because it can help relationships evolve into better ones. It also affords the opportunity to understand each party (including yourself), better.

4.) Exit the relationship. 

Is departing the relationship extreme? Perhaps. But at times, it's necessary.

The exiting option is often the last resort, but is relatively painless when the exit is in dealing with third-party vendors or unhelpful external groups. I’m reminded of a favorite saying: "don’t go away mad, just go away." This isn't about tearing down the person who you are exiting, it's about separating yourself for your own health. Only you can control your actions in this situation, and by doing so in a delicate but intentional manner, you are setting your boundary and being fair in the process.

On the other hand, this can be painful if you're contemplating leaving your place of employment due to continued conflict. You may need to consider leaving the job entirely or changing departments. If you've hit this point, ask yourself if you've attempted the three steps above. If you have, and there's no resolve or change, the clean break may be your best option. Note: You may be the one perceived as difficult. Sometimes that's an acceptable risk to take.

When do you use this option? 

• You’ve tried the other approaches (maybe even repeatedly)
• You can easily find a new job

While choosing how to handle a conflict may seem like a challenge, realize that others - your team, your colleagues, etc., may also be contemplating how they want to manage conflict – and you may be the recipient! (If you are on the receiving side, and they do NOT know how to handle this well, thus you have a screaming emotional human verbally attacking you, what do you do? Shoot me a note - I have some quick and calming tricks!)

Now, what are your options for managing a conflict? You have multiple and they are completely palatable (even if you never want to envision yourself facilitating this type of conversation). If you're interested in further education and coaching, you know how to reach me.