The HR Whisperer

Forgive me readers, for I have sinned.  It has been 20 days since my last blog.  Boy, time flies doesn’t it.  Between consulting, teaching, volunteering, a husband, two active teenagers, three cats, a dog and a rat (and not necessarily that order of importance!), I’m constantly looking for time to get creative and write for the blog.  Yes, I’m one of those girls who multitasks like crazy and also the one on the crackberry while driving. (Maybe in the interest of safety, I shouldn’t confess to that!).  Anyway, I LIKE being busy and do consider myself organized in spite of all the chaos.  But, pondering this dilemma got me thinking about the concept of time management and what that truly means today in the world of work and people.  Behaviorally speaking, if someone has problems organizing his or her time, just what obligation, if any, does the employer have in fixing that?

None.  I don’t think employers have any obligation in fixing how a person spends their time – the only influence they have and should have is in those 8-12 hours a day that the person is at work.  And even then, the amount of control should depend on the job function.  Employers can expect and measure results, though, which is completely different from expecting and measuring activities.  But to get results, you have to manage time well.  And of course, some do it better than others.

We can’t deny the importance of really good time management, especially today in the crunch of work and life and the messy blending of the two.  Researcher that I am, I took to the web to find out what others have to say about time management.  Came up with an oldie, but goodie – The book, First Things First by Stephen Covey (1994) .  Covey is an old fav of mine, back from the early 90s when he came to the forefront for his management thinking.  Written with Roger and Rebecca Merrill, Covey’s First Things First offers a time management approach that helps a person to focus on priorities or the “first things first.”  Suffice to say, this comes from one of Covey’s more inspirational books, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.  [Quick aside – my alma mater AT&T was one of the pilot companies for Covey’s training on the Seven Habits; I got my golden egg, but never made it to the golden goose.  If you got the goose, please let me know – I want to hear about it!]

Covey talks about the four generations of time management:  task lists; personal organizers; goal setting and prioritization and finally, values clarification.

The first generation focuses on using notes and checklists that serve as reminders.  I find that people who are highly task- and quality-focused like to do this.  As things get done, they get checked off.  I confess, there is some sort of emotional satisfaction about checking something off the to-do list.

The second generation uses planning calendars and appointment books, a.k.a. MS Outlook, Blackberries, iPhones, Palms, etc.  Electronics now take the place of paper and pencil calendars.  Lord knows what I’d do without my Blackberry.  Still know people who like to buy paper calendars though and write on ‘em.  Like me – if I don’t get my annual Yorkie calendar in my Christmas stocking, things get ugly!

The third generation of folks take TM to the next level by scheduling and prioritizing goals.  These individuals identify the stuff they need to do first and arrange their activities around getting those things done.  That’s me – on a good day.

The gods and goddesses of all generations, the fourth generation people are the ones with the line of sight.  They understand the difference between something urgent and something important.  They are the ones who can and will make decisions based on their moral compass and so don’t forget about the things that are important in their lives.  Like family, friends, and down time.  I like to think that this is me most of the time.

Covey asserts that people have a need “to live, to love, to learn and to leave a legacy.”  If a person can move beyond “urgency addiction” into “quadrant two” management, then he or she can begin to prioritize work for achieving both short and long-term goals, while still maintaining a holistic life balance.

So what can you do to help your time management?  Focus on what YOU believe is important.   Plan the work and work the plan.  The 80:20 rule argues that 80% of unfocussed effort generates only 20% of results. The other 80% are achieved with only 20% of the effort.  Good things come to those who sweat.

Managing time well does take a sustained effort.  Look at the roles you play in life – which are the most important?  Which are the ones that you can put to the side now and then? 

Think about what you must do to ensure you play each of your chosen roles well.  Can you distinguish between urgent and not urgent?  The answers all of these questions will help you focus your energy on the things that matter.  My chosen roles are family woman, HR pro, volunteer and blogger; in that order.

And that’s why I only write when I have something to say.

Once again I must thank my mentor, Cesar Millan, for the inspiration for this week’s blog.  He said that “when humans bring a dog into their lives, they are most often looking for a companion; what they may not realize is that they are getting a teacher as well.”  This is true in a business sense, too.  When we bring a potential leader into our organization, we should be getting someone who can teach or positively influence others.  But teaching goes both ways…is it really possible to teach someone to be an effective leader or is it just genetics coming into play?

Many organizations decide they want to implement a leadership development program because they need better leaders or people who could be put into some kind of succession plan.  The HR department gets the charge to put “something together” and manages to get someone to run the program, get people into it and maybe even toss in a measure or two to try to link the success of the program to a business goal–all within a few months.  Is it any surprise then, that so many of these programs lose steam after one year or fall flat due to budget cuts?  Aside from the timing and operational issues, the real question centers on whether or not leadership development programs truly teach people to be good leaders.

Leadership by its definition is a very complex.  Some say that leadership is a natural thing, that we are born with the innate qualities it takes to be a leader.  Psychologists have continuously searched for the personal attributes that would describe leaders and differentiate them from the rest of the pack.  A large body of research supports the theory that the “Big Five” of personality traits underlie all others and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality. In addition to providing a cohesive framework, research has also found strong relationships between the Big Five and job performance, especially in terms of successful leadership.  It’s no surprise then that tools like the Myers-Briggs’ MBTI® or DiSC® tend to be a part of LD programs.

More recent research shows that effective leaders have emotional intelligence (EI).  Daniel Goleman found that high levels of EI predicts high performance.  I would even go so far as to say that the combination of EI and the Big Five trait of extroversion defines charisma.  A definitive study conducted in 1999 on the personalities of two executive management teams found that over a period of five years the charismatic personality of the executive manager and of the team he selected was key to understanding a company’s rise or decline in the market.  

Hmmm.

Now on the other hand, behavioral theories focus on identifying the specific behaviors that differentiate leaders from nonleaders, which implies that these behaviors can be taught, i.e., leadership is a competency that can be broken down into concrete sets of trainable skills.  The most comprehensive of the behavioral theories resulted from research conducted at Ohio State University in the late 40s where the researchers narrowed a thousand different leadership dimensions into two categories: (1) task/structure and (2) relationship/consideration.  The managerial grid developed by Blake and Mouton and the contingency leadership theory developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the 1960s serve as the landmarks for situational leadership theory today.  The Hersey-Blanchard theory in particular focuses on the leader being able to select the right behavioral style based on followers’ willingness and ability.   

So, in my mind good leadership really is a combination of personality and environment. Which brings us back to our original question:  can people be trained in leadership?  The answer to me is an unequivocal yes.  Strong, results-driven leadership development programs worth their salt screen for the necessary Big Five personality traits and then provide adult-centered interventions to develop the skills necessary to:

• Run the task/structure of a business, such as strategic planning and financial management.
• Develop the relationship/consideration in teams, such as communication and conflict management.
• Understand the self and corresponding behavior by opening the Johari Window through extensive feedback, coaching and 360° profiling.

Another question:  if “nature” and “nurture” are important elements of leader effectiveness then, how does experience play a part?  Many believe that the value of on-the-job experience is a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness. Research, however shows that experience alone is usually a very poor predictor of leadership.  There have been numerous studies of military officers, shop supervisors, and school principals that demonstrate that experienced leaders tend to be no more effective than leaders who have little experience.  The problem seems to be in the variability of the situations a leader finds himself in that influence whether or not the experience will transfer to that situation.  Another problem is the assumption that the amount of time a leader spends in a particular position is really a true measure of experience.  So, LD programs need to provide education, training and experience through action learning.

Remember the heroes of September 11?  They may not have had the particular experience of being attacked by terrorists, but may have had the necessary personality traits and training in leading others and influencing them to action.

And that’s what we really need in any LD program.

You know, as the HR Whisperer, I’m really enamored with the whole idea of creating top performing organizations through positive behavior change. One of my favorite mentors, Cesar Millan, says, “A dog that doesn’t trust its human to be a good pack leader becomes unbalanced and often exhibits unwanted or antisocial behaviors.” It struck me that the same is true for people in organizations. We need to have strong leadership because in many cases our very business survival depends on a stable, organized and motivated team. Business survival instinct is perhaps one of our greatest natural motivators in the workplace and if a person is not guided well, it can not only result in unwanted behavior but total chaos in the long run.

So, I’m digging this concept and working it through in my brain as to how this relates to human capital and wouldn’t you know, I web-stumbled across an article recently published by Harvard Business Review (September 2008). Written by Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis, “Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership” discusses new studies of the brain that show that business leaders can improve team performance by understanding not the psychology, but the biology of social intelligence. How cool. It struck me that scientists have discovered a biological underpinning to what makes a good leader great, which could toss more fuel on the fire in the “leaders are born, not made” camp. (Which I don’t subscribe to, by the way. I believe that anyone, given time and effort can change their behavior – even interpersonally. That’s why I’m in the business I’m in. Oh, I feel another blog topic coming on! <huge grin>)

More on the biology of leadership from Harvard Business Review:

“The salient discovery is that certain things leaders do—specifically, exhibit empathy and become attuned to others’ moods—literally affect both their own brain chemistry and that of their followers. Indeed, researchers have found that the leader-follower dynamic is not a case of two (or more) independent brains reacting consciously or unconsciously to each other. Rather, the individual minds become, in a sense, fused into a single system. We believe that great leaders are those whose behavior powerfully leverages the system of brain interconnectedness…If we are correct, it follows that a potent way of becoming a better leader is to find authentic contexts in which to learn the kinds of social behavior that reinforce the brain’s social circuitry. Leading effectively is, in other words, less about mastering situations—or even mastering social skill sets—than about developing a genuine interest in and talent for fostering positive feelings in the people whose cooperation and support you need.”

Wow. The idea that leaders need good interpersonal as well as functional skills has certainly been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, Goleman coined the phrase, “social intelligence” to discuss this very thing. But what he and Boyatzis are talking about here is different – they’re saying that we have these things in our brains called mirror neurons that mimic what another person does. As social beings, when we “consciously or unconsciously detect someone else’s emotions through their actions, our brain’s mirror neurons reproduce those emotions and allow us to instantly share that experience.” Ever notice when two people are deep in discussion they tend to hold their arms the same way or cross their legs at the same time? That’s the mirror neurons in action.

 So, how can leaders take advantage of this brain interconnectedness? If it stands to reason that followers will create a social connection with their leader, it also stands to reason that they will emotionally feel whatever it is the leader is feeling and behave accordingly. If leaders are emotionless, don’t smile or otherwise engage their followers, they will not activate the mirror neutrons in a positive way, leading to distressed and nonperforming followers, and thus the potential for business chaos. Body language plays a great part also. If a leader’s body language doesn’t jibe with what is being said, the follower will go with the body language. Bodies don’t tell lies, mouths do.

 The bottom line is that when people feel good about what they are doing, when they have a social connection with their leaders, when they feel part of something that is bigger than them, those mirror neurons come in handy. Reinforce the brain’s social circuitry — if you want to motivate those around you, create a positive atmosphere. If you want higher performance or enhanced creativity, be in a good mood and show you care.

If you truly want the best from your followers, kick those mirror neutrons into high gear and create an environment where sincere respect, fun, laughter and performance are a serious part of your business operations.