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 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)

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

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.

Encouragement directs the other person to elaborate on a point. It’s similar to an acknowledgement except it’s a clearly worded, short statement expressing a more direct interest. It’s also more effective in directing conversation to a previous point. Encouragement usually occurs as a conversational transition from open-ended questions to closed questions.

Some examples of encouragements include:

• Short statements such as:
  • “Tell me more . . .”
  • “Explain that further …”
  • “Please elaborate …”
  • “Please explain, I’m not sure I understand . . .”
• Redirections of conversation such as:
  • “A few minutes ago you mentioned the analysis that was done by the group, tell me more about that and its findings.”
  • “Please go back to your comments regarding when you started the project and tell me more about that.”
  • “You mentioned that earlier as well. Elaborate on it since it’s obviously important to you and the team.”

From a relational perspective, encouragements convey the feeling that you are:

• Interested in the conversation
• Closely listening when you are able to redirect conversation to a previous point
• Remembering what was said earlier

The effect of encouragements is to:

• Encourage further comments especially from quiet people
• Substantially increase receptivity when redirection occurs
• Move the conversation to a more personal or confidential level

Encouragements effectively build relationships when integrated with other techniques.  They promote a more casual, interactive, directed and friendly conversation as opposed to an interrogative one. More importantly, through redirection of the conversation to a previous point, they can dramatically convey to others that you’re listening to them.

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

The article, “The Modern Matchmakers,” from the February 11, 2012 edition of The Economist contained two major business lessons that I’ve discussed earlier regarding the solving of people-related problems:

1. What people think they want isn’t necessarily what they will choose
2. When faced with too much choice, people have less energy to think about them

For example, the article cites the work of Eli Finkel of Northwestern University on speed-dating in which he found that “people’s stated preference at the beginning of the process do not match the characters of the individuals they actually like.” Furthermore, “that when faced with abundant choice, people pay less attention to characteristics that require thinking and conversation to evaluate . . . and more to matters physical.” In short, just as Sheena Iyengar of Columbia University and Mark Lepper of Stanford concluded that too much choice is demotivating,” Finkel found it can dull thinking processes.

As I had also done in an earlier post on online dating, we can translate these themes to our business efforts by asking three questions:

1. How much freedom does someone want?
2. What does someone really want; what will he really do or decide?
3. How much (and what kind of) thinking will someone require from a leader?

These further translate into more tactical questions for managers and executives such as:

1. How much flexibility or process must I give someone?
2. What differences do I see between what he wants and what he actually does?
3. What kind of decisions do I give her to make and what (or when) do I decide for her?

Complicating this further is the fact that the answers will vary for each employee, requiring deeper and more interpersonal skills from managers and leaders. Are your managers up for the challenge?

Previous post on online dating:  What the Failures of Online Dating Can Teach Us