Archive for the 'Organizational Behavior' Category

08
May
12

The absolute trap: How the word “never” is holding you back

By Aaron Wolowiec 3 Comments
Categories: Leadership, Organizational Behavior and Innovation
Tags: , , , , , ,

Never.

It’s a simple word that packs a remarkably powerful punch. And if you regularly use this word (or some iteration thereof) throughout the normal course of your workday, you could – potentially – be sabotaging both you and your colleagues without so much as a second thought.

It’s time to stop and take notice.

In its simplest form, the word never means: at no time, not at all, absolutely not, to no extent or degree. In other words, it’s an absolute or superlative word meaning: not ever. If that weren’t already enough, the related idiom – never mind – is equally as telling (and discouraging). It means don’t bother or don’t concern yourself.

So, what’s the point?

Day in and day out, I think many of us – myself included – stand in the way of our own success, and not just personally. I mean for our members, vendors and partners, as well. We’re literally not realizing our (and their) fullest potential because of the barriers we’re so quick to put up around us. And, worldwide, this is resulting in countless missed opportunities to both create and develop superior products and services.

  • “We never allow presenters to…”
  • “We never have the money to…”
  • “We never have the support of our board to…”
  • “We never permit vendors to…”
  • “We never have the time to…”

Do any of these sound familiar? If not, I’m sure you could come up with a laundry list of your own “never” statements you’ve either used or heard within the last month.

So, what’s standing in our way? Do we just not want to commit to the effort, are we afraid of rejection, are we afraid of the unknown, are we intimidated by the key players, do we not want to expose our weaknesses, or perhaps it’s just easier to do nothing at all. Whatever the reason, enough is enough.

Call it a rule, a policy, a culture or “the way we’ve always done it.” Whatever it is, it’s a limitation. It’s a limitation preventing you, your department, your organization and your industry from achieving more. And breaking through this barrier is an important part of the innovation process.

I certainly don’t mean to imply that we should all become extreme risk takers, shamelessly buck the system at every chance we get or eliminate the word “never” from our vocabulary. That would somehow imply that the other extreme – always – is the simple answer to life’s challenges. Quite the contrary. Adopting a yes-man attitude would result in a similar trap with equally unfavorable consequences.

Rather, the goal is to find a happy medium – both at work and at home – where you’re able to develop and adhere to basic guidelines that govern work flow and processes, but that also allow for and encourage both innovation and deviance from the norm. And it starts with questioning the use of any absolute or superlative word such as “always” or “never.”

What would happen if:

  • You allowed presenters to…
  • You either shifted resources or raised the money to…
  • You gained the trust and support of the board to…
  • You encouraged your vendors to…
  • You found time to…

Wouldn’t the future be brighter?

So, my question to you is this: How often do you and your colleagues use the word “never” or other similar absolute/superlative words throughout the course of the workweek? How can you more intentionally draw awareness to these words and play devil’s advocate when they show up in conversation? What outcomes or successes have you, your team or your organization realized as a result of using the words “never” or “always” less frequently in your workplace?

02
May
12

Achieve more: The art of collaboration

By Aaron Wolowiec 1 Comment
Categories: Organizational Behavior, Innovation and Achieve More
Tags: , , , , , ,

As part of my ongoing series titled “Achieve More,” I’m profiling this month the role of collaboration in the development of dynamic, meaningful, and compelling education and networking experiences.

Interestingly enough, collaboration is defined as the act or process of collaborating, as well as the product resulting from collaboration. A few years ago, the Michigan Society of Association Executives (MSAE) introduced a new award recognizing innovative collaboration. This annual recognition continues to spotlight and reward collaboration both as a process and as product.

But that’s an aside.

I was fortunate enough in 2011 to attend ASAE’s Invitational Forum on Leadership and Management. If you’ve never been, I would highly recommend looking into it. Yes, it’s a little pricey; however, it was—perhaps—the best professional development experience of my life (and as a professional development junkie, that’s saying a lot).

In addition to good, quality information that was immediately applicable to my work, I was introduced to and worked alongside dozens of well-respected and seasoned association professionals. Even more than that, I was challenged to think about collaboration in a new and somewhat innovative way.

I’m paraphrasing here, but a few key takeaways/principles that continue to guide my work with others (and which I return to from time-to-time to refocus and refine my approaches to collaboration, particularly in situations involving strongly divergent opinions):

  • When a problem exists (in this case, any challenge your association could and would face during the normal course of business), my solution and your solution are fundamentally different because our views/perspectives on what should be done are based on our own unique skills, expertise, beliefs and values. And this is perfectly okay (and, in fact, to be expected).
  • Simply selecting one solution over the other or creating a compromise somewhere between our two solutions would result in a fundamentally deficient decision or product. Likewise, when one person “wins” and the other “loses,” friction, hostility and demoralization could affect not only our relationship, but our future collaborative work.
  • Instead, a third option should be devised that honors the best parts of my solution and the best parts of your solution, builds upon our respective strengths, and results in a third, more robust solution that elevates the skills, expertise, beliefs and values we each bring to the table.

In my experience, organizations often excel or have strong expertise in a particular functional area. Many resources are funneled into this department to ensure success and, ultimately, to create value and best serve the membership. Naturally, these projects gain the attention of top leadership, are allotted disproportionately more time on the board agenda, and appear first in both the monthly newsletter and the year-end report.

Meanwhile, the remaining departments suffer from inexperienced/undertrained staff members, as well as a lack of resources, poorly defined goals/objectives, board/leadership apathy, and an overall lack of time, attention and focus. Intentional or not, these dynamics have a tremendous impact on staff morale, motivation and productivity.

Unfortunately, the answer isn’t as simple as striving for perfection (sorry Type As). If it were easy for every organization to be the best at everything they do, wouldn’t we just strive for perfection each and every day (and be increasingly more disappointed when every association began to look more and more alike or the occasional human error reared its ugly head)?

Therefore, in my opinion, we have at least two options:

  1. Strive to be more balanced. Aim for excellence in the functional areas our organizations excel at, but be more mindful of and fair to the other departments and staff, too.
  2. Be more deliberate about collaboration. Be honest about the functional areas that could use a bit more attention and resources – and deploy them accordingly.

Here, resources include staff (be it full-time, part-time or the often under-utilized intern), supplies, training, recognition and support. Additionally, collaboration is key. Collaborate with a trusted partner (such as a colleague or a consultant) and you’ll undoubtedly infuse new ideas, new energy and a renewed spirit into your department and, subsequently, your organization.

In addition to keeping projects on time, on message and under budget, I think you’d also be surprised by the impact collaboration can have on strategic thinking and long-term outcomes. In terms of professional development and creating dynamic member experiences, it could be the difference between planning the same conference year after year and developing a compelling experience – delivered in a unique and interactive way – that inspires learning, engagement and community.

So, my question to you is this: Do you identify with this model of collaboration? In what ways does your organization encourage collaboration both internally and externally? What outcomes – otherwise unachievable – has your organization realized as a result of collaboration?

07
Feb
12

There’s no such thing as constructive criticism – or is there?

By Aaron Wolowiec 6 Comments
Categories: Best Practices, Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Tags: , ,

I had the distinct pleasure last week of attending the Louisiana Society of Association Executives annual convention in New Orleans at the historic Hotel Monteleone. During the opening general session on Thursday morning, speaker Gary Golden shared a number of stories about leadership. One had to do with training killer whales, another about coaching a baseball team and a third about raising a daughter.

In each instance, Gary built upon his theory that performance and gratification are inextricably linked to one another (even though they happen to be two different sides of the same coin). Here, performance is defined as the execution or accomplishment of work and gratification is defined as a state of pleasure or satisfaction. (And, generally, when you’re seeking gratification, there are easier ways to obtain it than performing work.)

As the session progressed, I posted a couple of key takeaways to Facebook and Twitter for future reflection. One such post – There’s no such thing as constructive criticism. #LSAE12 – garnered 19 comments within a matter of minutes, as well as a spin-off discussion yielding 19 more. Several comments from the original post follow:

  • Really? What is an alternative, positive reinforcement?
  • Interesting. How do we point out areas for improvement, ideas to increase performance, etc.? I do agree that the term constructive criticism is not one of my favorites though.
  • The key is not making it a criticism of the *person* but rather pointing out the main goals of the project and how the person can achieve those goals. I am not saying berating people for mistakes is the way to go, but let’s not swing too far in the opposite direction. I find that too many people are so afraid of *any* criticism that they often don’t provide feedback people need to improve. That’s why “Everybody Gets a Ribbon” hurts more than it helps.
  • I always try and lead with a positive. I just caution people not to overemphasize the positive, because it can backfire. Sometimes, when you over praise and don’t emphasize critical areas for improvement, people won’t work so hard to perfect the imperfections. Really, what it comes down to is different personality styles respond to criticism differently.
  • That is an absurd statement. Everyone learns and is motivated in different ways. For some, positive reinforcement is the way to go…personally being praised all the time makes me feel like I am being pandered to. Many people respond to different types of stimulus…such as constructive criticism. I find this to be the case in the workplace, while coaching and in life. The key for an effective manager is figuring out what motivates each employee and utilizing that to help them grow and learn.

Boiled down, these comments argue that:

  1. Although the term “constructive criticism” may be cliché (and somewhat undesirable), the concept is a necessary evil to encourage performance improvement.
  2. Emphasis should always remain on the task or the project, rather than on the individual.
  3. People should be treated disparately in the workplace as everyone responds differently to stimuli such as praise and criticism.

Nevertheless, I believe Gary would stick to his guns and say there are several key steps to getting the most from your employees.

  1. Hire effectively.
  2. Assuming you’ve hired effectively, you have surrounded yourself with competent and talented staff that have the best interests in mind for you and your members/clients. Assign projects based upon skills and expertise.
  3. Each time a project or task is completed (the routine is important), first point out what was done well. And the key here is to do it genuinely. Then offer insights, suggestions and recommendations for performance improvement as the need arises (focusing less on the deficiency and more on the potential for a better future outcome – and perhaps even an improved system, rather than a one-time benefit).
  4. Finally, gratification yields performance excellence (this is true both at work and at home, incidentally). In other words, happy, satisfied, fulfilled people are more likely to produce quality work than those who are unhappy, unsatisfied and unfulfilled. (Conversely, always point out the worst in people – and productivity will plummet).

The bottom line is that criticism – the act of passing judgment; faultfinding – is not the most direct route to motivating employees. To complicate the issue further, we’re much more likely to point out when a project or task fails to meet expectations (learned behavior?) and generally miss the boat altogether when projects or tasks are completed well (by failing to take the time to acknowledge, praise or compliment).

Moreover, I think Gary would say that “constructive criticism” – loosely defined as criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions – is simply criticism cloaked by good intentions (or the pretense of good intentions). The fact of the matter is that constructive criticism is still criticism and fails to serve as the most effective human motivator.

So, my question to you is this: What do you make of the phrase: “There’s no such thing as constructive criticism”? Do you agree or disagree – and why? How do you respond to the comments posted by my friends and colleagues? How do you respond to my interpretation of Gary’s position on this matter? As an effective manager, what have you found most effective when it comes to employee morale and motivation?

31
Jan
12

The future of associations: Is the millennial generation willing to lead the way?

By Aaron Wolowiec 14 Comments
Categories: Diversity & Inclusion, Leadership, Organizational Behavior and Young Professionals
Tags: ,

It’s no secret that on Jan. 1, 2011 (just about 13 months ago to the day), the oldest members of the Baby Boomer generation celebrated their 65th birthday. Since that historic day, it’s estimated that more than 10,000 Baby Boomers have reached the age of 65 each and every day (and, believe it or not, this trend is expected to continue for 19 straight years). Staggering, right?

Undoubtedly, many of these Baby Boomers serve—or have served—the association community in top leadership positions, including that of president and CEO or executive director (not to mention a multitude of other C-suite, executive-level and director-level positions). And although not all are immediately retiring upon their 65th birthday, many have at least begun making plans for the future.

And we’re not talking about a few dozen organizations and a handful of retirements here. In 2000, it was estimated that the United States alone had more than 23,000 national associations. And that number only grows when you consider the 115,000 state, local and regional associations, as well as the 1,300 international organizations.

Enter the millennial generation (approximately 80 million strong).

Millennials want to make a difference in the world, be heard, feel like they are contributing, innovate and know they are succeeding. They live in a generation that moves at an extremely fast pace and are often left wondering why everyone in the workplace is not moving as fast as them.  By and large, millennials also work well on teams. They know how to delegate efficiently and choose the person best suited for a task based on skill, not hierarchy or seniority.

Millennials also bring to the workforce a unique proclivity for technology. They utilize social media tools daily and tend to remain connected long after the traditional workday has ended. They are more ethnically and racially diverse than older adults. They’re also less religious, less likely to have served in the military and are on track to become the most educated generation in American history.

But are they ready to lead our associations in light of this anticipated exodus from top leadership positions nationwide? (Better yet, are they willing to do so?)

Hear me out for a moment before you get crazy. (I know you want to; I had a similar conversation with a seasoned association executive and a room full of young association and supplier professionals just last week.) My question is not about the skills and expertise of the millennial generation (either now or in the future). I know they are great leaders and I know they are up to the challenge.

The question is really about interest. Is the millennial generation interested in the generalist lifestyle (or would they prefer to be experts in a particular field)? Are their feelings about hierarchy, governance and authority in competition with the present ideologies that form the backbone of our associations? Are they willing to fight the good fight and make the necessary changes to keep our organizations nimble, competitive and solvent?

Consider, for a moment, the unofficial (but widely offered) advice given to each new CAE candidate studying to sit for the exam: Plan to answer each question as a seasoned chief staff executive (presumably, Caucasian) from a national professional society. This, alone, implies that our leaders and, in turn, our organizations are to some extent predictable, conventional and unimaginative. Who’s to say the millennial generation is interested in investing their time and energy into changing this paradigm?

Certainly, some are eager to meet this challenge head-on (as was evidenced by my conversation last week); however, a majority of my colleagues seemed undecided. Perhaps the entrepreneurial spirit implicit in this generation is just too enticing. Most assuredly, opportunities abound. My peers are—by their own admission—interested in establishing association management firms of their own, serving as industry consultants and hitting the speaker circuit.

So, my question to you is this (and it’s an important one this week): What are you doing to attract young professionals to leadership positions within your organization? Is your organization committed to breaking the proverbial mold (especially as it relates to long-standing organizational behavior) and celebrating diversity (including diversity of staff, board and member composition, as well as diversity of skills, values and opinions)? What else are you doing to ensure the millennial generation will want to lead your organization long after your Baby Boomer executives have retired?

23
Jan
12

The secret to recruiting and retaining members? Relationships.

By Aaron Wolowiec 2 Comments
Categories: Leadership, Membership and Organizational Behavior
Tags: ,

Next week I’ll be speaking with association and supplier leaders in Louisiana about the power of relationships. My goal is to illuminate the significant shifts in business today from that of previous decades. We’ll spend considerable time identifying the power of relationships in both building business clientele and in maintaining satisfied customers.

Out with the transactional business model.

Business, in many cases, used to be about quantity over quality. Specifically, the “transactional business model” is nothing more than the act of obtaining and paying for an item or service. It shows little or no regard for the people participating in the transaction and certainly doesn’t consider future outcomes such as referrals, friendship or repeat business.

Think: furniture store salesman the minute you walk through the front door (I know, I shudder too). By and large, this person has little concern for you as an individual and is much more interested in how much he or she can get you to spend before you walk out the door. And, rightfully so. With little time to actually develop a relationship with you, the pressure of a commission-based salary and limited next best alternatives for you and your family, it’s a learned approach (a matter of circumstance, if you will).

In with the relational business model.

But, with more choice—and you have to agree that associations today are a dime a dozen—comes a need to stand out from the crowd. Enter: relational business model. This model emphasizes more the mutual connections or feelings that exist between two parties as a basis or prerequisite for conducting business. In other words, the relationships we build with our members, vendors and clients (regardless of whether or not an actual transaction takes place on any given day) all support future business transactions.

Research reveals that relational customers are interested in doing business with someone they are familiar with and have learned to trust; will try to establish a long-term relationship with an organization after a positive experience; are loyal to organizations with whom a relationship has been established; and base their membership decisions on past experiences, customer service and quality.

Take a simple scan of the environment today (as compared to even a few years ago), and it’s clear that our culture (and business, in general) is mobile-obsessed. We continue to become more technologically advanced and—if it’s possible—we move at an even faster pace. Unfortunately, this has resulted in people becoming more disconnected relationally.

The absence of these relational skills not only erodes customer loyalty, but negatively impacts employee morale and productivity, as well as the association’s bottom line. And yet the ominous threat of limited association resources—primarily, staff time—inhibits us from taking the necessary time to develop these important relationships with our constituents.

And not just from the C-suite. From every layer within the organization: receptionist to staff specialist, coordinator to manager, director to vice president. Everyone—regardless of title—should be permitted and encouraged to develop meaningful relationships with those people who they regularly engage with during their ordinary course of business and are most in a position to impact the organization.

Doing so creates an environment in which members, vendors and clients transform (literally before your eyes) from supporters to advocates. And advocates are a powerful resource; not only do they support your cause, but they speak or write in support of your cause, too. Additionally, they say good things about you, your staff and your organization, and they initiate connections on your behalf. Recruiting and retaining: check.

So, my question to you is this: How well does your organization embody the relational business model? What’s stopping you from allowing more employees the opportunity to connect in meaningful ways with your members, vendors and clients? In what other ways do you and your staff develop relationships with your key constituents?

meet aaron

Meetings innovator & professional development trailblazer. Founder & president of Event Garde LLC. Passionate about The Food Network, hot yoga, blogging, old homes & unclehood.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 579 other followers

Twitter Updates

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 579 other followers