Do You Really Want to Be Yourself at Work?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-23/do-you-really-want-to-be-yourself-at-work-.html
Would you love to work in a place where you could truly be yourself? Where you didn’t have to spend a single moment of your time and energy making sure you put only your best self forward?
Most people would, according to research recently published by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones in “Creating the Best Workplace on Earth.” For three years they went around the world, asking hundreds of executives to describe the attributes of their ideal workplace. Topping the list was an environment where people could be themselves and where the company invested in developing them (and everyone they worked with) to be the very best they could be.
Interestingly, during a comparable three-year period, Harvard education professor Robert Kegan was researching the other side of the equation, looking for companies that pursued competitive advantage by developing every person to his or her fullest potential. He and his colleagues Lisa Lahey, Andy Fleming, Matthew Miller, Claire Lee, and Inna Markus had put out the word among their extended networks in academia, consulting, HR, and corporate C-suites: Did anyone know of any organization, anywhere in the world, dedicated to developing every one of its people by weaving personal growth into day-to-day work?
The researchers found precious few companies that took that approach. In their initial pool of only 20 candidates, just two with 100 or more employees had been operating fully and successfully in that mode for at least five years. One was an East Coast investment firm called Bridgewater Associates, the other a West Coast real estate and movie theater management company called Decurion. The researchers spent hundreds of hours viewing the two firms’ practices and interviewing their people (and wrote about them in detail in “Making Business Personal”).
In these companies employees didn’t spend any time hiding their inadequacies or preserving their reputations. Rather, everyone — from the CEO on down — was expected to make mistakes and learn from them and grow. In fact, both organizations had elaborate systems designed to promote individuals into roles a bit beyond their comfort zones to ensure that they would inevitably learn from failure. In this way people became masters not of any particular skill but of learning to adjust to new situations, which produced organizations that were remarkably resilient.
Does that sound appealing? Before you answer, consider this anecdote, which Kegan also records in his article.
Not long ago, HBS professor Heidi Gardner presented a case she’d cowritten on Bridgewater to her class. “So how many of you would like to work at Bridgewater?” she inquired toward the end of the discussion. Fewer than five hands went up in a class of 80. “Why not?” she asked. One young woman who’d been an active and impressive contributor to the conversation answered: “I want people at work to think I’m better than I am; I don’t want them to see how I really am!”
And yet, how many people would disagree with Ted Mathas, the head of the mutual insurance company New York Life, who told Goffee and Jones: “When I was appointed CEO, my biggest concern was, would this [job] allow me to truly say what I think? I needed to be myself to do a good job. Everybody does.”
What to make of these two views? Are people being disingenuous (or perhaps naive) when they aspire to bring their true selves to work? Certainly one might want to work in a company that makes you the best you can be without widely advertising the missteps you make along the way. Kegan is quick to point out that there are other ways to realize people’s full potential. But he also suggests that some people think they’d prefer an embarrassment-free work zone because they cannot imagine how something so painful at work could lead to something expansive and life changing.
Signs You’re Being Passive-Aggressive
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/signs-you-re-being-passive-aggressive.html
When was the last time you did any of the following at work?
You didn’t share your honest view on a topic, even when asked.
You got upset with someone, but didn’t let them know why.
You procrastinated on completing a deliverable primarily because you just didn’t see the value in it.
You praised someone in public, but criticized them in private.
You responded to an exchange with, “Whatever you want is fine. Just tell me what you want me to do,” when in actuality, it wasn’t fine with you.
Here are five strategies to consider:
1. Recognize the behavior. It’s important that you recognize which circumstances or situations drive you to be passive-aggressive. Knowing what they are helps you consciously explore other ways to respond. Start by thinking about the circumstances that bring out these behaviors: Who was involved? How did the situation unfold? How did you react? What happened? Do you see a pattern? Chris recognized that when he felt like his contributions were not valued or like he wasn’t being heard, he resorted to a passive-aggressive stance. This particularly true in leadership team meetings where Chris felt like he had to defend marketing’s role, value, and resources to the rest of the organization. He had a hard time understanding why he was always being tested.
2. Identify the cause. There is likely an underlying cause for your passive-aggressiveness — it can be a fear of failure (a desire for perfection), a fear of rejection (a desire to be liked), or a fear of conflict (a desire for harmony). It’s critical to understand the root of the issue so that you can address it head on and determine whether your fear is warranted. For Chris, the root cause was a fear of conflict and the belief that if others valued him, they wouldn’t push and question him and his group. In effect, Chris equated any sign of conflict with not being valued. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Others questioned marketing because they saw it as a critical part of the business and wanted to ensure its success. When Chris realized how his beliefs were driving his passive-aggressive behavior, he saw how important it was to change his default response.
3. Be honest with yourself. Once you understand the underlying reasons for your behavior, you need to be honest with yourself about what you really want. Continuing to veil or deny your feelings will only perpetuate the passive-aggressive response. What is it that you truly think? What is it that you really want to say? What outcome are you hoping for? Then think about how to express that desire in a direct, but respectful, way.
4. Embrace conflict. A large part of letting go of passive-aggressive behavior is accepting that conflict happens. Conflict at work (or anywhere) is not necessarily a bad thing if you make an effort to move through it productively. Seek mutual understanding (not to be mistaken with mutual agreement) of each other’s positions and recognize that even if you don’t agree with someone, it typically does not mean that the relationship is in jeopardy. By accepting that engaging in conflict enhanced what his division had to offer rather than derailing its work, Chris more readily took part in those interactions. Instead of shutting down the exchanges by offering a fake agreement or withholding critical feedback, he respectively disagreed and asked questions to better understand his colleagues’ perspectives.
5. Get input. Working on any behavioral change is hard. It’s easy to be overly critical of your own efforts or simply disappointed that you’re not seeing enough progress. For that reason, it’s important to check in with others on how you’re doing. Share what you’re working on with a few folks that you trust. Periodically, ask them how you’re doing. Do they get the sense that you’re just talking the talk, or actually walking the walk? Chris’s road was not an easy one and every now and then he defaulted back to his passive-aggressive response. But over time, those occasions became more and more rare as Chris focused on being direct and clear in what he wanted to communicate. Some of his confidantes did a good job holding him accountable, even going as far as kicking him under the table during team meetings if he started showing the passive-aggressive behavior that he’d worked so hard to shed.
Managing your own passive aggressive behaviors is about getting rid of the incongruity between your internal dialogue — what you think — and your external actions — what others see and hear. Not only will aligning your thoughts with your actions build trust with your work colleagues; you’ll increase your own self-confidence and trust in yourself. And there is nothing passive-aggressive about that.
Manage a Difficult Conversation with Emotional Intelligence
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/manage-a-difficult-conversation-with-emotional-intelligence/
I once worked with a leader — we’ll call him Karl — who needed to have a difficult conversation with an underperforming (but key) team member. To prepare, Karl built ammunition by creating a list of the employee’s shortcomings. He sensed that the interaction would end poorly and he felt extremely anxious about it.
Workplace conflicts like this one are often unavoidable. Just as you disagree with your spouse, your best friend, or your parents, at some point you are likely to disagree with someone at work. Many leaders, like Karl, choose to approach situations of conflict with logic: if a team member isn’t pulling his weight, get proof; if your office mate makes an egregious mistake, take note of the ways her mistake breaches company policy.
But while logic is an important aspect of conflict resolution, it is only part of the equation. Emotions cannot be ignored. In fact, research suggests that suppressing your emotions – deciding not to say something when you’re upset – can lead to bad results. Have you ever yelled at your spouse or child after a frustrating day at work – a frustration that had nothing to do with him or her? That’s what psychologists refer to as “emotional leakage.” When you bottle up your feelings, you’re likely to express your emotions in unintended ways instead, either sarcastically or in a completely different context. Suppressing your emotions is associated with poor memory, difficulties in relationships, and physiological costs (like cardiovascular health problems). Emotions matter.
When Karl came to me with questions about his upcoming meeting, I walked him through a plan based on the principles of emotional intelligence. This plan would help him acknowledge logic and emotion during the meeting.
First, I suggested that Karl recognize the emotions at work in the situation. Karl knew how he felt – he was extremely frustrated. However, he also needed to consider the emotions of the underperforming employee, who likely felt scared and threatened. Perspective-taking is essential to effectively navigating conflict. When they sat down, Karl’s suspicions were confirmed: he could tell from her crossed arms and facial expression that she was already on the defensive.
Second, Karl needed to assess the impact of those emotions on his behavior and the behavior of his employee. Emotions are double-edged swords. Everyday negative emotions help us stay analytical and task-focused. During a conflict, though, negative emotions can result in criticism and nitpicking (just the type of thinking that Karl had been engaged in). Positive emotions support big picture thinking, brainstorming, and creativity. But if we’re not careful, we can start looking at the world through rose-colored glasses and lose track of reality. With the power of positive and negative emotions in mind, Karl began his conversation by highlighting the reasons why he wanted to keep the underperforming employee in his office. He introduced positivity into the discussion, which helped them listen, relax, and engage in problem solving before approaching negative topics.
Third, Karl and I discussed the importance of understanding the swirling cloud of emotions present during this workplace conflict. Emotionally intelligent leaders are aware of what causes their emotions, and they also think through what outcomes are most desirable. While planning for the meeting, Karl began to wonder why: Why were they each experiencing frustration and defensiveness? Why was the employee underperforming? During the meeting, he shared his observations. He asked open-ended questions, hoping compassionately to understand what was happening for the employee. “How are you feeling about your current projects?” he asked. When she noted that she was bored, he continued, curiously. “Why is this happening? What are some of the key skills that you’d like to be cultivating?”
Finally, Karl needed to manage the emotions of the situation by deploying strategies that would lead him to his objective – keeping the employee in his office, and creating a plan to improve her performance. In this case, that meant scheduling the meeting over coffee in the atrium (this helped to encourage open conversation). Also, when the employee came up with overly optimistic goals, Karl logically demonstrated the seriousness of the situation, all the while praising her initiative. In the end, the employee felt that she was being treated fairly – Karl had listened intently and was open to her ideas – and together, they came up with a plan of action.
Emotions aren’t just the result of a workplace conflict. In fact, emotions usually are the conflict. They need to be acknowledged and planned for. Recognizing emotions, assessing their impact on thinking, understanding them, and managing them is a roadmap for navigating through those often-murky (and anxiety-provoking) waters.
Choose the Right Words in an Argument
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/choose-the-right-words-in-an-argument/
When addressing a conflict with a colleague, the words matter. Sometimes, regardless of how good your intentions are, what you say can further upset your coworker and just make the issue worse. Other times you might say the exact thing that helps the person go from boiling mad to cool as a cucumber.
So, when things start to heat up with a colleague — you don’t see eye-to-eye on a project or you aren’t happy with the way you were treated in a meeting, for example — how can you choose your words carefully? To help answer this question, I talked with Linda Hill, the Wallace Brett Donham Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and faculty chair of the Leadership Initiative. She is also the co-author of Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation and Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader.
Hill explained that the words we use in confrontations can get us into trouble for three reasons:
First, the stakes are usually high when emotions are. “With conflict, there are typically negative emotions involved, and most of us aren’t comfortable with those kinds of feelings,” she says. Our discomfort can make us fumble over our words or say things we don’t mean.
The second reason that we often say the wrong thing is because our first instincts are usually off. In fact, it’s often the words we lead with that get us into so much trouble. “That’s because too often we end up framing the issue as who’s right or who’s wrong,” she says. Instead of trying to understand what’s really happening in a disagreement, we advocate for our position. Hill admits that it’s normal to be defensive and even to blame the other person, but saying “You’re wrong” or “Let me tell you how I’m right” will make matters worse. “We’re often building a case for why we’re right. Let that go and focus on trying to resolve the conflict,” she says.
Third, there’s often misalignment between what we mean when we say something and what the other person hears. “It doesn’t matter if your intent is honorable if your impact is not,” Hill says. Most people are very aware of what they meant to say but are less tuned into what the other person heard or how they interpreted it.
Say nothing. “If the emotional level is high, your first task is to take some of the emotion out,” she says. “Often that means sitting back and letting someone vent.”
The trouble is, Hill says, that we often stop people before they’ve gotten enough of the emotion out. “Hold back and let them say their piece. You don’t have to agree with it, but listen,” she says. While you’re doing this, you might be completely quiet or you might indicate you’re listening by using phrases like, “I get that” or “I understand.” Avoid saying anything that assigns feeling or blame, like “Calm down” or “What you need to understand is.” If you can do this effectively, without judging, you’ll soon be able to have a productive conversation.
Ask questions. Hill says that it’s better to ask questions than make statements. Instead of thinking about what you want to say, consider what you want to learn. This will help you get to the root cause of the conflict and set you up to resolve it. You can ask questions like, “Why did that upset you?” or “How are you seeing this situation?” Use phrases that make you appear more receptive to a genuine dialogue. Once you’ve heard the other person’s perspective, Hill suggests you paraphrase and ask, “I think you said X, did I get that right?”
Own your part. Don’t act like there is only one view of the problem at hand. “You need to own your perception. Start sentences with ‘I’ not ‘you,’” Hill says. This will help the other person see your perspective and understand that you’re not trying to blame them for the problem. Instead of saying “You must be uncomfortable”, try “I’m feeling pretty uncomfortable.” Don’t attribute emotions to other people. That just makes them mad.
So, how do you choose the right words to use in a conflict? Of course, every situation is different and what you say will depend on the content of what you’re discussing, your relationship with the other person, and the culture of your organization, but these suggestions may help you get started:
Scenario #1: You have a criticism or dissent to offer. Perhaps you disagree with the popular perspective or perhaps you’re talking to someone more powerful than you.
Hill suggests you get to the underlying reason for the initiative, policy, or approach that you’re disagreeing with. Figure out why the person thinks this is a reasonable proposal. You can say something like, “Sam, I want to understand what we’re trying to accomplish with this initiative. Can you go back and explain the reasoning behind it?” or “What are we trying to get done here?” Get Sam to talk more about what he’s up to and why. Then you can present a few options for how to accomplish the same goal using a different approach: “If I understand you correctly, you’re trying to accomplish x, y, and z. I’m wondering if there’s a different way to approach this. Perhaps we can…”
In a situation like this, you also want to consider the venue. “You may be able to have a more candid discussion with someone if it’s one-on-one meeting rather than in front of a group,” she says.
Scenario #2: You have bad news to deliver to your boss or another coworker. You missed a deadline, made a mistake, or otherwise screwed up.
Hills says the best approach here is to get to the point: “I have some news to share that I’m not proud of. I should’ve told you sooner, but here’s where we are.” Then describe the situation. If you have a few solutions, offer them up: “These are my ideas about how we might address this. What are your thoughts?” It’s important to own up that you made a mistake and not try to point out all the reasons you did what you did.
Scenario #3: You approach a coworker about something he or she messed up.
Here you don’t want to launch in right away, Hill says, but ask permission to speak to the person about what happened: “Mary, can I have a moment to talk to you about something?” Then describe what happened. You can say: “I’m a little confused about what occurred and why it occurred. I want to discuss it with you to see how we can move this forward.” Use phrases like “I understand that X happened…” so that if Mary sees the situation differently, she can disagree with your perspective. But don’t harp too long on what happened. Focus on figuring out a solution by engaging her with something like: “What can we do about this?”
Scenario #4: You approach a colleague about feeling mistreated or you’re upset about something he or she said.
Hill points out that this is a good place to talk about the difference in intent versus impact. After all, you don’t know what your coworker’s intent was; you only know that you’re upset. You can start off with something like: “Carl, It’s a little bit awkward for me to approach you about this, but I heard that you said X. I don’t know whether it’s true or not. Regardless, I thought I should come to you because I’m pretty upset and I thought we should talk about it.” The focus shouldn’t be on blaming the person but airing your feelings and trying to get to a resolution: “I want to understand what happened so that we can have a conversation about it.”
If Carl gets defensive, you can point out that you aren’t questioning his intent. “I’m not talking about what you intended. I thought it was better to clear the air, rather than stewing about it. Would you agree?”
Scenario #5: A colleague yells at you because of something you said or did.
This is where you might stay quiet at first and let them vent. People usually run out of steam pretty quickly if you don’t reciprocate. Keep in mind though, Hill says, that you never deserve to be yelled at. You might say: “I realize that I’ve done something to upset you. I don’t respond well to being yelled at. Can we sit down when I can be better prepared to have a conversation about this?”
Scenario #6: You’re managing someone who engages in conflict regularly and is annoying or upsetting the other people on your team.
Sometimes you have a hothead on your team — someone who seems to even enjoy conflict. Of course disagreements aren’t always a bad thing, but you need to help the person explore how he might be damaging his reputation and relationships. You can try something like: “I like having you around because from where I sit, you raise important issues and feel strongly about them. I also know you’re well-intentioned. I’d like to talk you about whether you’re having the impact you want to have.” Get him to think through the consequences of his regular battles.
Of course, even if you follow this advice, sometimes there just aren’t the right words and it’s not possible to have a constructive discussion. “Occasionally, you need to let it go and come back to it another time when you can both have the conversation,” says Hill. It’s OK to walk away and return to the discussion later, when you’re ready to make a smart and thoughtful choice about the words you want to use.