Mike Lehr's Blog

While there are many individual reasons why managers might prefer management by email (MBE), such a style does so at the expense of good relationships.

In the April 2012 edition of the Harvard Business Review, Alex “Sandy” Pentland goes even further in “The New Science of Building Great Teams”. Not only does he claim that “the most valuable form of communication is face-to-face” and “email and texting are the least valuable,” but he also suggests that MBE is an indicator of lower team engagement, a key component in building great teams.

In the same issue, Walter Isaacson writes “Engage Face-to-Face” as one of  “The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs”. Isaacson claims Jobs “knew all too well [the digital age’s] potential to be isolating.” Thus, referring back to my toxic soil analogy, emails focus on ideas and thoughts, many of which will not flurish if relationships are mediocre.

There are two aspects to interpersonal interactions, thoughts and feelings (head and heart). As managers, we need to be concerned with both. For example, consider your favorite well-known person such as a President of the United States. Whether he or she emailed you or told you face-to-face, “Hello,” the thought and idea of the message remains the same. However, the emotional impact of seeing that person in person overwhelms the emotional impact of a simple email.

That is why these interpersonal techniques hold great potential in building strong relationships in an intuitive way. They address the subliminal, indirect, intangibles (the blue approach) of our relationships with our teams. Moreover, returning to Pentland, we can assess the overall greatness of a team by the degree to which it relies on MBE.

Relationships, not the ideas in messages, make teams great.

Related post: Dealing with Bosses Who Manage by Email (MBE)

In 2008, a study by Professor Jens Krause, then of the University of Leeds, indicated that it only takes a purposeful minority of five percent to influence an entire crowd. The implication of his work for change management is this: we can initiate change with a small minority, we don’t need everyone at the outset. A passionate minority can often be very successful against an inert majority.

In general, there are four types of personalities when it comes to change:

1. Initiators: want to initiate change because the status quo doesn’t serve them
2. Adapters: adapt once they see the change working for the initiators
3. Followers: will follow the other two types once they believe it’s “the thing to do”
4. Resistors: will resist change because they don’t want to change or can’t change

The five percent will usually include Initiators. The problem is that many companies have them scattered across the company as in Figure #1. However, if we can consolidate them so they can work together and mutually support one another, they become Figure #2. Even though it’s only five percent of the total picture appears quite more powerful than the five percent spread randomly throughout Figure #1. The same happens in groups and organizations especially if some are in leadership positions.

Any insurrection begins with connecting supporters. This might mean reorganizing so they can work together: assigning them to the same project team, task force, product development team, call center or marketing campaign. The grouping should be as cross functional as possible down to the support people.

To cement the team’s camaraderie, it should receive attention from top leadership and ample dose of interpersonal techniques from it. Their momentum will encourage the adapters and followers leaving only the resistors with whom to work.

Wayne Curtis’ article, “The Secret Ingredient,” which appeared in the April 2012 edition of The Atlantic discusses liquor companies’ claims about centuries-old, secret recipes. His point is that marketing drives the myths and stories behind these recipes more than the actual ingredients of the spirits do. For example, citing chemist T.A. Breaux, Curtis says there are no significant production secrets behind vodka, the best-selling spirit globally. Yet, he concludes:

. . . a healthy measure of mythology actually makes for a better-tasting product. Never mind the mouth or nose as the chief receptors of flavor. Sometimes, imagination and suggestion trump all.

There are many ways for us to change the taste of food without changing anything about the food; however, stories impact us well beyond taste. Look at how emphatic politicians are about their personal stories especially focus on rising from humble beginnings or overcoming severe challenges, thus working to wrap their story inside the classical hero myth.

Stories influence the intuitive aspect of interpersonal interactions, tapping directly into people’s feelings by way of presentation. The way we present something, including people, dramatically influences people’s perceptions of it. Since stories can change the way we view people, they can change how we interpret what those people say.

Therefore, when it comes to Placebo Management, stories become a form of interpersonal branding. If they can affect something as tangible as the taste of spirits, consider what they can do for intangibles such as our personalities. Consider the story built around IKEA and its founder, Ingvar Kamprad; it’s a motivational force for employees and consumers alike.

So, with this in mind, what stories do you promote about yourself, your company and others to change people’s taste about their talents and efforts?

Other posts in this series:

• Placebo Management: Impacting Employees’ Beliefs
• Placebo Management (Pt 2): Tapping Emotions

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

Reflection phrases our assessment of the other person’s emotions and feelings in a nonjudgmental way. It’s similar to summarization but with a focus on emotions, how others are feeling. This puts us in a better position to assess how others are interpreting our message while letting others know we are in tune with their feelings. Reflection is extremely helpful in venting as part of a conflict management.

Examples of reflection include:

• “You seem very pleased with the assignment.”
• “It’s obvious that you enjoy working with Bob.”
• “It appears that something about this project displeases you.”
• “I can tell that this subject upsets you.”
• “It looks like you’re very happy with the results.”

From a relational perspective, reflection conveys the feeling that we are:

• In tune on a deeper, human level
• Appreciating their feelings
• Finding their emotions important and worthy of discussion
• Grasping the seriousness or importance of the conversation’s subject matter
• Aware of their emotional state

The effect of reflection is to:

• Lower emotional barriers preventing a positive conversation
• Establish an emotional connection
• Encourage additional conversation on a more open, truthful level

Reflection is the most difficult of the relationship techniques because emotions are fuzzy, making them difficult to assess and verbalize. As with summarization, it’s used less frequently, but covers a lot of ground.  It does a great job of uncovering underlying emotions because even if we’re wrong, others will likely correct us by stating their true feelings.

Since emotions often determine people’s interpretations, reflection is a very important technique in an integrated, holistic package of relationship building ones.

Other posts in this series:

• Relationship Building Technique #1: Open-ended Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #2: Closed Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause
• Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement
• Relationship Building Technique #5: Encouragement
• Relationship Building Technique #6: Synchronization
• Relationship Building Technique #7: Summarization

Imagine soil so toxic that nothing will grow. No matter how good our seeds, our farming techniques and the weather are; nothing will grow. The same thing happens when we try to promote great ideas in a bad relational environment: they fail.

That’s why relationships are more important than vision, culture more important than strategy. Vision and strategy can’t grow in toxic relational and cultural soil. This analogy also frames leadership as an affect influencing the hearts and minds of members, requiring the ability to tap both aspects of an interpersonal relationship: emotional and rational.

While this analogy’s point seems obvious, we are biased toward reason; thus, when problems arise, we tend to believe presenting new ideas, educating on the facts or reasoning better will solve them. It’s not unusual for me to have to restate this analogy several times in order to get people to focus on plans containing tactics to improve relationships or to manage conflict. In other words, our tendency is to just find better seeds, use better farming techniques or hope for better weather rather than address the soil.

This happens because no matter how good our ideas are, people will tend to decide that they’re bad if they don’t like or trust us. Our facts won’t change things either because people tend to believe perceptions over facts. People will naturally find reasons to discount our logic and facts.

When we combine all of this with the fact that a diverse workforce improves business, there is great stress on traditional management styles typically unsuited to nurturing the right positive feelings that can dramatically improve performance. By framing problems with this analogy, I increase my success in introducing relational solutions, which are often seen as too “fuzzy” or “soft.” Perhaps it will help you too.

We sometimes hear, “Nice guys finish last.” However, in genetics altruism creates a dilemma because it exists – and not just in humans. The question is why. Even Darwin considered it a challenge to his theory of natural selection. Why would any creature help another at a steep personal cost?

The article, “Kin and Kind,” written by Jonah Lehrer in the March 5, 2012 edition of The New Yorker, investigates altruism and its role in evolution. Whether its bats, bees, birds, ants or humans, the presence of altruism in these species suggests that kindness can’t be a losing strategy. In fact, insects displaying an extreme form of altruism called “eusociality” tend to dominate the insect world over their self-interested brethren.

E.O.Wilson, a main proponent of altruism as a positive contributor in evolution summarizes it this way:

Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups.

If we look at the Napoleonic era and the rise of the nation state, we find that the demise of mercenary (self-interested) armies began when citizen (altruistic) armies, cemented by patriotic and nationalistic emotions arrived on the scene. However, the reason why we don’t see more altruism in nature and our everyday lives is that a cohesive group must exist first. Again, context matters; encouraging self-interest will yield a self-interested culture, encouraging altruism will yield an altruistic one.

Of course, this prompts the question: Can a company built upon self-interested incentives triumph over a company with a cohesive, altruistic culture? Evolution suggests it won’t. Of course, that doesn’t mean a few self-interested people inside the altruistic cultures won’t try to take advantage of the others. Perhaps they are there to really test how cohesive and altruistic the company is?

Nevertheless, it seems that evolution could really be on the side of the nice guys.

Other posts in this series:

• Cooperation vs. Competition on the Business-to-Business Level
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest: Which Reigns Supreme?
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 2): Context – The Great Influencer
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 3): Empathy
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 4): Intrinsic Rewards
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 5): Humans vs. Apes
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 6): Incentives & Rats

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

Summarization rephrases the information or key points of the person in a condensed version. The technique verifies what we heard, demonstrates listening, allows focusing of the conversation, and defines parameters for additional discussions.  It also allows the other person – once we summarize – to alter, modify or restate so we can correct misunderstandings early.

Typically, summarization will rephrase the point of a sentence, paragraph or entire discussion. The focus is on subject matter not feelings and emotions, such as:

• Information
• Ideas
• Facts
• Opinions
• Logic
• Instructions

Of all the relationship-building techniques, it will tend to be the most lengthy and involved; however, if too long, its effectiveness diminishes. Often it’s followed by a closed question such as, “Did I understand you correctly?”

Some examples of summarization include:

• “Just to make sure I heard you right, Jack, you’d like us to find a way to secure a steady supply of our old product from this vendor, to negotiate a price based upon our minimum usage, and to find someone else to produce our new product.”
• “To make sure I’m on the same page, let me summarize what I heard. You want to send Sue and Tom out west and to promote Sally to run the plant. Also, you want to find a recruiter to help us to fill Sally’s job and to find us a good service person to manage our top customer.”
• “It seems that what you’re saying is that you want us to start over.”

From a relational perspective, summarization conveys the feeling that you are:

• Understanding and valuing what the person is saying
• Paying attention to detail and quality
• Someone in whom the person can have confidence

The effect of summarization is to create:

• A common understanding of what was said
• Opportunities for correcting any misunderstandings upfront
• Confidence in your abilities in the eyes of the other person
• Confirmation that you know what was said or needs to be done

Summarization, is really a result of the other relationship techniques. It’s used less frequently, but when it is it covers a lot of ground – often the entire conversation.  Summarization heads off many problems before they damage relationships. It has helped me much in my career.

Other posts in this series:

• Relationship Building Technique #1: Open-ended Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #2: Closed Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause
• Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement
• Relationship Building Technique #5: Encouragement
• Relationship Building Technique #6: Synchronization

In this post I want to show how informal organizational power and its role in leadership can produce different kinds of leadership. My inspiration is from a Chinese concept of rulers that is over two thousand years old, and I first read in connection to the I Ching. From it, I produced two forms of leadership: Organizational Leadership (OGL) and De Facto Leadership (DFL). When any group identifies its leader, the critical question is:

Are the members’ hearts into following the leader?

The answer is the same difference between a loveless marriage and a loving one. That’s why I express OGL as a hollowed circle to be filled and DFL as a solid circle to be embraced (figure). A loving marriage is love (blue) embraced by the formal structure of marriage (red). Leadership is best when the formal organizational structure is given to leaders that people want to follow, thus producing Aligned Leadership (ALL).

OGL is the hierarchy using titles such as manager and executive to convey positions of authority and rules of responsibility. OGL is more akin to management. DFL is dependent upon the person’s qualities; people follow them regardless of what the rules say. This is how some can be leaders without being managers.

A scene from Braveheart expresses very well the difference between DFL and OGL. In it, the lead Scottish noble, Robert the Bruce, is trying to convince the commoner warrior, William Wallace, that he needs the noble’s support. The latter responds with, “Men follow courage not titles.”

OGL, DFL and ALL reinforce the idea that leadership is an affect that requires tapping into emotions and integrating both aspects of an interpersonal relationship. This helps people to see what they want to see in their leaders, thus encouraging them to follow.

Other posts in this series:

• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part II)
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part III)
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part IV)
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part V)

Wow! I’m excited about my 200^th post. More and more people have entered my life – real and virtual – for whom I am thankful. This post is longer than my norm, need to tap into the power of thank you’s.

I continue to be thankful for those I mentioned in my 100^th post, including my wife, Kathy, who even as I write this is adjusting her schedule so I can keep my deadlines.

The second hundred had a more public feel for me than the first hundred did. Yes, some is due to substantially more visitors, but that is the smallest part of this story.

I’m thankful to the #usguys (Twitter) and 12Most families. Jeannette Marshall (Blog: optioneerJM) introduced me to the first and Daniel Newman the latter. Daniel “discovered” me on Twitter and Skyped me. Consequently, I ended up with three posts on 12Most, one drawing fairly heavy traffic (and controversy on Goggle+ ).

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the international aspect of the second hundred. I’m extremely thankful for Sandra Semjonova from Latvia. Anybody who follows me on Twitter knows she is a huge supporter. This world would be better by a factor of ten if it had just a few more Sandra’s. There’s also Vanina Santana-Sweeney from Australia who tracks me on several social media sites. Finally, there are cities like Marrakech, Belgrade, Pelotas, Melbourne, Manila, Bangalore containing regular readers. It’s reassuring to know we have commonalities; maybe those world problems aren’t so daunting after all!

Still, my biggest surprise has been locally. I’m thankful to those who meet me like Eric Mann and Tammy Wilson who then follow up by visiting here and wanting to know more. Or those, like Tom Wyatt who want to just meet to see if I’m for real. Then there are some high school classmates who wonder if I’m the same person they knew.

Moreover, locally, I’m extremely thankful for ProSource Solutions, LLC. A great client who requests much of my time but encourages the flexibility I need to grow this effort. Its Managing Directors, Lowell Messner and Jeff Welch, are extremely supportive of my ideas and work.  Additionally, their many employees make it all very enjoyable and rewarding. If you have IT-related skills, you should definitely look into them.

Finally, there are many unknown and unmentionable readers for whom I am thankful. I might only know some from their obscure towns. Others, for various reasons, including censorship in their communities, need to remain unmentioned. However, even if unknown and unmentionable, they certainly aren’t unappreciated.

With that, thank you – again – and I look forward to your continued inspiration. Now, I must close the door on the second hundred and open the one in front of me for the third hundred. Fortunately, you have given me the key. I promise to use it wisely . . . and, of course, intuitively.

Have a good one!

Referenced posts from 12Most.com:

• 12 Most Important Unspoken Truths about Experts
• 12 Most Effective Morale Builders That Don’t Cost a Cent
• 12 Most Crucial Business Lessons Learned from Battle

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

Synchronization is using words or phrasing of the other person to ask, comment or respond. The technique facilitates communications by ensuring he and you are “speaking the same language.” It’s keying in on the person’s pet words and phrases that emphasize key thoughts or emotions. It can be difficult to use since it requires intense listening and conscious avoidance of mocking or mimicking. We might also require some time and experimentation to ensure we are using the person’s words the way he does.

Some examples of synchronization include:

• Buzz words, for example:
  • “Reorg”
  • “Rush job”
  • “Strategize”
  • “Devi’s in the details”
• Acronyms:
  • ASAP
  • RFP
  • Industry specific ones
• Particular to person:
  • Person: “Run this by Sue before doing anything.” You: “Ok, I’ll run this by her first.”
  • Person: “This is an awesome idea.” You (later in the conversation): “I believe this other idea is awesome too.”
  • Person: “This report has some sound and strong recommendations.” You (later in conversation): “The reasoning behind Tom’s idea is sound and strong.”

From a relational perspective, synchronization conveys the feeling that you are:

• Complimentary through subtleties
• Connecting, recognizing similarities
• “On the same page”

The effect of synchronization is to create:

• Synergies
• Perception of being on the same wave length
• Establish and improve common understandings

Synchronization effectively builds relationships when integrated with other techniques.  It ensures that we use words the other person understands, thus reducing miscommunication. More importantly, since this technique, when done well, is very subtle, it promotes the development of relationships on a more interpersonal, emotional level.

Other posts in this series:

• Relationship Building Technique #1: Open-ended Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #2: Closed Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause
• Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement
• Relationship Building Technique #5: Encouragement