Morag Barrett's Blog

We’ve all worked with people that we dislike or find irritating and frustrating to be with. The person whose ego is so large the office has to install double doors to get their head through, the colleague who just can’t stop talking; about anything but work, the colleague who carries the weight of the world on their shoulders and is wallowing in the pain and seeks to share their complaints with any and all.

In Good Boss, Bad Boss and the No Asshole Rule, Robert Sutton says “there are always other people, be they relatives, neighbors or coworkers who we are at risk of tangling with”. One approach to managing this situation might be to avoid these people at all costs, however in the working environment this will likely prove difficult if not impossible. What if this person is your boss, your peer, a coworker on a project. You are going to be spending a considerable amount of your time in meetings with them, your success is dependant on their contribution, input and interwoven with their own success.

Working with people who drive you nuts is exhausting, and can, unfortunately, impact your attitude and performance. Emotions are infectious, think of them as a virus, that can infect a room, a team or an organization. You’ve no doubt heard the phrase ‘cut the atmosphere with a knife’, where you have walked into a room, and without talking to anyone just known that something was up? This is an example of how our emotional intelligence picks up on these clues and our individual self-awareness to even notice. How we respond in the moment and the impact we have on others is where self-management and the social competencies of emotional intelligence come into play.

Working with colleagues who drain your enthusiasm for work, that cause you to hesitate before reaching out, impact not just your own success but ultimately slows down the information flow, decision-making and success of the organization as a whole. Performance suffers, employee engagement falls (who wants to work in a toxic work environment?) and ultimately we start to see employees exiting the organization, and it is usually your high performers who choose to leave the company first.

Cultivate. The Power of Winning Relationships provides the solution.  Cultivate is about finding a way to work effectively with the people you like and the people you dislike, helping you to frame the relationship in a way that allows you to take ownership and control, rather than being a victim and reacting to a trigger that results in less than optimal performance.

To learn more, order your copy of Cultivate.The Power of Winning Relationships today!

Very excited to announce that the Kindle version of "Cultivate. The Power of Winning Relationships" is now available and trending in the Kindle best seller lists!

Thank you to everyone who preordered the hardback copy. I look forward to reading your reviews in due course.

For those of you who entered the Cultivate giveaway thank you! More than 600 people entered to win a copy of my new book. 10 lucky winners were selected by Goodreads and your copy of the book is in the mail and on it's way to you!

Please feel free to message me if you have any questions or comments about Cultivate!

In any interaction, we are sizing each other up and asking ourselves (consciously or subconsciously) these four questions.
The answers determine whether you, or the request you are making of me, is worth my time, interest, trust, and effort. Essentially, they determine whether or not we will have an Ally relationship.
Those four questions are:
1. Can I count on you?

. . . to volunteer, to step up, to be accountable for the results you say you will deliver? This is the reactive perspective. When I ask you to do something will you do it (or at least give honest feedback)?
2. Can I depend on you?

. . . to follow through, and deliver on what you have promised on time and with the appropriate level of quality? This is the proactive perspective. If you see a need, do you step up and handle it without being asked?
3. Do I care about you?

. . . about your intent, feelings, and emotions? Am I am able to empathize, and do we connect at a personal level?
4. Do I trust you?

. . . enough to let my guard down and reveal more of the real me?
The first two questions are transactional. Do what you say you’ll do, and you will meet expectations.
The second two questions are emotional at their root and are about interpersonal dynamics.
Without a positive answer to the third question and more importantly the fourth, you will struggle to achieve an Ally relationship with that person.
Getting to yes with the last two questions is more challenging than simply doing what you said you would do. However, this is what differentiates an acquaintance from a friend, a coworker from a trusted partner, a Supporter—or Rival—to an Ally.
(If all this sounds like Greek – pick up my book! I’ll walk you though this, and a lot more.)

 

For me personally, and my Allies, finding the courage to open up was a huge breakthrough.
What a relief to no longer pretend to be invincible and all-knowing!
Vulnerability is about asking for help when we need it. Vulnerability is about removing the mask with those you trust. Courage is accepting help when it is offered and offering insight to others.
Richard was a young manager who quickly realized that giving tough feedback was even more important than just giving praise. He was in a leadership meeting with one hundred of his coworkers and his new manager.
The room was dark, and he noticed his boss at the back, falling asleep. Richard asked around and many of his colleagues commented, “Yes he has been doing that for years.” He decided to talk to him later that day… At first his manager denied it, but then he acknowledged the embarrassment of falling asleep. A few weeks later, the manager told Richard he’d made an appointment with a doctor and had been diagnosed with sleep apnea.
As Richard reflected on the experience, he was glad he had taken the courageous step to be an Ally to his boss. Other people had noticed and even ridiculed him for dropping off, but they had never brought it to the man’s attention, which was holding him back. Constructive, compassionate feedback is important. Being an Ally means having the courage to raise the difficult topics.
Courage moves us beyond a merely transactional relationship to one that can be transformational, whether that transformation impacts our work-life and/or our home-life.

 

Many organizations focus huge blocks of time trying to strengthen employee engagement.
One of the earliest proponents of the employee engagement concept was the Gallup Organization. Gallup has studied the indicators of work satisfaction for more than ninety years. The company’s latest research included more than 1.4 million employees in 192 organizations, 49 industries and 34 countries.
The objective was to identify what effective managers did to create a great place to work. (The four critical dimensions that demonstrated a “successful” organization were employee retention, customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability.)
The research identified twelve questions used to measure the health of a workplace. Among these, four are integral to the Relationship Ecosystem ™:
1.       “My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.”

2.       “There is someone at work who encourages my development.”

3.       “In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.”

4.       “I have a best friend at work.”
When the “Gallup 12” survey was introduced, it was this last question that created vocal pushback:
“Do I have a best friend at work?”
Colleagues readily acknowledged “friends” at work, but the concept of a “best friend” was challenging. This was a business after all; there wasn’t time for socializing and creating a “best friend”!
I must admit, I had a similar reaction. I was just transitioning from a fourteen-year career in a finance environment, where the concept of a best friend at work would have been considered bizarre. This was an organization based on data, numbers, and logic; there was no place for emotions or the concept of friendship.
Thankfully, over time, I have come to realize that you don’t create a successful, sustainable, and scalable organization unless you can engage the people within the organization to work together!
The “best friend at work” from the Gallup survey correlates with the concept of Ally relationships. In subsequent work, Gallup considered removing the word best from the questionnaire, but they found it was no longer a reliable predictor for successful teams.
Gallup [1] also observed that employees who report having a best friend at work were


43 percent more likely to report having received praise or recognition for their work in the last seven days;


37 percent more likely to report that someone at work encourages their development;


35 percent more likely to report coworker commitment to quality;


28 percent more likely to report that, in the last six months, someone at work has talked to them about their progress; and


27 percent more likely to report that the mission of their company makes them feel their job is important.


You can have the best idea, the most sparkly product, or the most innovative widget, but if you cannot get employees aligned and motivated to produce that product or deliver the service, then your long-term success and sustainability is in jeopardy!


[1] “The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. 2012 Q12™ meta-analysis, Gallup Organization, February 2013.

 

You may have seen the recent announcements that Zappos is moving to a Holacracy.  If you’re like me, your first reaction may have been holo-what?!
I went to Wikipedia to find the following definition:
Holacracy is a social technology or system of organizational governance in which authority and decision-making are distributed throughout a fractal holarchy of self-organizing teams rather than being vested at the top of a hierarchy.
Say what?
A holacracy is a company without titles, or managers, which operates with self-governing teams that determine what they need to do, and how this will be done.  One that’s organized around the work that needs to be done, not around the people who do it. Pretty neat!
Why now?
The introduction of a holacracy is designed to prevent bureaucracy from getting in the way of Zappos ongoing growth. As part of Amazon since 2009, they are looking to maintain their startup culture.
The vast majority of my clients operate a traditional hierarchy. If I were to ask “Why do we do it this way?” my guess is most would reply with a puzzled look and say, “Because we’ve always done it this way.”  And in many ways this is true.  The command and control approach is a relic from the industrial revolution.
The traditional hierarchy made sense when factories were coming to the fore.  Workers were generally uneducated and new to the ways of mass-production. The manager’s role was to keep order, enforce the rules, and keep the workforce compliant and working – hard.
In the past few decades we’ve experienced a major shift in our economic structure. A shift that hasn’t been reflected in how work gets done.
What if the reasons behind low employee engagement and productivity are a reflection of the command and control approach we are asked to work within? If we want to treat our employees and colleagues as adults, to allow them to do their best work, to be the best they can be, maybe it’s time for us to consider a 21st century solution.
At the risk of oversimplifying the situation, let’s look at elements which are consistently cited as evidence of a holacracy.
No Titles
It sounds so easy, abolish job titles and “ta-da” you’re a holacracy.  It’s not that simple. You have to change mindsets and behaviors while clarifying new expectations. Agreement about who is doing what must be crystal clear. Why? Otherwise you run the risk of the non-glamorous work being overlooked. Handoffs will become inefficient and business decisions will stall.
Tony is the CEO of Zappos, at least he was until the titles were abolished. However simply introducing Tony as [Insert new descriptor] won’t change how others behave when he is in the room. Changing to a more egalitarian approach means consistently modeling the new behaviors, the ‘how business gets done here.’
This change doesn’t happen overnight.
No Managers
Instead of having managers and subordinates, Zappos will be made up of 400 ‘circles,’ teams of people who work together. One of the huge benefits I see from this approach is organic growth of a coaching culture.
In a holacracy, coaching, feedback, and learning become part of everyone’s job. This fosters a culture of teamwork and continuous improvement – as both a necessity and a new reality.
Manager-less doesn’t mean Leader-less
While the goal of holacracy is empowerment and personal accountability, it doesn’t mean anarchy.  There will still be leaders, who inform and set direction. Each circle creates and adheres to rules of engagement, where quality of work is monitored.  In a holacracy the group determines how to distribute tasks and how to hold each other accountable. As a result, micro-management is removed, senior leaders are no longer “in-the-weeds” – unless they choose to be.
Who does this?
Job titles are not just for internal audiences, customers are accustomed to interact with your company based on titles.  “I need to call customer service – who do I call if there are no titles?” “I’m a shoe designer – Who is the shoe buyer?”
In creating a holacracy you also need to communicate with your external customers and partners. Overlook this critical element and you’ll alienate the very people you are trying to serve. Help customers understand accountability and leadership have not changed.
As I started to research this article and to read about holacracy, I admit my initial approach was “This is madness.”  I know plenty of organizations that struggle to operate with bad management, the idea of no management left me a little concerned.  However, while there may not be many examples of holocracies in practice, they do exist.
And then it dawned on me.
SkyeTeam is a holocracy.  My team and I are all capable of fulfilling any role in the business, whether it’s meeting with a client, designing a new leadership program, or facilitating an executive retreat. And we all do those  – without titles, and without fuss.
We meet regularly, discuss what is happening within our business, and we decide how the work gets done. We leverage technology so that at any moment we know what is happening with our clients.  This makes us flexible and scalable. It is one of the many things our clients say they value in our approach to creating a partnership that ensures their success.
It works. It certainly feels like “method” and not “madness” to us.
The question remains, can a company the size of Zappos become a holacracy? Only time will tell.  All I know is this, that if anyone can make this work, then Tony Hsieh and the team at Zappos can.

 

A note of caution at this point—If you’ve read many of these posts…
I’m not suggesting your goal is to convert every relationship into an Ally, nor that you be best buddies with everyone and take them home to meet your mother.
This is about finding a high road to respectful and effective workplace relationships.
If you are not achieving the results you desire, if working with others is not fun, or if candor and debate is destructive, it is essential that you take positive steps.
However, cultivating winning relationships is about quality, not quantity. Many of those we think of as “friends” on our Internet-based social networks are not Allies. Most are acquaintances.
According to a study, in 1985 the average American had three people to confide in and share important matters with. By 2006, the number had dropped to two people, with 25 percent of respondents admitting they had no confidante at all.
This point was further demonstrated in a 2012 poll by MacMillan Cancer Support of one thousand people aged eighteen to thirty-five. The poll, published in the Telegraph, indicated that while the average Facebook user had 237 friends, only 2 of these could be relied on in a tough situation, with two-thirds of respondents stating he or she had two or fewer really close friends.
One in eight (13 percent) admitted they did not have even a single person who was a good enough friend to rely on if life got very hard. Men (16 percent) were more likely than women (12 percent) to have no one to turn to.
About a quarter of people surveyed said they had only one true friend, while one in eight said they had no one at all!
If we put aside the human cost of isolation, the business impact is considerable.
Time and cost go up as the quality of relationships goes down, information sharing slows (or stops), silos are created, and decision-making is stalled.
It doesn’t matter if you’re part of a global corporate organization or a local nonprofit—if there is not a culture of trust and collaboration, results are negatively impacted.
Let’s do something positive about this, shall we?

 

 

Here’s an example of the difference between the internal point of view, (our intent), and the external point of view, (our impact).
Let’s say as part of a leadership program you have been asked to complete a questionnaire to learn more about your preferences. You indicate agreement with each of the following statements:


Most rules are simply guidelines.


I frequently do things on impulse.


People think I’m a non-conformist.


I like to be spontaneous.


Your internal dialogue may be something along the lines of “I am a fun, spontaneous individual who enjoys variety and can swiftly change focus to meet whatever new challenges come along.”
This is your intent. (You see where we’re going, don’t you?)
However, while some will appreciate this fun-loving, spontaneous approach to life, others will have a different experience. The impact of this approach results in a different label being applied to you, one that might be described as “inattentive to details, resistant to authority, ignores process, doesn’t plan ahead, is disorganized, and rarely thinks through the consequences of actions.”
Intent and impact are powerful when aligned.
Consider the dynamics of misunderstandings and conflict when determining the nature of the relationship you are experiencing and, wherever possible, give the benefit of the doubt.
Even when faced with adversarial behavior, ask yourself what the underlying intent of the other person might be.

 

A small health care company contacted us to work as an executive coach with one of its senior leaders, Stephanie.
She was a high performer in many ways: she exceeded her sales targets, she was innovative, and her approaches to building a new client base were created. She was focused, driven, almost obsessive when working on something that caught her attention.
This dedication was also apparent outside of work. Stephanie was a long distance runner who trained for hours a day, several days a week, to prepare for races across Europe. However, her husband and children were not receiving the attention they wanted or needed, and even the company leaders were concerned about the perceived lack of work life balance.
We looked at WHAT was being achieved at work and explored HOW those results were being achieved.
The goal was to balance working relationships for both short-term and long-term success.
We began with an awareness of important relationships and how Stephanie contributed to them. She had a conversation her each of her key stakeholders, both at work with her team and at home, that focused on what was important for them, how they defined success, and how they could work together to achieve it.
At home the tactics started small: Stephanie began switching off the phone for a couple of hours in the evening; planning quality time with the kids; and taking her husband on business trips when possible and planning extra time for them to spend together. At work, it was about re-establishing the rules of engagement: who was responsible for what; empowering the team to make decisions; clearly delegating projects; and assigning responsibility for achieving goals and milestones.
Over time it became apparent that things were moving in the right direction. Stephanie was less stressed at work. Her performance didn’t suffer; in fact, colleagues commented that she was less prone to snap back at her team. Collaboration improved to the extent that a solution for a business problem that had remained unsolved for some time was found.
At home, she found her running improved and the family was more involved together.
Avoiding the critical nature of the HOW conversations can result in the “we have always done it this way” mindset. Despite the allure of high performers and short-term successes, in the long term a focus on the WHAT only promotes average performance.
We allow roles and responsibilities to remain implicit; we don’t reset expectations regarding what success looks like. As a result, critical decisions can linger, allowing a product or service that’s beyond its shelf life to continue to take energy away from what is truly important.
Creating a culture of candor is what truly differentiates an average team from a high-performing team!

 

Mark was used to being the smartest guy in the room.
He was always quick to volunteer his opinion, first to speak, and kept talking, dominating the conversation. Meetings with his peers were tense, and projects were not running smoothly.
Instead of being a go-to guy, he was a go-from guy.
He was oblivious to this. He relished the “smart” image he had built up. After all, his technical knowledge brought him the promotion to head of his department. His promotion finally revealed what his team knew: he delivered results . . . alone, at the cost of relationships across the company and within his department.
Mark had known things were tense, he hadn’t realized that he was the problem. As our team shared the framework for identifying and cultivating relationships, he realized his intentions and actions were way out of sync.
Through coaching, we explored ways for Mark to adjust his behavior and approach:


asking questions vs. telling,


allowing others to talk first before offering his opinion,


spending time getting to know his critical stakeholders,


and asking them what they needed from him to help them be successful.


It was a rapid transformation. Relationships became more open and trusting.
Mark’s mid-year review evaluation was the best he had ever received. A 360 Feedback report completed during his coaching confirmed the change in approach was reaping benefits, not just for Mark but for his colleagues too.
One peer said, “He’s so much more approachable . . . he listens to others’ views . . . I feel more able to collaborate and work with him.”
Don’t wait for a crisis in your career to improve your people smarts!