The Trust Bank

Recently I was asked to work with a large department of 55 employees divided into five intact teams. The assignment was to develop and deliver a workshop to build trust between teams, that is, across organizational boundaries.

The problem is trust isn’t built across, by or between teams.

Ok, yes, you are probably aware of a team you trust. But if you explore why you trust them, it boils down to trusting the individual people on the team.

You don’t build trust between teams, you build trust between people.

Building trust is not a team sport; it is a game of one-on-one.

One of the things we teach our workshop participants is that “Trust is like a savings account.” You establish a savings account so you have money on hand when something unexpected arises. Once a week or so, you add a little to your savings account. Over time it grows and compounds. It is your security against the unexpected, ready when you need it.

A Trust Bank works in a similar way: you make small, regular deposits of trust with other people.

These don’t need to be large deposits, but you should make them regularly. Like money in a savings account, trust deposits also compound and grow.

And the similarities don’t end there. The value of a trust bank lies in knowing that when something unexpected happens – you say the wrong thing or forget a commitment – you can make a withdrawal. If you made regular trust deposits, you will have a positive balance even after a withdrawal – that is, you will retain a trusting relationship.

Make no mistake: most trust deposits are small and a single withdrawal can often be significant. That’s why it is so important to make regular deposits, not only with your regular contacts, but also people you may work with in the future.

The great thing about Trust is that that is there is always plenty to go around. Strive to make trust deposits daily with everyone you meet.

It’s Not About YOU

Last week I was speaking to a fellow board member. We were evaluating a controversial recommendation and as an expert in the field, her feedback was critical. For twenty minutes she shared some great insights. But as our discussion wrapped up, the conversation suddenly changed directions. She began complaining that our board did not approach her first before undertaking the task. Her final comment was “This made me look bad.”

As the line clicked dead I was stunned. Wait! What? Did she really say that?

Darned if it didn’t happen again two days later! A friend called to volunteer his time on an upcoming project. I barely uttered the words “Thank you” before he interrupted to tell me that he was personally offended that he wasn’t asked to participate in a similar project last year.

What? Come on, really?

I wanted to tell the both: It’s not about YOU!

A subtlety of leadership is that effective leaders focus on their team not themselves. As Jack Welch wrote in Winning

Leadership is not about you. It’s about the people that work for you.

Although you may end up in the spotlight, a leader continually redirects the attention to their subordinates and followers. Making it about you, as my two friends did, diminishes your leadership role.

While I don’t work for either of the two people mentioned, leadership isn’t simply about hierarchy. You don’t become a leader just because people work for you any more than you become a car because you walk into a garage. John C. Maxwell said it best in The 360 Degree Leader

The true measure of leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.

My two friends were both in leadership roles during our conversations. As a subject matter expert, the board member was in a position to influence our decision. By volunteering, my other friend placed himself in a position to influence the direction of the project. Unfortunately, by shifting the focus to them, both completely diminished their role as a leader and thus their influence.

As leaders, you control the spotlight. Focus it on your team and try to stay out of the limelight. Influential leaders know; It’s not about you!
* * * * *
Subtleties of Leadership is on Twitter: @SubtleLeader

The Abilene Paradox - Validation

Over the last few weeks I have been addressing a style of group think called The Abilene Paradox. The Paradox occurs when a group makes a decision that is contrary to the actual desires of the group members. In Jerry B. Harvey’s original description, a family drives to Abilene for dinner and after returning four hours later realizes that no one really wanted to go!

In my first Abilene article I addressed why people fail to voice their disagreement. Most often members hesitate to disagree out of some type of fear. Dennis Gillan commented

I have been in groups that went to "Abilene" and if someone would have clearly stated what was in their heart, we could have saved a trip.

In the second article I described how leaders can avoid a trip to Abilene by setting the proper TONE. The best decisions are those made in an environment in which healthy disagreement is encouraged for the good of the team. Effective leaders work to set the right tone knowing it will pay off, particularly during important decisions.

Despite best efforts, a group may still detour to Abilene when making a decision. If you sense it happening, stop to VALIDATE the decision. You can plan validation in advance or it can be spontaneous. Either way, the key is to confirm that everyone actually agrees with the decision and isn’t just “going along.”

The first step is to begin team meetings by giving members the authority to validate decisions. This is not a free pass for members to delay or fight a decision. Rather, it is permission for members to call time-out if it appears Abilene is just over the horizon.

A simple, proactive technique is to use brainstorming and make sure everyone contributes. Note: As the leader wait until the end to add your suggestions. It works because using a brainstormed list requires critical thinking to eliminate some options while embracing others.

Another way to validate is asking team members to write their ideas prior to group deliberations. Later, as the team discusses the issue, periodically ask participants to share their written thoughts. Since these ideas were crafted before the discussion they will be unaffected by the group opinion.

Using good facilitation skills is another way to keep the group off the road to Abilene. For example, when a fresh idea or a dissenting opinion is offered be sure to fully acknowledge it and draw the group’s attention to it. Also, try to avoid letting one or two vocal members dominate the discussion. Make sure everyone is involved.

When the group begins moving toward a decision validation becomes crucial, particularly for difficult decisions. If you fear the group is on the outskirts of Abilene, don’t ask “does everyone agree?” Instead consider alternative decision making techniques such as the Fist to Five Method or a simple written vote.

Finally, if despite your best efforts, the team seems to be “going along” rather than actually agreeing, flip the discussion. To flip, ask the team to assume the opposite or alternative viewpoint and have them explain why it could be a better choice. Flipping helps validate the decision because when everyone is forced to consider an alternative you create a safe zone for the ‘silent dissenters’ to voice their opinions.

Whether on a charitable board, a task force, a work team and just with friends, Abilene beckons you! Practice the two ways to avoid an unnecessary trip. First, encourage healthy disagreement by setting the proper TONE. Second, look for warning signs of Abilene and VALIDATE the team’s decisions along the way. Abilene may be a great place to visit, but you don’t want to make decisions there!

The Abilene Paradox - Setting Tone

In my last post, I described a common form of miscommunication called The Abilene Paradox. The Paradox is a problem that arises not from conflict, but from agreement. It happens when a group makes a collective decision that is in direct opposition to the actual desires and beliefs of individual members. A common example is when someone suggests a place for lunch. No one really wants to go there, but they are unwilling to voice opposition. So everyone just goes along.

Following the last blog, I asked readers how they would keep groups from traveling to Abilene. Those suggestions helped form two broad solutions. The quotes below are from some of those contributors.

Everyone involved in decisions that are made in “Abilene” shares responsibility for those decisions. But ultimately, the leader’s role is to avoid that decision-making flaw. Whether formally leading a team or simply organizing an evening out, as the leader, you must guard against the Paradox in two ways. First, discourage road trips to Abilene by setting the proper TONE. Second, if you feel the team is detouring to Abilene, stop and VALIDATE the group’s decision.

TONE
The best decisions are those made in an environment that fosters healthy disagreement. The leader’s role is to set that tone for all team interactions. Becky Cates posted this comment:

When a barrier exists, either real or perceived, there can be no open exchange. It takes a confident person to project a sincere desire to listen, receive and value the opinions and feelings of others—whether they agree or not.

Confident leaders know that the best decisions are those reached through an open exchange and they constantly encourage it.

Encouraging open exchanges and healthy disagreement begins long before a meeting. To set the proper tone you must model it all the time. Denise Dunn was succinct:

Lead by example -- not just when there are decisions to be made, but always.

One way to set the tone is to ask team members for their thoughts before expressing your own. If someone is reluctant to comment, reiterate her responsibility to the team and remind her that regardless of her views, you value her thoughts. Modeling the proper tone of open exchange demonstrates that team members have a voice and that exercising that voice will not have negative consequences.

It is important to restate the proper tone at the beginning of decision-making meetings. Explain that each team member brings a unique perspective to the decision-making process. As members of the team, they each have a responsibility to help determine the best course of action. Remind them that there may be instances when being responsible means voicing concerns. As Mike Hawkins wrote

Leaders should never fear well-intentioned dissent.

To that I add – and they should set a tone that supports it.

Setting the proper tone will help prevent trips to Abilene. However, despite your best efforts, occasionally the team will venture down that road. In the next post, I will explain how to abort The Abilene Paradox by VALIDATING team decisions.

Until then, set the proper tone: Tell your team members it is OK to constructively disagree. Make sure your friends know to speak up if they don’t like the lunch plans. Ask for your spouse’s opinion before expressing your own. Setting the proper tone is a Subtlety of Leadership that will help you stay off the road to Abilene.

The Abilene Paradox - Causes

Have you visited Abilene? You probably did and didn’t know it. Many groups take this ‘trip’ but don’t realize they are in route until it is too late. Abilene, Texas may be a great town, but as a leader, make sure your team never goes there.

The Abilene Paradox is an allegory describing a common form of miscommunication called group think. It was originally coined in the 70’s by Texas native Jerry B. Harvey, a professor of management science at George Washington University.

In his book The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management, Harvey described a family experience in which four relatives agreed to drive an hour to Abilene for dinner. Four hours later, after enduring 100+ degree heat, no air conditioning and a not-so-great meal, his mother commented that she only went along because everyone else wanted to go. A second relative snapped that he only agreed, because he thought everyone else wanted dinner in Abilene. The conversation quickly dissolved into a full-blow family argument when it became evident that while everyone had agreed to go no one actually wanted to go.

The Abilene Paradox describes a unique problem that arises not from conflict, but from agreement. It is what happens when a group makes a collective decision that is in direct opposition to the actual desires and beliefs of individual members. The irony is that often team members agree privately about the best possible decision. Yet, when convened as a group, they fail to publicly voice their opinion, passively accepting the decision of the group.

The Abilene Paradox:

When organizations take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve.

Do not think The Paradox is limited only to business. The need to “effectively manage agreement” as Harvey calls it, is needed in non-profits, family interactions, sports teams – anywhere people need to make decisions as a group. In fact, Harvey suggested that “the inability to manage agreement is a major source of organizational dysfunction.”

There are a number of reasons for passive agreement in teams. Occasionally, silence is a form of loyalty to, or support of, the leader. In another situation one person may be driving the entire team to Abilene by dominating the discussion with his strong opinions.

Most often the paradox happens when individuals fear the repercussions of speaking up in a group setting. Typically, that fear reflects a concern for job security or retaliation from the leader. Others may hesitate to speak up out of fear of being ostracized from the group or being seen as different. In either case, the result is not only a poor decision, but also a lack of grassroots support for the decision. Together these are a recipe for disaster because

agreeing TO something is vastly different than agreeing WITH something.

Do you have thoughts about how effective leaders can avoid a trip to Abilene? Next week, I’ll explain my solutions and include your ideas as well. Leave your comments below or email me at SubtletiesofLeadership@gmail.com

WE versus ME; Part 2

Success and failure begins and ends with the leader. How you, the leader, handle it is a subtlety of leadership. In my previous post “We vs. Me” I described how important it is for leaders to use ‘we’ and ‘our’ when discussing team successes. The old axiom there is always enough credit to go around is true. Strong leaders shine the spotlight on their team in times of achievement. If instead the leader speaks in terms of ‘my’ team, he turns the light on himself and shifts the focus from We to Me. If that happens, you lose credibility as a leader.

While the focus should be on 'We' following successes, there are other times when leaders should shift it to ‘Me’. Effective leaders publicly shoulder the responsibility when the team is not successful. The simple rule is to use We when describing success, but shift responsibility to Me when things go wrong.

Don’t misread this. Hold your team members accountable. But accountability occurs in private, behind closed doors. Publicly, leaders take the responsibility. Your peers and superiors expect it, so shift the focus from We to Me.

Why take the blame for a team member’s failure? There are many reasons, but the most important is because you are the leader. When you accept that role, you also accept responsibility for all of the decisions, all of the actions and all of the results. Great leaders know this and embrace it as part of being an effective leader.

Taking the heat off the team is also a sure-fire way to build loyalty. There is no greater way to create ardent followers than by shielding the team from the consequences of best efforts that did not win. In fact, Steve Ross Late CEO of Time Warner wrote:

In this company you’ll be fired for not making mistakes.

If you want a cohesive team of followers, shift the focus to ‘Me’ during difficult times.

Deflecting criticism also gives the team confidence to continue. Knowing that you publicly “have their backs” encourages the team to take needed risks, to think outside the box and to avoid fear of failure. As Babe Ruth famously said:

Don’t let the fear of striking out get in your way.

Keep your team swinging for the fences by assuming responsibility. When things go wrong, it is Me not We.

The answer to who gets the credit for success and failure is in the language you use. It is the subtlety of knowing when to use We and when to use Me.
- When the team succeeds, give them the credit and brag on the team. Use We and Our.
- When the team isn’t successful, step up. You are the leader. Take the heat off your team and put the focus on Me.

We versus Me

Who gets the credit for success and failure? Is it the team or the team leader? Is it We or Me? Regardless of what you believe or what you intend, the answer lies in the language you use every day.

Effective leaders know that there is always enough credit to go around. They have no fear of casting a wide net when it comes to sharing success. Knowing that top performers are more motivated by praise and recognition than tangible rewards, leaders intentionally spread the credit. They pepper their language with plural pronouns such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ to describe the positives of a team and ensure that everyone is included in successes.

WE tried something different to win this contract

or

OUR team is great at analyzing complex situations.

On the other hand, consider the impact of self-centered ‘managers’ who shift the focus from We to Me. When followers hear him say “I tried something different…” he is no longer a leader. When team members hear her say “MY team is great at…” they are not part of ‘your’ team at all.

Referring to your employees as ‘my’ department, ‘my’ team, or ‘my’ group crushes any hope of creating a team environment. While they may in fact be your employees, calling them ‘my team’ doesn’t encourage followers, it produces subordinates. If you want to manage, subordinates are great. If you want to lead, people must choose to follow you.

We vs. Me is even more important when you are away from your team. It is easy to remember ‘we’ around the team. The difficulty lies when you are away, speaking to others, particularly bosses. Those are the times when ‘me’ can sneak back into your language. That is when it is also the most damaging. When a leader takes personal credit for her team’s success and word gets back to the team, your credibility is lost.

Compounding the problem, most ‘Me’ managers think putting the spotlight on themselves will help their career. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Focusing on ‘Me’ gives others, particularly superiors, a poor impression of your leadership ability. Kendra Ready of the Financial Post agrees:

I hear people put too much emphasis on themselves (I led this, I launched that, I managed the project) and not enough on the "we". The potential implications? Yes, people may see you as capable and a ready-to-step-up-to-the-plate leader; or you may be seen as someone who is taking an over-generous portion of the credit.

We vs. Me seems so obvious. Yet many potential leaders never achieve greatness because of the subtleness of knowing when to use We and when to use Me. Using ‘We’ is important to build a cohesive team. Yet there are times when using ‘Me’ is essential. Next week, I will explain when to use ‘Me’.