The Fahy Consulting Blog

Snapshots of the lessons we're learning, the conversations we're having, and the problems we're solving.

[fahyconsulting]

Hit a Plateau?  Three Ways to Shift Gears and Get Moving

By Lynn Elliott, CPC

My coaching client, a senior director in healthcare, told me she was surprisingly preoccupied and disappointed after being passed over for a promotion.  With her credentials, track record and high functioning team she thought she was poised for the VP role.  Now her day-to-day work is less fulfilling and her enthusiasm for the organization has been dampened.

A colleague faced a different concern.  An elite athlete, she was training for a triathlon while also caring for a sick parent. When market changes meant she had to lay off several direct reports at work, she hit a wall. What had seemed manageable, was now overwhelming.  

Both client and colleague had their confidence rattled.

Whether it’s the board room, the class room or the locker room – when we face unexpected barriers we replay events, doubt our decisions and question our next move.  Click here to read more

[fahyconsulting]

Resistance

Patricia Fahy, MD                                                             December 20, 2016

You have an innovative idea that will streamline the work, double the margin, improve quality and eliminate the headaches. You got sponsorship, budget approval, and a project team. Today you are taking the plan out to your organization in a series of meetings.

WAIT. What’s that noise? What are you hearing from colleagues? From those rational and thoughtful human beings who used to be your friends…

It sounds like this:

Who on earth came up with THIS?

We did this once in 1998 and it didn’t work.

They did this in Radiology and it didn’t work.

Are you KIDDING me?! We have too many projects already.

This is the LAST thing we need right now.

This is not what I signed up for when you recruited me.

Those people in administration must’ve gone to another junket in Hawaii.

This simply doesn’t work with _____. (the EMR, ACA, primary care, specialty care, capitation, RVUs, labor environment, cat-lovers, academic medical centers….)

This is not in the budget.

We’re going to lose a lot of good people if we do this.

NO ONE in my department will buy into this!

With reflection, you might recall a time when you said a few of these things yourself.  Whether the change is pumping your own gas, adapting to a new piece of hardware, using an EMR, or moving to a new medical complex—we experience resistance.

What is that about?

Resistance is an inevitable response to the threat of change. What is the nature of the threat that people feel when they are faced with significant change? 

It’s LOSS.     Click here to continue reading blog.

[fahyconsulting]

The Executive Brain

Patricia Fahy, MD                                                                December 19, 2016

A neuroscience lens, using the CARB model of social motivators, helps leaders understand how they can create an environment in which people are able to do their best thinking.

When the VP’s new responsibilities were announced, they didn’t match up with the agreement the VP had made with the CEO. When asked about the discrepancy, the CEO said: “The head of human resources and I discussed it and this is where we landed.”

The COO interrupted the marketing director’s report to the executive committee and said, “I don’t think any of you guys have a clue about our market.”

The corporate attorney, the chief financial officer, and the head of accounting could be heard laughing it up with the CEO behind closed doors. The rest of the team and the admin staff called it the “Friday Frat Pack.”

Small potatoes in the world of executive teams, right? If you haven’t witnessed or perpetrated worse affronts, you are probably an individual contributor (or a saint). However, each of the vignettes above demonstrates a loss of leadership effectiveness. With a neuroscience lens, we can dissect these and other scenarios and create awareness that allows us to take more effective action as leaders.

The human brain is wired to react to threat or reward. Said another way, an organizing principle of the brain is motivation based on threat or reward whether it involves pain, pleasure, food, sex or — important for this discussion — social interactions. Humans are disproportionately reactive to threat compared to reward. This accounts for the commonly cited 4:1 ratio of positives vs. criticism required to maintain even a neutral environment. David Rock, founder of the NeuroLeadership Institute and social motivator guru, says: “We run away from threat, and we walk toward reward.”  Click here to continue reading blog

[fahyconsulting]

Natural Habitats of Physicians

Bedside and C-Suite

Patricia Fahy, MD                                                                 September 6, 2016

Some docs consistently say “no thanks” to formal leadership roles. They prefer not to run for a board position, become department chief, or step into an executive role because their passion and focus is patient care.  This primary interest in the core work shows up in other professions, too.  My brother, a mechanical engineer (I’d say “brilliant mechanical engineer” but he might read this), eschewed management positions his whole career. He was in demand as a guy who could diagnose and fix malfunctioning turbines in huge power plants around the globe.  He loved it. That was perfect for him.I admire many physicians with a similar mindset—those passionate clinicians who want nothing more than to care for patients, using exquisite respect and competence in the process. 

HOWEVER. 

This does NOT suggest that:

someone OTHER than a physician ought to be at the helm of the department, the board, or the system 

physicians in general don’t want to lead, shouldn’t lead, or aren’t prepared to lead

Above all, this in no way suggests that physicians inherently lack leadership capabilities. Oh contraire. More on that in a sec.  click here to continue reading blog  

[fahyconsulting]

Unleash the Instigator

Patricia Fahy, MD                                                                       May 4, 2016

It’s a glorious thing when the energy level at work is high—that means opportunity, connection, CREATIVITY!

When that’s NOT the case, when work is a low energy zone of victimization competition, anger, and fear—rouse that INSTIGATOR INSIDE and see what’s possible. After all, you’re leaving anyway...

Click here for my UNLEASH THE INSTIGATOR blog.

[fahyconsulting]

C’MON HBR—QUIT THIS NONSENSE

Patricia Fahy, MD                                                               March 31, 2016

The Harvard Business Review magazine was on my desk, still in plastic:

YOU CAN’T FIX CULTURE JUST FOCUS ON YOUR BUSINESS AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW

I’ve been noting the disingenuous headlines that HBR plasters on its covers and its articles for years. That contrarian titling, or bait-and-switch, is the stuff of blogs, publications and writers worried their content won’t draw readers. But my HBR? Aren’t the readers and authors deserving of more respectful treatment?  My prediction: the article will describe how effective leaders and successful businesses include as part of “focusing on the business” all sorts of things related to, yes, creating an excellent culture.

Experience tells me that the headline on the HBR cover is yet another silly semantic sleight-of-hand. You can’t fix culture? Oh contraire, yes you can.  

Off with the plastic to page 96:

The actual title of the article is CULTURE IS NOT THE CULPRIT.  This is even more irksome—declaring as wrong something that no one asserted in the first place. Who would accuse a “culture” of being a culprit? Misguided, incompetent, or toxic CEOs and weak, ill-informed boards can be culprits—but an organizational culture? No.

I grit my teeth and dive in.  After a few paragraphs my prediction is confirmed: “But in every case, when the leaders used tools such as decision rights, performance measurement, and reward systems to address their particular business challenges, organizational culture evolved in interesting ways as a result, reinforcing the new direction.”

It goes on—clarity, decentralized decision-making, clear sense of purpose, increasing trust on the leadership team, meeting employees’ needs for resources, happier workers, compensating people well....  

For crying out loud. You can’t fix culture? Oh contraire, yes you can—read this article! How about this title: CEOs WHO GET CULTURE—GET IT DONE.

I don’t dis the quality of HBR articles—because there’s great information in most of them. I certainly don’t dis the authors—because this “everything you know is wrong” approach to packaging content is the best way to get published in HBR.

I do challenge the venerable Harvard Business Review to do their part to increase authentic conversations and decrease the fodder for cynicism.

CUT IT OUT HBR.

[fahyconsulting]

What Matters Most?  Inventory for the New Year

By Lynn Elliott                                                                December 17, 2015

At Thanksgiving, the guests at our dinner table took turns sharing what they were thankful for.

I was thankful for my mom’s health following a cancer scare.  My best friend was thankful for her father, who had recently passed.  Her son said he was thankful for the guidance of his parents.  My 19 year old was thankful for his successful semester at college.   It was a cornucopia of appreciation for relationships, health and accomplishments.

The reflections at our Thanksgiving table shine a light on what really matters in life.  Our gratitude reflects those things that give our lives meaning and help us feel healthy, happy and successful.

Author and executive coach, Marshall Goldsmith, conducts research in the business world and developed a list of questions to get to the core of what makes for a meaningful life.  

Health

Am I doing my best to stay healthy?  

Wealth

Am I taking care of my wealth so that I can have a satisfying income?  

Positive relationships

Am I working hard to build positive relationships with those I love?  Or on the flip-side, am I spending time in unhealthy relationships that drain me?  

Achievement

Am I achieving?  Do I feel like I am making a positive impact or difference?

Happiness and Meaning

Am I simultaneously achieving happiness and meaning?  Am I doing what is meaningful for me and what makes me happy at the same time?  Only YOU can define happiness and meaning for yourself.

Goldsmith’s questions create an opportunity to connect with our gratitude and think about our goals.  As you look to the new year, how aligned are you with what matters in your life and what you’re actually doing?  If you’re not happy with your answers, get curious about what you could add – or take away – to move toward what matters most.  Then choose a small step to take in that direction. 

[fahyconsulting]

Are You Engaged for Change?

Lynn Elliott                                                                   August 21, 2015

According to Gallup’s ongoing research, Seven in 10 American workers are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” in their work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.

With my colleague, Dr. Patty Fahy, we work with companies to help leaders change their business cultures through improved employee engagement.  We also coach 1:1, to help leaders identify their own mindsets and behaviors that keep them (and the culture) “stuck.”

Our individual thinking can significantly influence our own engagement, regardless of what’s happening around us.

An example with a client illustrates the 180° turn we can make by understanding our level of engagement in approaching change.  My client – I’ll call her Karen - was recently feeling frustrated about being assigned to a new project (a change). 

Not only had she been taken OFF a different and important project, but she was assigned to a new project that didn’t interest her. 

Karen was feeling guilty about her last project not ending well.  Being removed from the project didn't feel positive, and she was fearful it could threaten her employment.  She also viewed her new assignment as a “punishment” and she was mad about that.  Feelings of guilt and blame drain our energy and detract from what we really want.  Karen ended up avoiding work, which caused additional stress. 

When facing a change, a simple tool to use is called the range of engagement.  This framework helps you assess your level of engagement in an activity or change.   

 At the far left, there is low engagement when we believe we don’t have power or choice.  It was easy for Karen to feel she had no choice in taking on the new assignment.  Her boss told her to do something, and she was on the receiving end of that decision.  By avoiding work, she was saying, “I won’t do it”.   

After we discussed options, Karen was able to shift her thinking to “have to” in order to keep her job.  Though still frustrated, she was simply going to “get through it”.  She could see how beginning the work was necessary.   

The next week, she tapped into her curiosity to learn more about the assignment.   Karen shifted to the “need to” level of engagement.  She began to see how the project fit into other work and she understood how her role was important.  She realized people were depending on her, which caused Karen to focus on others.  Karen was feeling a greater sense of power with the assignment. 

After another week of discovery, and working with colleagues and her boss, Karen saw more options, she had confidence that she could manage the project, and she had ideas of how it could be better.  Her level of engagement shifted to the far right, to one of high power as she was choosing to lead the work. 

Best of all, Karen’s experience of the work became positive.  She felt connected to the project and a strong sense of fulfillment in the work.  

This scenario took a couple of weeks for Karen to work through.  But it’s also possible to shift our level of engagement in a matter of minutes, by having awareness of our level of choice and by thinking about options and connecting with others who can help. 

Consider a change you’re facing, and look at the range of engagement.  Can you purposefully shift your mindset and feel the power of choosing?

[fahyconsulting]

Two Things Needed to Hire the Right Person: TENACITY AND REFERENCES

Patricia Fahy, MD                                                        April 24, 2015

“It’s in the EQ/social behavior area where our candidate evaluations repeatedly fall short. It’s almost as if we close our eyes and hope for the best—and then wonder why we didn’t get it.”  (Email from an executive facing the prospect of selecting multiple departmental leaders.)

           You have a bus and you want to get the right people on it. Or you have a bus and you want to select a driver who won’t take you, your colleagues, and your workplace into the ditch. (see endnote: Rumble Strips)

           A recurring concern, more like a despondent wail of desperation, is how difficult it is to predict the attitude and behavior of a potential hire. The crux of the selection issue is predicting how candidates will behave after they’re on board.

QUESTION: How can you select someone who will behave as promised? ANSWER: 1.  Tenacity. 2.  References. (I know, I know, that’s why you need #1.)

           The only way to confidently predict how people will act after you hire or promote them is to look at how they’ve behaved in the past.  The mantra of behavioral interviewing is "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”  This is not only intuitive— there is actually research that has established the veracity of “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”  

          Behavioral interviewing techniques are widely used and elicit descriptions of past behavior by the candidate.  Another approach is the situational interview in which an applicant is asked to respond to questions about job-relevant scenarios. Both of these techniques are improvements on interviews where candidates might be asked a few spontaneous questions or asked to freestyle on what they might do in a hypothetical situation. However, even a marvelous interview, in which candidates provide relevant examples and sparkling anecdotes, is NOT a reason to hire someone.  

          The interview is a performance.  There are wonderful, brilliant, hard-working people who are unimpressive in an interview. Also, some people with the most difficult personalities (empathy-free zones) give GREAT INTERVIEWS.  A self-absorbed, disdainful, micromanager might be articulate, confident, and prepped with wonderful anecdotes and convincing scenarios and able to pull the interviewer right into their inflated view of self.  If you have hired a few people you may be nodding ruefully as you walk down that memory lane.

 The well-conducted interview has three valuable purposes:

1.  Ruling people out (never in). 2.  Creating important connectivity (public relations) for the organization. 3.  Acquainting the potential hire with organizational values and expectations.

          In order to put your eyes on past behavior you need references.

          Maybe you are your best reference. If you know an individual and you're well acquainted with their behaviors then you are an excellent reference. Knowing a candidate’s behavior and skills firsthand is a great reason to have intern programs, to promote from within, or to arrange work trials before hiring. Please don’t discount or exclude yourself as a reference with internal searches.  I've had people tell me that because they know the candidates they think they should be "neutral" during a search process. It is okay to be neutral on the final selection among top candidates as long as you’re clear on criteria and you are forthcoming about relevant behavior you’ve witnessed.

The interview is a performance.  It can be used to rule someone out-- but should never be used to rule someone in.

              If you haven’t personally witnessed a candidate's past behavior you need a proxy. That proxy is a reference.   It’s time to redefine the concept of a reference.   

For these important purposes, a reference is NOT:

a stranger who wrote a nice letter about the candidate

one of the three names provided by the candidate who you lamely try to reach for several days before giving up

an anonymous on-line survey of the candidate’s co-workers

the hurried phone conversation  wedged between various urgencies ("okay, she hasn't boiled a rabbit on anyone's stove, has she??")

References are people you trust who are willing and able to accurately describe the relevant characteristics and behavior of your candidate.       

       So the reference has a primary relationship to YOU, not (necessarily) a primary relationship to the candidate. Really nice if both are true—which is true if the reference is YOU, and it's true if the candidate's boss is your trusted friend.

      People say you just can't get references.  Yes you can. The problem is that it's such an aggravation.  And the aggravation is in your face.  The narcissistic behavior lurking beneath the surface of your delightful, confident candidate is an invisible, but much more threatening aggravation in the long run.

A sampling of reference-checking aggravations: 

The folks in HR say: "Can't, can't, can't."  

The legal department sees employment claims as personal failures rather than an occasional outcome when serving the organization’s needs.   

References don't call you back.  

Reference letters are bogus.  “Hey, wait a minute, is someone trying to move this person off their team and onto mine?”

References only provide you "date-to-date" information about past employment.  

It's time-consuming and there are no resources allotted to this task.

The candidate's job search is confidential.   

           Please hark back to the first bullet: TENACITY.  You need it to get useful references, and yes, you do need useful references.

           In many professions it is not that difficult to find someone you know and trust who knows your candidate, or who has access to someone who knows your candidate.  In my last organizational role we created a database of all the professionals in our large group and all the institutions where they had trained and previously worked.  This allowed us to identify someone in our organization who had a reliable connection to job applicants.

           When you can't find anyone with a connection, then skilled  “three-deep” reference checking comes in to play.  This means asking people who have worked with the candidate (the candidate's references) to provide additional references including someone "who might feel differently than you" or “who has had a challenging relationship with the candidate."  

           The skids are greased by sending a release of information signed by the candidate saying that you can talk to anyone to verify their attitude, work ethic, quality of their work, technical competence, etc.

          The confidential job search stymies many people when it comes to checking a candidate’s references.  What the situation calls for is a carefully choreographed dance.  The final step in the dance is not taken until you talk with references to corroborate your findings about the candidate's past behavior.    

           A useful lever with "date-to-date" responses is to put that aggravation in the candidates’ laps.  Let them know you will not hire someone without access (ideally arranged by the candidate) to conversations with former colleagues and managers.   Make sure you have a release of information signed by the candidate and then ask those first references to provide additional names.  

           I hear the protests:  “But we don’t want to lose any of these candidates!” and “We don’t exactly have a crowd of candidates rushing our doors!” Excellent hiring, particularly of leaders, is an investment in creating a select, engaged, and enviable work culture. With time, the candidates you want will be lined up at the door, and they will be privileged to go along with your rigorous process.

           While this is a time-consuming investment it is less laborious when the leadership team and the selection team are passionate about getting the right people in the door.

 When top leaders prioritize meticulous selection they:

Ensure that the HR and legal departments are strategic partners, not reactionary barriers.

Champion the business and financial case for excellent selection and recognize exemplary leaders for this work.

Sponsor the resources (time and dollars) needed to do the job well so that those with a passion for selection are encouraged to lead the talent hunt. 

           What’s the result?  Instead of trepidation you can experience an upward spiral of clear expectations, solid processes, excellent hires, and great attitudes.  The clarity of values and expectations required for great hiring processes sets the stage for straightforward performance management. Investing time and energy in getting the right people in the door is a great first step to reenergize leaders, improve teams, create great careers for the talent you select, and ultimately to produce excellent business outcomes.

RUMBLE STRIPS: A FIRST FILTER for LEADER SELECTION

Screen for these critical behaviors before diving into the list of role-specific competencies, criteria and credentials.

 Leaders in our organization:

1.     Treat others with respect. They make an effort to keep people at all levels out of the “threat” state.  Their direct reports in particular feel they are treated with respect.

2.     Provide clarity. Their direct reports and others know what is expected of them at work. They are clear about expectations, goals, and meaning.

3.     Hold self and others accountable to do what they said they would do. They follow through to get things done and they have the tough conversations when needed.

[fahyconsulting]

"Rumble Strips" for Leader Selection

Patricia Fahy M.D.                                                          March 3, 2015

Rumblestrips on highways cause a crazy thumping that grabs a driver’s attention and warns:  You’re straying--take corrective action!

I wish we had a mind-rattling safety mechanism when it comes to selecting leaders in organizations.

We’re not short of information about leadership. There are academic papers, case studies, fables, surveys, TED talks, leadership conferences, executive education, white papers, competencies galore, info-graphics, blogs, and videos till the cows come home.

How has all this research and information helped?

The lens I use answers that question by looking at employee engagement—since leaders lead and achieve results through their employees.

According to Gallup the 2014 rate of employee engagement in the U.S. was 30%. http://bit.ly/1N08Cz0 This means 70% of employees were not engaged (just punching the clock) or actively disengaged (organizational saboteurs).

Too few leaders understand or act on the clear link between employee engagement and business outcomes. Too few Boards and other decision-makers understand or act on the clear link between their disengaged employees and leaders. If we’re not happy with the ability of leaders to produce the benefits of an engaged workforce—let’s choose different leaders.  

Leadership actions can create great work environments. But leadership actions can also diminish people, erode respect, and destroy discretionary effort.  Leaders make or break employee engagement.

The kaleidoscope of leadership models and the ocean of information about leadership have failed to transform leaders and failed to guide leadership selection.

Matthew Lieberman in Harvard Business Review http://bit.ly/1EPZfLq states that leaders are perceived as excellent when they demonstrate strong performance in both results-based behaviors and social behaviors.  Leaders are generally not deemed excellent if they have one but not the other.  

What percentage of leaders DO have both?

David Rock http://for.tn/1FH8rDk and the Management Research Group found that the percentage of leaders with both is…

Wait for it…

LESS THAN ONE PERCENT.

Paltry. It is pathetic— but also gratifying to have data corroborating the experience of millions of people.  

The current state of employee engagement is not a case of “where there’s smoke there’s fire.” This is a case of

 “Where there’s fire, there is FIRE.”

Here’s the scorched earth: turnover rates that gut companies’ talent and margin, poor business outcomes, compensation packages unrelated to performance and divorced from fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, silos, sabotage, cynicism, bullying, financial insecurity, lost opportunities, and negative health effects.

The quiet heroes, the hard-working, sharp, kind people who live lives of purpose—too often go unrecognized.

Worse yet—they go un-promoted.

Worst of all—they leave. This further distills the negative workplace brew and shrinks the reservoir of potential leadership talent.

We run off the road when we pick leaders. There’s a lofty destination but somewhere in the process we lose sight of essential characteristics. I recommend leadership “rumble strips” (see below).

Size up the leaders in your organization based on these basic behaviors first.  They can help explain why some leaders are top notch and others aren’t. Discuss these behaviors at your team meeting. Use them when you promote someone. Instigate discussions about who is (and isn’t) being considered for top jobs.  

_____________________________________________________________________

A FIRST FILTER for LEADER SELECTION (rumble strips)

This is an early warning system and a reminder of critical behaviors to use before diving into the list of role-specific competencies, criteria and credentials. 

Leaders in our organization: 

 1. Treat others with respect. They make an effort to keep people at all levels out of the “threat” state.  Their direct reports in particular feel they are treated with respect. 

 2. Provide clarity.  Their direct reports and others know what is expected of them at work. They are clear about expectations, goals, and meaning. 

 3. Hold self and others accountable to do what they said they would do. They follow through to get things done and they have the tough conversations when needed.  

_____________________________________________________________________

The purpose is to improve the performance of people who supervise others. Let’s arm people with a rationale for speaking up before a selection process veers into the ditch. Let’s encourage co-workers to push the workplace heroes forward. If we stir up conversations about basic leader behaviors that link to excellence then business results will improve. And people will be able to unleash their talent and genius at work.

[fahyconsulting]

Scaredy Cats and Gladiators: Upgrade One and Banish the Other

Patty Fahy

June 2, 2014

     Many of us turn into scaredy-cats when faced with abrasive and counterproductive employees.  We delude ourselves with stories about the disruptive individual in order to steer away from the tough conversation.  “She’s THE very best technically—but she sure doesn’t tolerate fools!” or “You can either be everyone’s friend or you can make money—this guy makes money.”  Our brain kicks into high gear to create such fiction even though we know plenty of people who are technically excellent AND collegial. This is our brain doing its primitive job, magnifying threat and moving toward safety.

         It helps to think about whether we’re allowing our twitchy and primitive security system to override our intellect.  Most likely we’re getting paid to use our pre-frontal cortex—that brain upgrade where evaluation, decision-making, understanding, prioritization, and impulse inhibition happen.

         Here are clues that avoidance (primitive programming) is trumping leadership responsibility:

Disrespect. There is a saying that respect is like oxygen—it’s not noticed until it’s missing.  Is there someone at work who is allowed to treat others disrespectfully?  If so, the boss is allowing that person to sabotage the workplace and steal money. How so? When people are treated disrespectfully their primitive brains take over—they feel threatened and their pre-frontal cortex is short-circuited.  They can’t think.  Their ability to process information, prioritize, or focus is degraded.  Most of us can recall a time when we were criticized, insulted, or treated rudely.  We ranted to colleagues hoping to elicit their outrage, we wrote and rewrote emails, and fantasized about what we should have said.  This is workplace “road rage”—a hijack of intellect that steals time and energy and replaces real work, thoughtfulness, creativity, and productivity. 

Fear. Is there someone at work people are afraid of?  Not everyone will say they are afraid because that can be a humiliating admission.  Fear can look like this: colleagues and direct reports won’t knock on her door, won’t ask him for anything, won’t correct her when she’s wrong, and when he attacks no one protects the victim.  If meetings are largely silent—that is fear.  Colleagues become wary spectators waiting to see whose comment will trigger the gladiator into battle.  Since meetings are central to communication and decision-making, fear will gut a team’s productivity, creativity, and problem solving.

Work-arounds. A team will develop convoluted paths to get work done without disturbing the rude or incompetent employee.  Workers become oblivious to the paths they’ve created.  If the team has become blind all it takes is fresh eyes:  a new hire or a consultant will come in and say “Why isn’t HE handling that?  It’s his job, right?”  The work-around is revealed. 

         Does this matter?  Yes—employee dissatisfaction infects customers, wrecks reputation, and drives undesired turnover. (In contrast to desired turnover. See above: gladiator.)  Most companies don’t come close to tallying up the costs of turnover. Or the costs of fear.  Or of work-arounds.

         Our herd animal ancestry and primitive brain help explain aversion to conflict and discomfort with dicey people situations.  But leadership roles demand we use our updated operating system—our prefrontal cortex.  This means we prioritize the high performers and customers, use our values in decision-making, acquire performance management skills, and inhibit our own avoidance. 

         When leaders address their tough people problems they re-energize meetings, get the right people doing the right work, increase discretionary effort, and create impressive business outcomes.  Banish the gladiators!  Don’t allow disruptive employees to hijack emotions and unplug your company’s best computers.

[fahyconsulting]

Get Out of the Blame Game

May 15, 2014

I often hear from clients who are annoyed with a teammate who doesn’t perform.  Do you recognize the following scenario? 

You like your work and you are contributing to a team goal.  But you have a colleague who is under-performing.  He takes short cuts, drops the ball, misses the point and misses deadlines.  You’ve made an effort to help him improve but when he takes credit for YOUR work, you feel like an idiot.  (Level 1 energy--victimization)  You’ve given direct feedback—he ignores you.  He tells the boss he’ll complete a project—you have to mop up after him.  Now you get angry and think: HE is the idiot!  (Level 2 energy)

In this situation, most of us can feel exhausted by the daily struggle with someone who seems oblivious to their own errors.  We worry how their mistakes will reflect on us.  We are frustrated with the impact on the customer.  Bruce Schneider (Energy Leadership) describes a continuum of seven energy levels that describe our reactions to events.  Negative reactions such as victimization (Level One) and anger (Level Two) are “low levels” of energy that deplete us and affect our performance.   (also see Fahy Consulting blog “Your Energy, Your Results”)

In this situation with an underperforming co-worker you might present your manager with a list of concerns – real data – that proves that your teammate is FLAWED.  However, the boss only avoids the issue and won’t manage the situation.  So you are left to deal with this colleague on your own. 

One way to get relief is to take responsibility for how you manage this relationship.  Create some boundaries about how much you will help or advise. When you take control of a situation and change your thinking to responsibility (Level 3 energy) your own level of energy increases.   Grant the low performer some forgiveness--this can also increase your energy.  If the colleague lacks skill, you may just have to understand it and tolerate it.  This approach can bring you some relief (also Level 3 energy) so that you can get back to work.

Don’t let a colleague bring you down.  Cultivate some resilience by taking responsibility and move on.  Create some space to let your own work shine.

[fahyconsulting]

Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway

Lynn Elliott

May 8, 2014

I recently saw a video clip of a nine year old boy in a singing competition.  During his performance, he was overcome with stage fright and started to cry.  After his mom rushed on stage to comfort him, he composed himself and said he wanted to continue.  In fact, he did continue and inspired the entire audience.  Later, one of the judges told him, “you are very brave, and people are going to like you.”

It’s true, people are drawn to bravery, yet being brave is directly connected to being afraid.  In the research of Dr. Brené Brown, while studying courage she found that in every example of courage, there was a link to vulnerability.  To be courageous, we have to take a risk.  We like seeing courage in others, yet squirm at the thought of being vulnerable.

It can be difficult to imagine our own fear as a quality that connects us to others.  Yet risk taking can increase our ability to connect.   Being aware of our fears helps us name them, understand them, and do something about them.  And then we have the opportunity to step out and act bravely.

When I’m about to lead a discussion during a training session, I often experience anxiety or stage fright.  This negative energy and inward focus isolates me and keeps me feeling small.  If I can name the fear, “oh, stage fright – I know you!” I can calm my brain, and decide what to do about it.

If our goal is really to shine in a singing competition, or deliver a great training session, we have to be able to feel the fear and think about the opportunity.  What do I really want? If I don’t want to stay in fear (or self-doubt, or worry, or embarrassment) I have to say “no” to the fear.  I can muster some courage by taking responsibility-- “I know how to do this,” or reaching out to others in concern -- “here, let me help you.”  Having greater awareness of what scares us can allow us to take the next step toward being brave.

[fahyconsulting]

Your Energy, Your Results!

Lynn Elliott

I’m in a special relationship.  I’m devoted from the first alarm in the morning to my last thoughts at night.  Don’t worry, my husband knows about it. 

I have a thing for my calendar.

It’s always with me.  Blocks of time are color-coded throughout the day.  Birthdays and anniversaries are remembered in yellow.  Phone calls, meetings and appointments are marked orange.  The teenagers? Purple.  When I look at my calendar, I have a sense that my life is captured in a tidy snapshot. 

Illustrating this connection with my calendar serves a purpose.  I really want to talk about energy.

In my coaching practice, I use the energetic self-perception chart (developed by Bruce D. Schneider) to help clients gain awareness of how negative and positive energy looks in life.  Recognizing the level of energy we experience puts us in a state of conscious choice.  Moving from lower levels of energy that drain us (guilt, anger) to higher levels of energy that fuel us (compassion, creativity) creates more capacity for us to achieve what we want.

I can explain the 7 levels of energy we experience by telling a story about my calendar.

Recently, while linking my calendar to my new cell phone, I did the unthinkable.  I deleted my calendar.  Gone.  Nothing.  Vanished.  I immediately felt hopeless and victimized—classic Level 1 energy. “Oh no!  Why me?”  This is the most draining, negative kind of energy.  I was paralyzed for moment.  Then, I was flooded with Level 2 energy which is anger.  “This piece of $#@!” I blamed the computer, the program, even my calendar.  I was stressed and frustrated as I punched keys on my laptop.

I needed relief and I needed my calendar back!  So I shifted to Level 3 energy, taking responsibility for my actions.  After all, I was the one who hit the delete key.  I began to experience a little forgiveness, which did feel better.  I’m only human.  I made a mistake.  Maybe I could rebuild the calendar.

Rationalizing or tolerating in Level 3 wasn’t good enough, though.  I considered other people who would be affected-- which is Level 4.  Completely rebuilding the calendar would take time away from my business partner and my family.  Solving this problem would be an act of service.  Then I began to consider possibilities – Level 5 thinking.  My best-geek-friend Troy showed me how to research calendar problems on the internet.  There was an opportunity to fix this myself!  I experienced some Level 5 calm and confidence as I pursued the possibility of a calendar back-up on my Google account.   After poking around, I found it – my calendar with its blocks, colors and notes. I experienced Level 6, joy!  I felt fearless in my abilities.  While my calendar debacle did not end in Level 7 (absolute passion), at least I was able to schedule a date night with my husband. (Red!)

[fahyconsulting]

Leaders keep hope alive.

Lynn Elliott

  My friend Lucy recently posted something on Facebook, saying she was excited because her employee received an award for customer service. Lucy wrote the nomination, got the whole team involved, and recognized a staff member whose customers rave about her attitude, accuracy and support.  I loved this post because Lucy radiated genuine excitement, for her employee and for her whole team.

  Kouzes and Posner wrote a classic book on leadership and recognition, Encouraging the Heart. They say encouraging the heart is “ultimately about keeping hope alive." Lucy is a leader who kept hope alive during a long road of transition with her team. Team members changed, they centralized to one work location, and there were technology issues and medical leaves. During this time, she kept hope alive by setting high standards and expressing optimism about the team’s ability to achieve them. She kept hope alive by bringing new ideas and fresh energy when people got stuck.  And she kept hope alive, by having courageous conversations when she needed to defend her team.

I love working with inspiring leaders like Lucy, who keep hope alive - who persevere in the tough times and are generous with kind words.

[fahyconsulting]

The Brain, Threat Responses, and Blogging.

Patricia K. Fahy, MD

  We are pulling ourselves onto a new stage with these first blogs.  Lynn and I are sitting with Cory at a round table, three laptops open, all of us with eyes locked on the icons and sample feeds on this freshly minted Tumblr site.  Cory is facile with this stuff, tweets and cookies and multiple tabs and html. She explains how it will work and what we need to do to put our ideas “out there” in a public way.

    I think about SCARF.  An acronym cooked up by neuroscientist David Rock to identify the five social motivators.   Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness.  We humans slide up and down a continuum that runs from “threat” to “reward” depending on whether these SCARF elements are threatened or safeguarded.  Any encounter with another human may cause subtle or seismic shifts to our SCARF balance.  When teaching leadership courses I’ve used this quote (source unknown) to emphasize how the use of sarcasm, particularly for leaders, is a terrible idea:

“The half-life of a public insult is 20 years.”

This idea of the persistence of an insult is corroborated by David Rock.  He says that threats to our status (the “S” of SCARF) cause the    same   part of the brain to “light up” in functional MRI (fMRI) scans as physical pain.  The difference is—when you reflect back on physical pain that part of your brain doesn’t light up again.  When you reflect back on a status threat the pain site lights up—your brain experiences the threat, and the pain, again.

Is this why I’ve been slow to blog?  My approach to writing has been either impromptu or painstaking. I care about the written word.  The casualness of a blog and yet its e-permanence puts it in a confusing category (threatening my Certainty) regarding how much effort is warranted.  Also--whether read by no one, read and not commented on    (ignored!), or read and snorted at—the potential for a Status threat is there. The negative end of the social motivation spectrum—the threat—is much more powerful than the reward end. We humans are sensitive to threat and motivated to avoid it to a much greater degree than we are motivated toward a reward.  We are social critters.  So whether I am asserting an opinion at a board meeting, wading into an unknown social situation, or blogging—to whatever degree needed I gird my sensitive neocortex.