Twelve Attributes of a Truly Great Place to Work

Here is a great article from the Harvard Business Review about the attributes of a great workplace.  What do you think about these attributes?  Are there any that you would change, add or delete?  

I was particularly intrigued by the napping suggestion.  Read his post on that before you judge it.  Giggling at the image of an executive with a blankie and a teddy bear is allowed, though.  :-)

http://blogs.hbr.org/schwartz/2011/09/the-twelve-attributes-of-a-tru.html

Leadership = Commitment

“Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: That the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way.”

~~William Hutchinson Murray

The following is a summary of “Commitment” by Ashlee M.  Kerkhoff and Daniel T. Ostick, a chapter in Leadership for a Better World.  The full citation is below.

As you know if you’ve been reading this entire series, the Social Change Model (SCM) of leadership development is all about change.  Commitment, the final “C” in the model, is one of the determining factors in leadership and is necessary to facilitate change. Because leadership is not a one-off, momentary thing but is accomplished on a daily basis, it requires persistence.  There are many factors working against change, no matter what setting it’s accomplished in. The strength of your commitment is usually the deciding factor between persisting (and accomplishing change) or giving up.

Supportive Environment

Commitment is closely related to passion, motivation and the self-efficacy.  External motivators like money certainly exist, but their effects are usually short-lived.  Almost all sustainable motivation is intrinsic.  Although it can’t be provided to you, motivation (and commitment) can be fostered by a supportive environment.  Have you ever been very committed to something but became worn down by the environment in which you had to enact that commitment?  If so, you probably left and found a better place to engage with the subject of your commitment (or you plan to at the first opportunity).  Much talent is lost in this way.  It is crucial, therefore, that leaders provide a supportive environment that feeds their team members’ commitment.  There are many ways to accomplish this, but recognition for good work is one.

Avoiding Burnout

Even the most committed individual or group in the most supportive environment can burn out.  Stephen Covey talked about “sharpening the saw” (Covey, 2004) and he was right.  If you don’t take time for self-care and renewal, you will eventually find yourself without the energy and commitment to go on.  Busy people often forego this, but it’s a short term gain in progress on the “to do” list at a much larger, long-term loss in fuel for commitment.  You may go an extra mile or two on those fumes in your tank, but in the end, you’ll be stranded on the interstate…at night…with no cell phone. 

Connection to the Other Cs

If you review the other factors (or “Cs”) in this model, it’s easy to see how Commitment relates to them.  Can you persevere through Controversy with Civility, or find Common Purpose, or have Congruence between your values and actions without Commitment? It’s highly unlikely.  Commitment is, therefore, an integral part of the SCM.

References

Covey, S.R. (2004).  The seven habits of highly effective people:  Powerful lessons in personal change.  New York City: Simon & Schuster.

Kerkhhoff, A. M. & Ostick, D. T.  (2009). Commitment.  In Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 365-391). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Image source: http://www.leadershipstudy.net/ir-theoretical-model.html

)

Leadership = Congruence

The following is a summary of “Congruence” by Tricia R. Shalka, a chapter in Leadership for a Better World.  The full citation is below.

The sixth value, and the second individual value, in the Social Change Model  (SCM) of leadership development is Congruence.  Congruence is defined behaving in a way in which your values and your actions match.  It has also been called authenticity and integrity and at the core of all these words is honesty. 

A life lived in Congruence has a certain look to it, and it isn’t always easy to do.  Acting in congruence means you give time and energy to the things you say are important.  If you say your family is most important but you choose to work 80 hour weeks and, via technology, are never truly with your family 100%, is that congruent with saying your family is most important?  Probably not.

Not having congruence leaves you with two choices:  You either need to change your actions to bring them in line with your espoused values, or you need to be more honest with yourself and others about what your values really are.  Honesty is, therefore, the core of congruence.  Without honesty with yourself, you can’t be truly honest with others, nor can you fault them for being less than honest with you.

This congruence between values and actions applies not just to what you do, but how you do it.  One of the most well-known examples of this is Gandhi.  It was important to him that India obtain independence from Great Britain but the way that independence was gained – non-violently – was as important to him.  He knew that his values must be applied not only to the ends they attained but the means they used to do it.

While most of us are not faced with dire situations like Gandhi, it’s easy to see that living in congruence takes another C, and that’s courage.  If you’ve ever said to someone, “I don’t really think that joke is funny” or “Is this really fair?” or otherwise stood up when others were sitting down on an issue, you know that it isn’t easy to live your values.  It can make you unpopular and it can be awkward but it is necessary to take congruent positions in order to facilitate change.  Leadership, as we’ve discussed in this blog, is about change and change cannot happen without occasionally changing something that others may want left alone. 

One of the major challenges to congruence is how you balance your values with those of others.  You may believe you are taking a principled stand on something that someone else opposes equally as strongly, and you both may be congruent with your values.    That’s when the espoused values of the group should be invoked in dealing with conflicts – including Controversy with Civility --  so that a solution can be devised that corresponds with the group’s values. 

Congruence is strongly connected to the other “Cs” in the SCM.  Congruence requires courage and Consciousness of Self to enact regularly, but it inspires the respect of others and is fundamental to leadership of all kinds.

Reference

Shalka, T. R.  (2009).  Congruence.  In Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 335 – 364)). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Image source: http://www.leadershipstudy.net/ir-theoretical-model.html)

Leadership = Consciousness of Self

The following is a summary of “Consciousness  of Self” by Justin Fincher, a chapter in Leadership for a Better World.  The full citation is below.

The next chapter in our exploration of the Social Change Model (SCM) of leadership development is Consciousness of Self.  The previous aspects I’ve summarized have all been “group values,” or aspects of leadership that pertain to the group in which the leadership happens.  The next three values will all be “individual values,” or aspects of the leader as an individual that impact her or his effectiveness. 

As conceived in the SCM, Consciousness of Self can be equated with self-awareness.   It refers to how aware you are of your “personality traits, values and strengths” as well as your ability to observe your “action[s], feelings and beliefs” (Fincher, 2009).  Without this self-knowledge, you cannot have an (accurate, useful) idea of your strengths and weaknesses, which in turn probably means you can’t intentionally improve on your weaknesses, hire others in your organization who can make up for your weakness, play to your or others’ strengths, and so on.  If you are not very self-aware, chances are you are also not very culturally competent, as a sense of your own culture and history is important in understanding cultural differences and clashes.  For example, if you are a typical American, you are future oriented but if you work with a key team member who is from a culture where the past is venerated, you may have some clashes and not work as effectively as you could if you understood yourself a little better.  Self-awareness is a critical leadership skill.

Consciousness of Self is more important the further up the hierarchical ladder you climb.   There is a large body of research that supports what Dr. Robert Sutton (2010) calls – and please excuse the term --  “asshole poisoning.”  This extensive research has found that even a small amount of power leads most people to care less about what others think, think the rules don’t apply to them, pursue their own wishes without regard to others, and so on.  Basically, when many (most?) people obtain any amount of power, the controls that make them behave and play nice begin to fall away.  Thankfully, not everyone in power gets poisoned (and those who don’t apparently lead more effective organizations) but because of the prevalence of this phenomenon, understanding the importance of Consciousness of Self is particularly important.

So how do you increase your Consciousness of Self?  Fincher (2009) notes three ways: taking time to practice reflection, being open to feedback from others, and learning about yourself through various types of assessments.

Reflection simply means cultivating the habit of looking back on an experience – whether it’s the day, the month, a particular interaction, and so on – noting what happened and what you learned from it.  Journaling is a time-tested method of doing this and technology now makes this easier, with voice memo aps on smart phones.  Other methods include discussion with a trusted other, as many people do with a spouse or mentor.  Retreats, in which you go away from your daily life (and, gasp, your gadgets) for a day or longer to think and reflect, are also powerful reflective tools.

Seeking feedback from others is helpful as well.  To do this, you must do more than just ask.  You must build a reputation for being able to handle compliments gracefully, by saying, “thank you” instead of discounting them, and receiving negative feedback non-defensively.  You must also ask for specifics, when appropriate.   This does not mean you have to believe every piece of negative feedback (or positive feedback, for that matter) given to you.  Feedback can occasionally be more about the other person than you, so it’s important to listen, think about it, ask others about it and reject it if the consensus is that it isn’t accurate.

Using existing assessments for self-knowledge can be helpful as well and there are a wide variety, such as StrengthsQuest and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Increased Consciousness of Self often leads to greater mindfulness, or awareness in the moment of the actions and mental states of you and others.  Such mindfulness helps you, as a leader, see what’s really going on in a given interaction and react to it less.  It slows that knee from jerking and allows more intentional, thoughtful responses.

Consciousness of Self is critical for leadership because it’s almost impossible to understand others without some knowledge of yourself.  An on-going, ever-developing awareness of yourself and others is where leadership begins.

Questions:

I have found that mindful, curious travel has dramatically influenced my self-awareness.  What other experiences have you had that made you more self-aware?

What tools have you used (or do you use now) to reflect on your life and work? 

What tips have you learned to decrease defensiveness when faced with negative feedback from others?

References:

Fincher, J.  (2009).  Consciousness of self.  In Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 299 - 334). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sutton, R. (2010).  It isn’t just a myth, power turns people into assholes.  Work Matters.  Retrieved from http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/01/it_isnt_just_a_.html

Image source: http://www.leadershipstudy.net/ir-theoretical-model.html)

Leadership = Controversy with Civility

The following is a summary of “Controversy with Civility” by Cecilio Alvarez, a chapter in Leadership for a Better World.  The full citation is below.

The next part of our introduction to the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (SCM) is Controversy with Civility.  This aspect of the SCM is not about conflict management, per se, but how to develop a culture of civility within any group you are working with.  Mishandled conflict has the ability to destroy a group’s effectiveness.  The opposite situation, in which all members think so much alike that harmony always rules, is not desirable either, because it means that the diversity of perspectives and ideas that increase a group’s effectiveness is not present.  Disagreement is a normal, even healthy, part of the group process and competent leaders know how to create a culture that keeps it within the bounds of civility.

The term “controversy” is used instead of conflict for an important reason.  Conflict has opposing sides, and the emphasis is usually on winning.  Controversy, on the other hand, is usually more focused on ideas rather than the people involved, and characterized by dialog and resolution.  Controversy can invite others into the discussion; conflict likely causes them to remember an appointment they forgot. 

According to Alvarez (2009), most groups take one of three approaches with regard to controversy:  They “maintain civility by avoiding controversy,” they “embrace controversy, but without civility,”  or they “promote controversy with civility” (pp. 271-272). The first approach is the “peace at any cost” dynamic where there is surface pleasantness, but the smiles are occasionally pasted on over gritted teeth and bitten tongues and conflicts are suppressed or avoided like grim death.  The second approach is the opposite, the “slash and burn” method of disagreement, if you will.  It’s framing every disagreement in terms of winners and losers, with few to no rules of engagement. It’s equally exhausting and destructive as the first approach.    The third way is obviously the most positive, as everyone gets to share their thoughts – no gritted teeth here – but does so in a respectful way that involves listening and asking questions as much as talking. 

An effectively leader actively creates a culture in which everyone brings ideas to the table and they are given the attention they deserve.  (That’s not to say that all ideas or perspectives are weighted equally.  The rules of evidence still apply.)  So how do you create a culture within a group that encourages Controversy with Civility?

Two keys are building trust and creating dialog, not debates.  Kouzes and Posner (as cited in Alvarez, 2009), provide the following guidance on fostering trust:

1.       Use the word we.  When discussing the group’s goals and accomplishments, remember that no one person does the group’s work alone.  Be clear that the ideas and the credit for success belong to the whole group rather than a single person.

2.       Encourage interactions.  When people are isolated from each other, it is difficult to build trust.  Schedule regular meetings that include opportunities for people to interact, not just hear announcements.

3.       Create a climate of predictability.  In order to build trust, group members need to do what they say they will do.  Follow through on commitments and keep promises.   Reward honesty even when it brings bad news.

4.       Involve everyone in planning and problem solving.  Avoid making decisions behind closed doors.

5.       Trust others.  When members risk opening up to each other, sharing what they value and what they hope for, they demonstrate willingness to trust each other.   (p. 278)

The final thing to keep in mind when creating this culture is to create dialogs, not debates.  Fostering Controversy with Civility means shaping the expectations of the group so that disagreements aren’t about people taking sides, personal attacks and winning.  It’s about seeking understanding and creating the best solution for the group, based in evidence where possible.  Controversy with Civility may feel awkward, but, when it’s done right, it’s a sign of a healthy, trusting, thinking group that will be stronger for the effort.

Full citation:

Alvarez, C.  (2009).  Controversy with civility.  In Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 237 – 262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leadership = Common Purpose

As we continue our exploration of the Social Change Model (SCM) of leadership development, we move to the next group value: Common Purpose.   You have probably worked with at least one or two groups and, if so, you know that any functional group or team must have a shared vision, a common aim, and some mutual values that will determine its future, its goals, and how the members of the group treat each other and do their work.   These three factors combine to form the groups’ common purpose (Teh, 2009).

Goals and Aims

The aims or goals of a group answer the question, “What are we here to do?” and often distinguish them from similar groups.  For example, if you are a member of a disc golf team, what are its goals?  To compete hard and win?  To create teamwork and build players’ skills?  To provide entertainment and fun for team members?  (Paraphrased from Teh, 2009, p. 242).  Failure to have shared goals will prevent goal attainment and, in the above example, create much frustration among team members.  Any team, therefore, must be explicit about their goals.  (Note to anarchists:  You are the only ones with a “get out of goals free” card.  Everyone else, agree on clear ones, please.) 

Values

As noted in Teh (2009), having a common set of values will determine how the team gets the work done and how they treat team members and others in the process.  Common values help socialize new members and can act as a filter, winnowing out potential team members whose personal values are not a good fit.  So for our disc golf team noted above, if the goal is winning the most games, is it by “any means necessary”?  Or will it be accomplished by good sportsmanship and fairness?  Will all players get to play or only those who are the best at a given position?  Team members who have values different from the team’s shared values will likely not be effective.

Vision

 The purpose of a vision is to inspire group members and motivate them to success, however that’s measured in a given context  (Teh, 2009).  Vision fits with goals and values by providing a long-term end. Most, if not all, of the most successful organizations have clearly articulated vision statements. 

What’s Google’s?  “To develop a perfect search engine.”  Starbucks?  “To inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.”  In the team noted above, is its vision winning the national disc golf championship?  Or is it to create a tight-knit group of long-term friends who still play together in 20 years?  Or to raise disc golf awareness in the team’s local area?   Knowing which vision you’re working toward over the long term will help set priorities and inspire performance. 

When a group forms its Common Purpose – its vision, mission and values – members should generally all have a voice in the end product (Teh, 2009).  While charismatic leaders may be able to use their personal vision to recruit group members and determine goals and values, most groups are more effective if the purpose is determined by consensus or similar methods.  This increases trust and engagement with the group purpose from team members. 

Common Purpose is the second group factor in the SCM.  It is critically important to the success of the group and to its individual members.  Without common goals, vision and values, little of value can be accomplished.   

Teh, A.  (2009).  Common purpose.  In Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 237 – 262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Image source: http://www.leadershipstudy.net/ir-theoretical-model.html)

Leadership = Collaboration

Collaboration is the next part of the Social Change Leadership Development Model or SCM.  (For an overview of the model (and an explanation of what is meant by “social change”), please see the previous posts.)  To understand collaboration, it’s helpful to understand its opposite, competition.  Competition can have positive outcomes.  The lessons one can learn from participating in sports, for example, would be much different without it.  Research reveals that individuals, however, learn more if they collaborate than if they compete, because the former allows them to concentrate on the subject rather than having to split their focus between content and the competition.  In terms of motivation:

Competition usually does not motivate people to do the best that they can; it only motivates them to do better than the others.  It actually limits how high one’s goals are set.  It encourages a focus on beating others, rather than focusing on doing well.  Winning…may produce short-term gains, [but] a continued focus on beating others tends to erode one’s intrinsic or internal motivation to strive toward excellence on a task (Kohn, 1986, as cited in Komives, Wagner and Associates, 2009, p. 200).

The goal of collaboration is synergy, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Covey, 1989).  But how does this work? How is that synergy attained?  Through a variety of personal competencies, including doing personal work, building trust and communicating effectively.

Personal Work

Effective collaboration starts with you. “Oh no!” I hear you pragmatists saying.  “Here comes the touchy feely navel gazing!”  No navel gazing is required (unless you’re into that -- I don’t judge) but even you hardcore realists must admit that it is difficult to understand others if you don’t know what makes you tick.  So, as Mark McGrath recently advised Gary Busey on Celebrity Apprentice, “Look inward…Take a big swim in Lake You and see what you find.”  In terms of the collaboration that means increasing your awareness of your own perspectives, beliefs, styles and needs. 

Building Trust

I personally believe that the best way to have trust in a group is for all its members to…well, be trustworthy.  Another way to facilitate trust is for team members get to know each other a bit before beginning work together, in order to discover common interests, similar (and different) styles, perspectives and goals.  This process may look different across groups:  Some may go to lunch together, some may do more formal, structured team-building activities and some may just talk for several minutes in their first group meeting.  Trust is also built when power struggles are avoided through shared ownership and control, successes are celebrated and through powerful shared experiences, such as ropes course participation.  For any over-sharers who may be reading, TMI is not a trust-building activity.

Effective Communication

As you remember from your undergraduate speech communication course, communication has two components: receiving and sending.  Most of us probably think of ourselves as good listeners but the research is startling:  “People only grasp about 50 percent of what they hear, even when they believe they are listening attentively” (Lucas, 2004, as cited in Komives, Wagner and Associates, 2009, p. 218). A more thorough summary of effective listening of this topic will have to wait for a later time, but listening can be improved by attending to content and emotion, paraphrasing and asking questions about what you’re hearing to check your understanding, and concentrating fully and patiently on what the other person is saying, without concurrently formulating your response or assuming you know what the speaker is going to say.

In terms of trust-building, the “sending” part of communication can be enhanced by using observations instead of evaluations – “You’ve been late three times this week” as opposed to “You’re never on time!” – and using requests instead of demands (Rosenberg, 1999 as cited in Komives, Wagner and Associates, 2009).

In summary, collaboration is a core value of this leadership model that can be built and strengthened in a variety of ways, starting with an individual’s self-knowledge and creating trust and effective communication.  Positive collaboration experiences feed the other “Cs” – Commitment, Congruence, and so on – as those “Cs” feed collaboration.

References

Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. & Associates (2009). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.