The first and most important step in the decision making process is identification of the problem. I’ve never known anyone to work on solving a problem without first admitting its existence.  If you can’t see the gaps between where you are and where you need to be, you will never really innovate and change. Deep change is hell, so we have a strong, innate drive to deceive ourselves into thinking either “no problem,” or “not my problem.”

How you define the problem is critical to how you will solve it. Take care to not define the problem in terms of its symptoms. Identify the symptoms, but then challenge your team to ask “why” up to six times as you try to identify the root causes of the problem. If you don’t identify and address the root causes, you will have to deal with the symptoms again. Unfortunately, attribution errors make drilling down to root causes very difficult. It’s usually much easier to blame employees that it is to fix crappy systems.

For example “Mary’s performance is declining.” Is that a problem, or a symptom? Ask yourself why her performance is declining. When you do you conclude “Mary is unmotivated.” Again, is this a problem or a symptom? Why is Mary unmotivated?  Your team is able to identify that “Mary does not have the training required to do that job.” Now that’s a problem! If you fix the training issue, you should be able to improve both Mary’s performance as well as the performance of other employees who may not yet have shown the symptoms driven by the cause of inadequate training.

Then, of course, you must ask yourself “Why are we putting employees to work without the proper training?” The answer to that question is much tougher to address, but I promise you that the reason why you are not training employees properly is affecting other attitudes and behaviors in your organization.

Your root problem might be one of leadership, but by the time you realize that you have a leadership problem, the leader that made the bad decisions will probably have moved on to a new job or another assignment. In his brilliant book “The Fifth Discipline,” Peter Senge identifies this as the core learning dilemma that confronts organizations:

we learn best from experience, but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions (p. 23).

Related Posts:

Positively Unable And Unwilling To Learn

Attributions: A Method To Help Explain The Behavior We Observe In Others

Attributions: Model The Way When Problems Occur At Work

My last MBA class of the semester (except for the final exam) was yesterday. My course is designed with 1000 available points, with the final exam counting for 200 points. I have a policy that states all students with 800 points (100% of the available points)  by the last day earn the grade of A in the course and are excused from taking the final exam. I figure if you’ve done that well so far, I have enough information to know you merit an A. Students that earned an A and are exempt from the final exam were recognized publicly in class last night.

After class, I got an e-mail from one of the students asking if he really was exempt from the final exam. We had a discrepancy on one of his assignments – he thought he had earned less points than I had recorded. He offered to take the final exam to address our difference in points. I thanked him for the offer, but told him that I would stick with the statement I make publicly, that he had earned an A and was exempt from the final exam. His behavior was remarkable to me because at a time when several of my students were arguing for more points, this guy was arguing for less.

This is the kind of integrity and personal responsibility that I love to see from my students, especially young professionals. I’d love to think that “my” message got through, but that would be an example of the self-serving bias. The truth is this young man developed his character and learned his work ethic long before he showed up in my class. What I had the honor of witnessing was the fruit of the efforts of someone else.

At a time when I really needed it, I was very encouraged by this person’s behavior.

Related Posts:

Treating People As Adults At Work

My Advice To New MBA Students

You Really Can Do Whatever You Want To Do

My most recent post at The Leader Lab is entitled “A Leader’s Style Can Be Helpful For Some But Exhausting For Others.” New research just published in the Journal of Applied Psychology looked at how goal directed behavior on the part of a leader had different effects on employees depending on the employee’s personality. The research found that goal directed leaders are great for some employees, but exhausting (burnout) for others.

To me it is more evidence that a one-size-fits-all approach to leadership just does not work. You have to know your employees well enough to understand how to either adjust your leadership style or help them get a different leader. The hardest part, as always, is understanding what’s causing the employee behavior you observe -  personality, attitudes, or systemic influences.

Please click the link above to read the full text of my post!

James Cameron’s presentation to the World Business Forum was conducted as an interview by Betty Liu. I watch Betty Liu many mornings on Bloomberg TV, so I am very sorry to tell you that she botched this interview with an extremely successful and creative person. She spent way too much time asking Cameron about 3-D technology and took too little notice when Cameron shared his excellent thoughts on how to lead and manage creative, high performing people.

Cameron stated that the biggest risk is not to be bold, to break away from the pack of what everyone else is doing. He advised people to set their goals very high, so that when they do fail, they will fail at a level above the competition’s best performance.

Cameron credits his creativity to tenacious and insatiable curiosity, which he believes is the most important thing we have. He also made a great point about the value of learning from people outside of your core business or functional discipline.

Cameron believes that an encouraging style of leadership is much more effective than a dictatorial style. He believes in giving his team members permission to make mistakes. When they do make a mistake or otherwise exhibit bad behavior, he does not call his people out in public. After he deals with the immediate damage of the mistake or bad behavior, Cameron then asks himself “what did I do that contributed to what just happened?

He was the only leader I heard over the two days of the World Business Forum that explicitly said he holds himself accountable for mistakes his team makes. He went on to advise people to treat every problem or mistake as a learning opportunity. Always be thinking about how to improve the process that produced the mistake or bad behavior, and teach/encourage your team to do the same.

Yes! James Cameron gets it. Even though these comments about how to lead people to achieve great results were sandwiched between way too many frivolous questions about 3-D technology and making movies with Kate Winslet, it was a fitting way to end an exceptional conference.

Related Posts:

Attributions: Model The Way When Problems Occur At Work

Accept Responsibility For Yourself

My Bottom Line

I love teaching MBA students. They are typically more experienced, motivated, and professional than undergraduate students. I learn something new from my students every time I teach an MBA class, which is exciting.

In every MBA class I have ever taught, the majority of people are to one degree or another good performers, a few are stellar, and a few in every class I’ve ever taught really don’t belong in a reputable MBA program.

And every few years, you meet the student from hell. Here is an excerpt of an e-mail that I received recently from an MBA student:

Professor Simmons:

The shortfalls we have as your students are directly related to your shortcomings as an instructor. My A- is simply a reminder to you that your instructing was not exemplary and certainly not up to par with the best instructors.

I am halfway through my MBA and the lowest grade I have received up to your class was one A-. I had no problem with that A- because I felt it was justified. I hope that you can improve your shortcoming as an instructor in the future for your students’ academic sake.

This class could have been such a good learning opportunity for students, and if instructed properly could have been so beneficial to us in our career paths. Unfortunately all I learned from this course is that grading can be quite “subjective” and not related to work quality at all. Best wishes to you and an improved future as an instructor.

Please understand that this person earned an A- in my course. I had sixteen MBA students in the course, and twelve of the sixteen earned an A-; four earned an A, and zero earned a grade lower than an A-.  I created a system that got all of my students to the A- level, yet I failed them?

Somehow, this person feels very bitter about not earning an A, and it’s entirely my fault. The attitude conveyed in these words is totally void of personal responsibility and accountability, which by the way was one of my main messages in the class. I think it is safe to say that this person missed that message.

After my initial irritation over this e-mail wore off, my fascination kicked in.  Even though I make my living explaining to others human behavior at work, every once in a while I just have to scratch my head in amazement. How can someone be so narcissistic that an A-, which was an excellent grade both absolutely and relatively, became the impetus for very unprofessional and borderline bullying behavior? This person also obviously has an extreme external locus of control, so how is it that they continue to achieve or at least manage the impression of achievement?

Can you imagine having to manage this person at work? Can you imagine this person managing others?

What do you see in the words of this person’s e-mail? Please share your thoughts with me.

Related Posts:

I Am Responsible For My Own Success And Failures And For Continuing To Learn From Them

Attributions: Explaining Our Own Behavior

Secure Attachment: Another Positive Personality Trait

I am going to recommend that you read Robert Hogan’s book “Personality and the Fate of Organizations.” I purchased my copy of the book because Bob Sutton refers to it in some of his writings.

I want to make sure you understand that I strongly disagree with Hogan’s underlying premise – that it’s the people that make the place. My very first post at this site was entitled “Why do people do the things they do?”  If you follow my blog, you know I believe strongly that systems are stronger drivers of behavior than personalities. In the words of Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) “The law of crappy systems trumps the law of crappy people.”

But Hogan’s argument is important to understand, especially for systems thinkers. We need to understand the other side of the argument as well as possible so that we can be prepared to answer our critics, and Hogan makes the case for personality as well as anyone. I frankly learned a lot of new things from this book. And Hogan knows his history, especially the history of psychology, extremely well, and that contributes a unique perspective to his book.

I love Hogan’s no-nonsense writing style. From the moment I started reading I found myself chuckling aloud at some of the things he wrote (yes, I am a nerd). Here is an example of Hogan’s writing, partially explaining his point that two-thirds of the people currently in leadership positions in corporate America will fail:

New executives are often recruited from outside the organization, making it even harder to evaluate them because there is no track record or institutional memory. The most common selection tool is an interview; narcissists and psychopaths excel during interviews. Thus I believe many executives are hired based on characteristics that are irrelevant to their success as leaders. (p. 37-38).

And another excerpt from a section headed “The Origins of Psychological Taxation”:

Every large organization has two groups of people. The first and usually the largest group contains people who perform key work, the activities that actually define the organization…The second and much smaller group contains people who control important parts of the organization without contributing to its core work. These are the politicians who reside in the executive suite. Many of them are free riders – they participate in the profits of an organization without contributing in any direct way to the major work.

Unfortunately, Hogan understands the argument that “the place makes the people” very poorly.  When describing the American Quality Movement, Hogan states:

TQM is inherently hostile to personality; it is based on the assumption that individual differences in worker characteristics are relatively trivial influences on work process outcomes. Workers are “special causes” of errors in a system – they are replaceable cogs in a work process that account for perhaps 10% of the variance in team performance. (p.56).

Anyone that has read the works of W.E. Deming and understands what special causes of variation are will recognize that Hogan’s comments are void of credibility. It’s actually the attribution errors inherent to Hogan’s perspective that is hostile to most workers. I am heavily steeped in quality improvement logic, and you can see it in my statement of purpose “my purpose is to change your mind about the value of partnering with others to build healthy, responsible organizations where everyone can thrive.” This is hardly the philosophy of someone that views workers as replaceable cogs.

As I’ve stated before, I want to understand personality – first mine, then yours – so that I can learn to work better with you by adjusting the thing I have the most control over, my own behavior. I think that if we had a more specific understanding of and appreciation for how we differ as individuals, we could work better together and multiply our efforts to improve our organizations.

Hogan’s approach leaves you spending money on assessment tools like the one he developed so that you can select for personality. This selection approach creates a relatively homogenous organization that effectively minimizes the variation between worker personalities and behaviors. When everyone is more similar than different, it might make your organization easier to manage. But it is based on the very precarious assumption that your organization knows exactly what it needs to be doing and is currently executing with excellence. Systems thinkers strive to minimize the variation between worker behaviors so that they can better understand how to improve the system by shifting the average performance behaviors to levels beyond the constraints imposed by the current system and more in line with the voice of the customer.

Your company’s customers come from ALL different personality types; consequently, to best serve those customers, your employees also need to be made up of all different personality types.  Personalities are relatively stable, not subject to change. It’s important to understand that as a leader, you are not going to change anyone’s personality at work.  But your organization must change if it is going to survive and thrive. The ability to learn and improve is based on your assumptions, not your personality.

Read this book. You will learn a lot, and it will force you to think about what you really believe controls the fate of organizations.

Related Posts:

Bad Employee Attitude. Really?

The Sigmoid Curve And The Paradox Of Change

Excellence Is A Form Of Deviance

In this final video in my series on attribution, I give you my two-cents worth on how to use our knowledge of attribution when problems occur at work.  Attributions are explanations for behavior we observe in others and ourselves.  When behavior hits our radar screen, it’s usually because something unexpected or unacceptable has happened.  Because of attribution errors and biases, managers and employees are often left pointing the finger at each other, which leads to ineffective problem solving and poor relations among managers and employees.

Managers either fail to see or hate to admit that the systems (e.g. training, staffing, supervision) they control might be causing the behavioral problems they observe in employees.  It is much easier to blame employees (the fundamental attribution error) than it is to fix crappy systems. 

Employees are so used to being blamed when problems occur that their knee-jerk reaction is to become defensive and accept as little responsibility as possible for the problem (the self-serving bias). They have learned from experience that managers prefer to blame and flame instead of taking the time and effort to learn the deeper causes of behavior, so the employee’s main motivation is simply to survive.

If you want a more effective environment for solving problems at work, YOU are going to have to model the way.  You have to stop blaming employees and partner with them to search for the systemic causes of behavior.  And you have to be able to accept responsibility and admit when something YOU control might have contributed to the problem.  When you do this, you will teach your employees that you are fair and that it is safe for them to accept responsibility for learning from instead of running from problems. 

It’s your choice.  Get control of your attributions and teach others to do the same and you will be much more effective as a leader.

Related Posts:

Attributions: Explaining Our Own Behavior

Attributions: A Method To Explain The Behavior We Observe In Others

Attributions: The Fundamental Attribution Error And The Self-Serving Bias

Attributions: An Introduction

Attributions: Let’s Talk First About Locus Of Control

In this video, I discuss an attribution process we use to explain our own behavior. This is an abbreviated version of explanatory style that I got from Martin Seligman’s book Learned Optimism, which I recommend highly.

When we look to explain our own behavior, once again we try to determine if it was something internal – e.g. personality, attitude, values – or something external – e.g. process, training, staffing – that caused our behavior.  We also try to determine if that cause is stable (it will always be that way) or unstable (it is subject to change).  

For example, if I have a success, and I explain that success as something about me (my skill), and I think that explanation is stable (I am always going to be skilled), then I will probably feel pretty good about myself.  And if I have a failure, and I explain that failure as something about me (I don’t have what it takes) and stable (I will never have what it takes), then I am likely to feel pretty bad and possibly even depressed. 

Seligman suggests that we can learn to be more optimistic by changing how we explain the things that happen to us.  If you or anyone you know have ever suffered from depression, I would recommend taking a look at Seligman’s book Learned Optimism.

As a final example, let’s say I had a failure, and I reach the conclusion that there were things outside of my control (e.g. processes, policies, procedures) that played a big part in my failure, and those are potentially subject to change.  Now instead of being depressed I can feel optimistic and hopeful.

Does this suggest that we should never accept responsibility for our failures?  NO! 

Recall that if you have an internal locus of control (LOC), you inheriently want to assume responsibility for the things that happen to you and take action to affect your future outcomes.  So people with an internal LOC can see the systemic causes of their behavior, but they assume responsibility for taking action to change those causes so they don’t experience the same failure over and over again.  They don’t dump on their leaders (this sucks and so do you!); instead, they partner with them to fix the crappy system.

In my final article in this series on attribution, I’ll give you my two-cents worth on how to deal with the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias, so stay tuned!

Related Posts:

Attributions: A Method to Explain the Behavior We Observe in Others

Attributions: The Fundamental Attribution Error and The Self-Serving Bias

Attributions: An Introduction

Attributions: Let’s Talk First About Locus of Control

Behavior occurs all around us everyday at work and the vast majority of it never catches our attention. But when someone does something unexpected or unacceptable, we automatically begin to develop an explanation for the behavior we observed.  Unfortunately, the search for an explanation is often clouded by our negative affect (we are pissed!), and our knee jerk reaction leads to the fundamental attribution error (FAE).

Systems don’t behave, employees do, and it is much easier to blame employees than it is to search for systemic causes of behavior.  But since YOU now understand the FAE, you know you should take a deep breath, get over your negative affect, and do some more investigating before you reach a conclusion about why your employee did something.

Harold Kelley’s work on attribution theory tells us to look for these three informational ques as we seek to reach an internal or external attribution:

In the video, I go through an example of how each of these three ques are applied to reach both an internal and an external attribution.

If you reach an internal attribution, I would suggest that you approach the employee with the intent to learn more about why they behaved the way they did so that you can help them improve.  Be transparent, tell the employee everything you know and everything you have done up to this point to investigate the situation.  Then, I would ask the employee what I believe is one of the most effective questions you can learn to ask as a manager, “Can you help me understand why you did that?” There could be other things going on that you are not aware of. The point is the behavior has to change and you want to help, but to do so you need to know as much as possible about the situation.

If you reach an external attribution, the advice is similar.  I would still approach the employee, put all your cards on the table, and then ask “Would you be willing to partner with me and others to help improve this process so we can eliminate this problem?” With their help, you can fix that crappy system.

It is much easier to just blame employees when things go wrong, but don’t surrender to expediency.  If you will take the time and effort to go through this process, you will be much more effective as a leader.

Tomorrow I will discuss an attribution process that can help us explain our own behavior, so stay tuned!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Related Posts:

Attributions: The Fundamental Attribution Error and the Self-Serving Bias

Attributions: An Introduction

Attributions: Let’s First Talk About Locus Of Control

In this second video in my series on attribution, I discuss some of the basic concepts of attribution.  An attribution is your explanation for the behavior you observe at work in others and in yourself. 

There are two types of attributions: internal and external.  An internal attribution means that your explanation for the behavior you observed is something internal to the individual that they can control - e.g. their personality, attitude, values.  An external attribution means that your explanation for the behavior you observed is something outside of the individual’s control – e.g. policies, procedures, staffing, training, supervision, equipment, materials, methods.

Attributions are critical because the action you take as a leader is contingent upon your attribution or explanation.  If your attribution is not accurate, then you will take the wrong action and be less effective as a leader.  For example, if the real reason your employee failed to perform was something outside of their control (external attribution) but you blame them for their failure (internal attribution), you have essentially failed your employee as a leader.

Tomorrow I will discuss two powerful attribution biases – the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias – so stay tuned!

Related Posts:

Attribution: Let’s Talk First About Locus of Control