Facilitating classroom training seems like it should be easy. We've all spent time in classrooms, whether at school or at work, and we've seen it done well and poorly. Yet some of the most powerful facilitaton skills are counter-intuitive, surprising, or just plain hard.
1. Talk less.
Chances are, you became a facilitator because you have expertise, great public speaking skills, or a combination of the two. That's why it's so hard to stay quiet, but it's one of the best things that you can do for your learners.
You might think you're well prepared by having a detailed lecture full of facts, examples, and anecdotes about your topic. In fact, the person who best connects with your examples is you. Present a nugget of information, then ask the class to provide an example that illustrates it. Unless your topic is completely foreign or abstract, your learners will recognize the concepts, ground them in their own knowledge, and provide the context for deep and meaningful learning.
2. Count to 7.
So, you've decided to try tip #1. You ask for an example, wait for the class to respond, and... silence. You wait a moment. The silence deepens. You realize that nobody is going to answer your question. You answer it yourself, then move on.
How long did you wait before answering your own question? It may have felt like a lifetime, but it was probably closer to 3 seconds. Silence is uncomfortable, and people will speak to fill it. However, a 3-second silence that feels excruciating to a facilitator does not feel nearly so long to learners. For many, it's not long enough to gather the thoughts and courage to answer your question.
If you slowly, silently count to 7, then one of your learners will break the silence for you. If nobody does, then they may not actually know the answer, and you can provide additional context.
3. Allow your learners to fail.
In 7th grade, I blew my chances at the county spelling bee by flubbing the word "sadistic." I didn't make it to the state championship, but you can bet that I never misspelled that word again.
Learning professionals tend to be a helpful bunch, and it's hard to watch your learners floundering through a software application or a logic problem. It's tempting to grab the mouse, nudge a conversation in the right direction, or give a hint to resolve the tension of uncertainty.
You're doing a disservice when you interrupt those moments of doubt, because that's when the real learning happens. If you establish a safe and supportive classroom environment, where it's OK to be wrong and learn from one another's mistakes, your learners will do just that.
4. Admit that you don't know the answer.
If you think of your role as "subject expert," trying to convince the class that you know more than they do, then you might be tempted to make up an answer or dismiss the question as unimportant. However, there are some great benefits to acknowledging your own uncertainty: You show humility and relatability. You reinforce creative thinking beyond the curriculum ("Wow, that is a really good question!"). You also have a great opportunity for an impactful learning and teaching moment.
Search for the answer and bring the learners along for the ride. If it's as simple as Googling the question or checking in a book, ask one of the learners to do the legwork. If the question is complex, off-topic, or needs someone else's input, write it down on a "parking lot" to be revisited at the end of class or on break. You can either track down the answer yourself, or invite the learner who asked the question to research and report back.
5. Step away from the PowerPoint.
Microsoft PowerPoint is a presentation tool, not a teaching tool.
Please read the above sentence aloud. Repeat 10 times. Thank you.
6. Be a broken record (or, if you prefer, a scratched CD).
Sad as it may seem, your learners are not hanging on your every word. Most training has a retention rate of 15-20%, and you don't get to choose which 15-20% the learners remember.
If there is a particular concept, fact, or message that is essential to your course, know what that is. Say it. Repeat it. Have the learners repeat it. Have the learners translate it into a work of art, interpretive dance, or infectiously catchy jingle. Say it so many times, so many ways, that it becomes your class's favorite salutation and inside joke.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Get out of the trenches and off of the field
Who doesn't love a metaphor? Leadership trainings, business meetings, and strategic plans are rife with them. On one recent project, my team and I were cleaning closets, catching fish, moving buckets, and building sheds - all without leaving our desks.
I love metaphors as much as the next organizational geek, but there are two metaphors that I do not love:
War and sports.
They're almost cliche by now, and yet I still hear leaders using them. Customer service agents are "down in the trenches." Teams make decisions "at the buzzer." Ambitious goals are "half court shots."
The metaphors we choose, especially when we talk about leadership and strategy, resonate deeply within our organizations. They anchor abstract concepts to concrete images. They give people a vivid common language to talk about changes, decisions, and actions. They shape our understanding of the organization and our role within it. Many of us use war and sports terminology without pondering these implications, and so I'm asking you to stop and think: Do you really want your organization to resemble either of these things?
War and sports have masculine connotations. While there are many female soldiers and professional athletes, those women have had to overcome gender barriers and deep cultural assumptions. Whether the organizational "glass ceiling" has been broken or not, these metaphors can be loaded for some employees. Even if you don't intend to portray an "old boys' club" mentality, some employees may hear that message as an unwanted subtext of your metaphor.
War and sports have clearly defined winners and losers. War and sports are great examples of teamwork in real life. This is one of the reasons they are so appealing to managers. Individuals pool their best effort together for a single goal: to defeat another group of individuals trying to do the same thing. However, if your technical writers are the Minnesota Vikings, then who are the Green Bay Packers? The art department? HR?
War and sports have singular objectives. Winning on the battlefield or the football field is clear cut and easy to measure. Winning in business is muddier, more complex, and wrought with delays and downstream implications. If you launched your product on time, or had a profitable third quarter, that does not mean that you won the game.
War and sports have stopping points. Organizations do not. Or so we hope.
What type of metaphors should we use instead?
I like metaphors from nature, since they are gender neutral, acknowledge complexity, and affirm life and harmony.
I think the best leaders are those who can see the forest and the trees, while acknowledging the root systems, soil structures, and growth patterns of their organizations. They consider that even the smallest change can impact the entire ecosystem for years to come. While they are keenly aware of their own influence on the forest, they also know that the only way to exert complete control over a living system is to destroy it.
I love metaphors as much as the next organizational geek, but there are two metaphors that I do not love:
War and sports.
They're almost cliche by now, and yet I still hear leaders using them. Customer service agents are "down in the trenches." Teams make decisions "at the buzzer." Ambitious goals are "half court shots."
The metaphors we choose, especially when we talk about leadership and strategy, resonate deeply within our organizations. They anchor abstract concepts to concrete images. They give people a vivid common language to talk about changes, decisions, and actions. They shape our understanding of the organization and our role within it. Many of us use war and sports terminology without pondering these implications, and so I'm asking you to stop and think: Do you really want your organization to resemble either of these things?
War and sports have masculine connotations. While there are many female soldiers and professional athletes, those women have had to overcome gender barriers and deep cultural assumptions. Whether the organizational "glass ceiling" has been broken or not, these metaphors can be loaded for some employees. Even if you don't intend to portray an "old boys' club" mentality, some employees may hear that message as an unwanted subtext of your metaphor.
War and sports have clearly defined winners and losers. War and sports are great examples of teamwork in real life. This is one of the reasons they are so appealing to managers. Individuals pool their best effort together for a single goal: to defeat another group of individuals trying to do the same thing. However, if your technical writers are the Minnesota Vikings, then who are the Green Bay Packers? The art department? HR?
War and sports have singular objectives. Winning on the battlefield or the football field is clear cut and easy to measure. Winning in business is muddier, more complex, and wrought with delays and downstream implications. If you launched your product on time, or had a profitable third quarter, that does not mean that you won the game.
War and sports have stopping points. Organizations do not. Or so we hope.
What type of metaphors should we use instead?
I like metaphors from nature, since they are gender neutral, acknowledge complexity, and affirm life and harmony.
I think the best leaders are those who can see the forest and the trees, while acknowledging the root systems, soil structures, and growth patterns of their organizations. They consider that even the smallest change can impact the entire ecosystem for years to come. While they are keenly aware of their own influence on the forest, they also know that the only way to exert complete control over a living system is to destroy it.
6 Myths of Motivation
Positive reinforcement is a touchy-feely approach to management. As long as it is used appropriately, positive reinforcement is the most powerful tool a manager can wield. It is not about giving compliments or gifts to everybody, turning a blind eye to poor performance, or making everyone happy at the same time. The strongest leaders use positive reinforcement and use it with precision.
I can't motivate anyone; motivation comes from within. Since motivation differs from person to person, it's easy to think we can't control it. In fact, the reason some people consistently perform at high levels is because of reinforcement they've received in the past: from parents, teachers, former and current bosses. Ignore these people for long enough, and they'll eventually stop performing. The same is true for poor performers: Experience tells them that extra effort is not worthwhile. Prove them wrong with sustained positive reinforcement.
It's their job; it's what they're paid for. I shouldn't have to motivate them. If all you want from your employees is the minimum effort required to keep their jobs, then this approach works just fine. But if the only available reinforcement is not getting fired, don't expect any extra effort. People are smart and, once they have met your minimum requirements, they will apply their spare energy and effort to tasks with worthwhile consequences.
If I give too much positive reinforcement, people will become complacent. Actually, the opposite is true. When people receive positive reinforcement, they will repeat that behavior in hope of more reinforcement. They will also try to do better each time. This is how people develop passions. A corollary of this myth is that positive feedback should include suggestions for improvement. At best, this neutralizes the positive message. At worst, employees only perceive the negative.
If I give too much positive reinforcement, people will expect it each time. This can occur, but not because of too much reinforcement. Common mistakes: The same tangible rewards are used too often, rewards are given indiscriminately, or rewards are given on a constant schedule. To avoid this, always make it clear what you are reinforcing, vary your tangible rewards, and remember that people never get tired of social reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement needs to be tangible. In fact, social reinforcement is more powerful, and it costs nothing to give. Tangible rewards have benefits too: They can serve as a lasting reminder of an accomplishment. Just make sure you choose tangible rewards that people actually like (hint: money doesn't have the same impact on everyone). Combine social and tangible for the biggest impact.
I can't motivate anyone; motivation comes from within. Since motivation differs from person to person, it's easy to think we can't control it. In fact, the reason some people consistently perform at high levels is because of reinforcement they've received in the past: from parents, teachers, former and current bosses. Ignore these people for long enough, and they'll eventually stop performing. The same is true for poor performers: Experience tells them that extra effort is not worthwhile. Prove them wrong with sustained positive reinforcement.
It's their job; it's what they're paid for. I shouldn't have to motivate them. If all you want from your employees is the minimum effort required to keep their jobs, then this approach works just fine. But if the only available reinforcement is not getting fired, don't expect any extra effort. People are smart and, once they have met your minimum requirements, they will apply their spare energy and effort to tasks with worthwhile consequences.
If I give too much positive reinforcement, people will become complacent. Actually, the opposite is true. When people receive positive reinforcement, they will repeat that behavior in hope of more reinforcement. They will also try to do better each time. This is how people develop passions. A corollary of this myth is that positive feedback should include suggestions for improvement. At best, this neutralizes the positive message. At worst, employees only perceive the negative.
If I give too much positive reinforcement, people will expect it each time. This can occur, but not because of too much reinforcement. Common mistakes: The same tangible rewards are used too often, rewards are given indiscriminately, or rewards are given on a constant schedule. To avoid this, always make it clear what you are reinforcing, vary your tangible rewards, and remember that people never get tired of social reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement needs to be tangible. In fact, social reinforcement is more powerful, and it costs nothing to give. Tangible rewards have benefits too: They can serve as a lasting reminder of an accomplishment. Just make sure you choose tangible rewards that people actually like (hint: money doesn't have the same impact on everyone). Combine social and tangible for the biggest impact.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Cognitive Dissonance and Employee Motivaton
Even if you've never heard of cognitive dissonance, you're already familiar with the concept.
It's what happens when you experience something that just doesn't fit with your ideas or beliefs.
Imagine that you spent your life savings on a custom-built dream house. After moving in, you realize that the kitchen layout is awkward, the gorgeous bathroom tile you picked out is too cold for your feet, and morning traffic has tripled the length of your commute.
Cognitive dissonance is the difference between your expectations and your actual experience. Nobody can live like this for long. You have two options:
1. Abandon your original vision of the dream house and stick a "For Sale" sign on the lawn.
2. Change your behaviors (cook more efficiently, wear slippers in the bathroom, leave for work an hour earlier) so that your actual experience matches your original dream house vision.
Unless the house is ridiculously defective, most people will choose option 2. They will also rationalize their behavior ("I love being a morning person!") and not even notice that they have changed themselves in the process.
So, what does any of this have to do with employee motivation?
Cognitive dissonance is usually an internal, individual experience. But what if there is dissonance between two people, an employee and a manager?
Favorable Dissonance
When I started my job as a payroll tax representative, I was a 22-year-old, clueless, recovering journalist who (in my own mind) had no business filing anybody's tax returns.
However, I had a boss who seemed to think I was the most brilliant tax representative she had ever met. She signed me up for projects, enlisted my help with presentations to upper management, and assured me that, someday soon, I would make a great supervisor.
My manager's expectations of me were higher than my own. Dissonance. I had to resolve it. I could either convince her that she had overestimated me, or I could rise to the occasion and be the employee she already thought I was.
Most people will resolve cognitive dissonance in the way that it most beneficial to themselves. It's not a bad thing. It's our self-preservation instinct.
I couldn't stand the thought of disappointing my boss, so I jumped in. I worked harder. I signed up for classes outside of work. I forgot that payroll wasn't a field that originally interested me. I filled in the gaps between my boss's perception and my version of reality.
I was so motivated that I didn't even notice the changes in myself. That is, until I was promoted to supervisor and decided it was time to create the same experience for others.
Unfavorable Dissonance
Manager/employee dissonance is as strong as a weapon. It can spark an employee's best performance, or it can destroy it in one fell swoop.
Imagine working for a boss who is oblivious to your skills and potential. Maybe it's not even your direct boss, but someone up the corporate ladder has decided that you're lazy, have a bad attitude, or are just plain mediocre.
At first, you might scramble to make your talents known. You might speak up in meetings, volunteer for extra assignments, do anything you can to get on the manager's good side.
Sometimes, that just doesn't work. Sometimes, it backfires. Some managers look down on employees who appear too ambitious - even though those employees are just trying to resolve a very real and reasonable dissonance.
When you're stuck with unfavorable dissonance, there are, again, two choices. You can dismiss your boss's opinion as entirely irrelevant (this usually requires finding a new boss), or you can allow your own performance to slide until it matches his or her perception. If your boss already thinks you're lazy, why not buy housewares on e-Bay or sneak out early on Friday?
Bridging the Gap
In an ideal world, managers would hand-pick their teams and only select employees for whom they felt favorable dissonance, or no dissonance at all.
Unfortunately, corporate restructurings and organizational changes are a fact of life, and managers seldom choose all of their subordinates. As a result, many employees languish in situations of unfavorable dissonance, watching their own motivation decline until their actual performance matches the low standards (unknowingly) set by their managers.
How can an organization reap the motivation that comes from favorable cognitive dissonance?
1. Acknowledge the inevitability of bias and dissonance in management. Many managers claim to treat every employee equally, even though this is practically impossible. Policies can be administered equally, but the nuances of manager-employee relationships always contain subjectivity. They are, after all, human relationships.
2. Promote managers who tend to see the best in others. For some people, this is a natural gift. For others, it is a skill that can be learned. It is a core leadership competency that should be considered in both hiring and training leaders.
3. Change the relationship before giving up on the person. Employees who struggle with one manager are often "black-listed," stuck in their position until they either quit or get fired for poor performance. Before punishing an employee, try pairing that person with a new manager or mentor who might have a favorable dissonance effect. Remember to pay attention not only to immediate employee/manager relationships, but also to managers higher up the corporate ladder.
4. Create a culture in which it is acceptable to talk about dissonance. This is the bookend to Step One. Now that you have acknowledged that employee/manager relationships are inevitably biased, and that motivation comes from favorable dissonance, teach your employees what you have learned. Make self-evaluations and open discussions about manager and employee perceptions part of your corporate culture. It's a big change for many organizations, but one that's worth making.
It's what happens when you experience something that just doesn't fit with your ideas or beliefs.
Imagine that you spent your life savings on a custom-built dream house. After moving in, you realize that the kitchen layout is awkward, the gorgeous bathroom tile you picked out is too cold for your feet, and morning traffic has tripled the length of your commute.
Cognitive dissonance is the difference between your expectations and your actual experience. Nobody can live like this for long. You have two options:
1. Abandon your original vision of the dream house and stick a "For Sale" sign on the lawn.
2. Change your behaviors (cook more efficiently, wear slippers in the bathroom, leave for work an hour earlier) so that your actual experience matches your original dream house vision.
Unless the house is ridiculously defective, most people will choose option 2. They will also rationalize their behavior ("I love being a morning person!") and not even notice that they have changed themselves in the process.
So, what does any of this have to do with employee motivation?
Cognitive dissonance is usually an internal, individual experience. But what if there is dissonance between two people, an employee and a manager?
Favorable Dissonance
When I started my job as a payroll tax representative, I was a 22-year-old, clueless, recovering journalist who (in my own mind) had no business filing anybody's tax returns.
However, I had a boss who seemed to think I was the most brilliant tax representative she had ever met. She signed me up for projects, enlisted my help with presentations to upper management, and assured me that, someday soon, I would make a great supervisor.
My manager's expectations of me were higher than my own. Dissonance. I had to resolve it. I could either convince her that she had overestimated me, or I could rise to the occasion and be the employee she already thought I was.
Most people will resolve cognitive dissonance in the way that it most beneficial to themselves. It's not a bad thing. It's our self-preservation instinct.
I couldn't stand the thought of disappointing my boss, so I jumped in. I worked harder. I signed up for classes outside of work. I forgot that payroll wasn't a field that originally interested me. I filled in the gaps between my boss's perception and my version of reality.
I was so motivated that I didn't even notice the changes in myself. That is, until I was promoted to supervisor and decided it was time to create the same experience for others.
Unfavorable Dissonance
Manager/employee dissonance is as strong as a weapon. It can spark an employee's best performance, or it can destroy it in one fell swoop.
Imagine working for a boss who is oblivious to your skills and potential. Maybe it's not even your direct boss, but someone up the corporate ladder has decided that you're lazy, have a bad attitude, or are just plain mediocre.
At first, you might scramble to make your talents known. You might speak up in meetings, volunteer for extra assignments, do anything you can to get on the manager's good side.
Sometimes, that just doesn't work. Sometimes, it backfires. Some managers look down on employees who appear too ambitious - even though those employees are just trying to resolve a very real and reasonable dissonance.
When you're stuck with unfavorable dissonance, there are, again, two choices. You can dismiss your boss's opinion as entirely irrelevant (this usually requires finding a new boss), or you can allow your own performance to slide until it matches his or her perception. If your boss already thinks you're lazy, why not buy housewares on e-Bay or sneak out early on Friday?
Bridging the Gap
In an ideal world, managers would hand-pick their teams and only select employees for whom they felt favorable dissonance, or no dissonance at all.
Unfortunately, corporate restructurings and organizational changes are a fact of life, and managers seldom choose all of their subordinates. As a result, many employees languish in situations of unfavorable dissonance, watching their own motivation decline until their actual performance matches the low standards (unknowingly) set by their managers.
How can an organization reap the motivation that comes from favorable cognitive dissonance?
1. Acknowledge the inevitability of bias and dissonance in management. Many managers claim to treat every employee equally, even though this is practically impossible. Policies can be administered equally, but the nuances of manager-employee relationships always contain subjectivity. They are, after all, human relationships.
2. Promote managers who tend to see the best in others. For some people, this is a natural gift. For others, it is a skill that can be learned. It is a core leadership competency that should be considered in both hiring and training leaders.
3. Change the relationship before giving up on the person. Employees who struggle with one manager are often "black-listed," stuck in their position until they either quit or get fired for poor performance. Before punishing an employee, try pairing that person with a new manager or mentor who might have a favorable dissonance effect. Remember to pay attention not only to immediate employee/manager relationships, but also to managers higher up the corporate ladder.
4. Create a culture in which it is acceptable to talk about dissonance. This is the bookend to Step One. Now that you have acknowledged that employee/manager relationships are inevitably biased, and that motivation comes from favorable dissonance, teach your employees what you have learned. Make self-evaluations and open discussions about manager and employee perceptions part of your corporate culture. It's a big change for many organizations, but one that's worth making.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Worth the Soup
I don't like sandwiches.
There is just something about them that turns me off. Maybe it's the amalgamation of ingredients and merging of flavors that I always felt should be distinct, like meat and vegetable matter. Maybe it's the presence of creamy and vinegary dressings, which just feel wrong. Maybe some forgotten childhood trauma stuck me with the culinary sophistication of a 7-year-old.
When I entered the corporate world, I was discreet about my anti-sandwich bias. As an ambitious young tax rep, I wanted to make the best possible impression. I didn't want to come across as ungrateful or a fault-finder, so when sandwiches were offered to me, I politely declined them.
For better or worse, our managers used food as motivational currency. We welcomed new team members with potlucks. If a team hit an important goal, the manager brought in lunch. If the accomplishment was really big, the team of honor went to a restaurant.
One spring day, the managers wanted to simultaneously thank and appreciate our entire department. The reward: Picnic lunches delivered to our desks by our supervisors, each customized with our favorite foods. A few days before, the managers passed out surveys inquiring into our food preferences.
I dutifully filled out my survey, mentioning my affection for Cheetos and anything chocolate. I stared at the line that said "Favorite sandwich." I didn't know what to write. Should I mention that I didn't like meat and bread to touch? My mother had always warned me that my "weird" food issues would embarrass me someday. I wrote, simply, on the form "No sandwich please. Thank you." I drew a little smiley face so the managers would know I wasn't sore about the subject.
Picnic day came, and happy chaos erupted as the supervisors tried to pass out 100 personalized lunches to 100 hungry tax reps. I was handed my thoughtfully decorated picnic basket, just a little bit lighter than everyone else's. An apple, a bag of Cheetos, and a Snickers bar - it seemed balanced enough for my tastes, and I went back to work.
I was sitting at my desk when I heard my manager sneak up behind me. She handed me a little paper bag and whispered "I wasn't supposed to do this, so please don't tell anybody." I opened the bag to find a cup of chicken noodle soup, a spoon, and some crackers.
There was something else in that paper bag. My boss had just acknowledged me as an individual, quirky and perhaps difficult, but valuable to her and the organization. She acknowledged that it was OK for me not to fit into the rubric of what worked for every other employee. She respected and honored my individuality, and she made an extra effort - going outside of the lunch purchasing policy - to make sure that I felt appreciated. That gesture made an indelible impresson on me. Eight years later, I can still taste the soup.
I crafted a long and effusive e-mail to her that afternoon, thanking her for the lunch, her generosity, and her consistent personal and professional support. I thanked her for always believing in me, having my back, and caring about me. I told her that she was the reason I wanted to grow my career and get into leadership. My message was long and rambling, but her response was concise and unforgettable:
"You are worth the soup."
I have never forgotten those words, and I have never forgotten her message. People are not numbers on a spreadsheet or answers on a form. The extra effort of getting to know a person and embracing his or her differences can change that person's life. I could buy 1000 sandwiches for 1000 people, and not have as much impact as a single cup of soup.
There is just something about them that turns me off. Maybe it's the amalgamation of ingredients and merging of flavors that I always felt should be distinct, like meat and vegetable matter. Maybe it's the presence of creamy and vinegary dressings, which just feel wrong. Maybe some forgotten childhood trauma stuck me with the culinary sophistication of a 7-year-old.
When I entered the corporate world, I was discreet about my anti-sandwich bias. As an ambitious young tax rep, I wanted to make the best possible impression. I didn't want to come across as ungrateful or a fault-finder, so when sandwiches were offered to me, I politely declined them.
For better or worse, our managers used food as motivational currency. We welcomed new team members with potlucks. If a team hit an important goal, the manager brought in lunch. If the accomplishment was really big, the team of honor went to a restaurant.
One spring day, the managers wanted to simultaneously thank and appreciate our entire department. The reward: Picnic lunches delivered to our desks by our supervisors, each customized with our favorite foods. A few days before, the managers passed out surveys inquiring into our food preferences.
I dutifully filled out my survey, mentioning my affection for Cheetos and anything chocolate. I stared at the line that said "Favorite sandwich." I didn't know what to write. Should I mention that I didn't like meat and bread to touch? My mother had always warned me that my "weird" food issues would embarrass me someday. I wrote, simply, on the form "No sandwich please. Thank you." I drew a little smiley face so the managers would know I wasn't sore about the subject.
Picnic day came, and happy chaos erupted as the supervisors tried to pass out 100 personalized lunches to 100 hungry tax reps. I was handed my thoughtfully decorated picnic basket, just a little bit lighter than everyone else's. An apple, a bag of Cheetos, and a Snickers bar - it seemed balanced enough for my tastes, and I went back to work.
I was sitting at my desk when I heard my manager sneak up behind me. She handed me a little paper bag and whispered "I wasn't supposed to do this, so please don't tell anybody." I opened the bag to find a cup of chicken noodle soup, a spoon, and some crackers.
There was something else in that paper bag. My boss had just acknowledged me as an individual, quirky and perhaps difficult, but valuable to her and the organization. She acknowledged that it was OK for me not to fit into the rubric of what worked for every other employee. She respected and honored my individuality, and she made an extra effort - going outside of the lunch purchasing policy - to make sure that I felt appreciated. That gesture made an indelible impresson on me. Eight years later, I can still taste the soup.
I crafted a long and effusive e-mail to her that afternoon, thanking her for the lunch, her generosity, and her consistent personal and professional support. I thanked her for always believing in me, having my back, and caring about me. I told her that she was the reason I wanted to grow my career and get into leadership. My message was long and rambling, but her response was concise and unforgettable:
"You are worth the soup."
I have never forgotten those words, and I have never forgotten her message. People are not numbers on a spreadsheet or answers on a form. The extra effort of getting to know a person and embracing his or her differences can change that person's life. I could buy 1000 sandwiches for 1000 people, and not have as much impact as a single cup of soup.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Developing Emotional Awareness
"I don't know what came over me."
"I'm just stressed."
Emotional awareness is the foundation of emotional intelligence; if you don't know what you're feeling, then it's impossible to manage it successfully.
People with strong emotional awareness can easily articulate their emotions verbally or in writing. They tend to be closely in touch with their body's distress signals and feel comfortable making "gut" decisions. They are still vulnerable to emotional triggers, but they have a good sense of what those triggers are and manage them accordingly.
A lack of emotional awareness can be crippling at work. Without this skill, you could find yourself blindsided by your emotional responses or not realize the severity of a negative situation. People with this competency gap often have difficulty making decisions or setting specific goals, because nothing "feels" right.
Emotional awareness can be developed and deepened with practice. Here are some tips to help you develop your emotional awareness:
When you write or talk about your emotions, avoid words like "angry," "happy," or - the most overused emotional word of all time - "stressed." Stress is not an emotion; it is the brownish-gray color that comes when you mix multiple colors from a set of paints. Look at the emotions that make up your stress for a better understanding of how they fit together. To help you get started, here is a list of 120 emotions:
"I'm just stressed."
Emotional awareness is the foundation of emotional intelligence; if you don't know what you're feeling, then it's impossible to manage it successfully.
People with strong emotional awareness can easily articulate their emotions verbally or in writing. They tend to be closely in touch with their body's distress signals and feel comfortable making "gut" decisions. They are still vulnerable to emotional triggers, but they have a good sense of what those triggers are and manage them accordingly.
A lack of emotional awareness can be crippling at work. Without this skill, you could find yourself blindsided by your emotional responses or not realize the severity of a negative situation. People with this competency gap often have difficulty making decisions or setting specific goals, because nothing "feels" right.
Emotional awareness can be developed and deepened with practice. Here are some tips to help you develop your emotional awareness:
- Keep an emotion journal. Several times a day, write down all of the emotions you are feeling in as much detail as possible. Describe how your body is responding. Is your heart rate accelerated? Do you have any pain or tension in specific areas?
- Set aside time every day for reflection, meditation, or prayer. Exercise such as yoga or running can help you focus your thoughts and connect with your body.
- Mentally revisit a time when you felt stressed or angry at work. Carefully evaluate the emotions you felt at the time. Which ones were the strongest? Were they appropriate to what was actually going on around you, or was your response based on something else?
When you write or talk about your emotions, avoid words like "angry," "happy," or - the most overused emotional word of all time - "stressed." Stress is not an emotion; it is the brownish-gray color that comes when you mix multiple colors from a set of paints. Look at the emotions that make up your stress for a better understanding of how they fit together. To help you get started, here is a list of 120 emotions:
Afraid, Agitated
If I missed any, please feel welcome to post them as comments. Cheers!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Distorted Thinking: How to Sabotage Your Life & Career
Imagine spending all day listening to the rants of a cranky, hypercritical jerk who blows everything out of proportion. You'd be miserable. Are you sabotaging your happiness by being your own jerk?
Check your own internal monologue to see if you're guilty of any of these dangerous distortions:
Overgeneralizing
You walk to the shared office printer, and for the second time this week, the pages of your document are out of order. You say to yourself, "This always happens! Can't I just once print my letters without going through this ordeal?" "No one here has any manners!" "Have we lost all basic decency in this day and age?"
By overgeneralizing, you blatantly disregard all evidence of times when things went right, when people were considerate of you. Dismissing all of the good things around you just because of a few problems is destructive and inaccurate. A better reaction would be: "This has happened a couple of times now, and I wonder if I can do anything to prevent it from happening again, or if I should just let it go."
Destructive Labeling
After a single incident, you're ready to label someone for all time. A tech support rep gave incorrect information to a customer, and now you're sorting out the problem. "That rep is incompetent!" "He has no business working here!" "That whole department is incompetent!"
Everyone makes mistakes (yes, even you). Using a single incident to label someone, or worse yet, a group of people, is disrespectful and dangerous. You're also telling yourself that nothing can be done to fix the situation - if the whole department is broken, then it's easy to feel hopeless. A better response would be, "It seems he was mistaken in what he told the customer, so I'll fix the customer's issue and let the tech support rep know the correct answer for next time."
Mind Reading
Your manager arrives at work and isn't her usual, friendly self. "She's upset with me." "She's probably unhappy with my customer satisfaction ratings from last month. She's never liked me, and now my low scores give her a reason to punish me. I had better stay away from her today."
Putting thoughts, especially negative ones, into someone else's mind will cause you nothing but useless anxiety. If someone's behavior is puzzling you, why not ask directly - "You look like you have a lot on your mind. Is there anything I can help with?" She might just be feeling ill or have missed her usual shot of espresso.
Making up Rules
You mentally create a code of thinking and behaving for other people, then are baffled or disappointed when they don't follow it. "My boss should have apologized for what she said in that meeting." "The team should feel really grateful that I fixed the copier." "Everyone should know I'm due for Employee of the Month."
By expecting others to think and behave as you want them to, you are setting yourself up for a life of anger, disappointment, and perceived injustice. Human motivation is very complex. If someone's actions confuse you, and the relationship is important, try to better understand that person by asking questions and listening openly.
Perspective Distortion
You wait til the last minute to reconcile your monthly expenses, and when you log in, the accounting system is down. "This is a disaster! I can't do my work! The monthly budget numbers will be all messed up, and I'll get in trouble for sure! If I get fired, I won't be able to afford my house payments, and I'll have to move back in with my parents!"
If there is a solution or workaround, it is not a disaster. In this example, you could call or e-mail your boss or someone from accounting and let them know that you couldn't submit your report through the system. It might be a little embarrassing to admit that you waited until the last minute, and you might have to do your report manually, but you will recover. Calliing a setback a catastrophe or a disaster magnifies its intensity, triggers your own "fight or flight" response, and distorts your thinking even more.
Distortion Smorgasbord
Practitioners of distorted thinking seldom use just one method. Their internal monologues are often a buffet of distortion patterns that lead to one miserable conversation. Imagine a distorted thinker if his or her computer crashed:
"This is a catastrophe! Bad things always happen to me! Those ignoramuses at the Help Desk messed everything up when they installed the new version of Office, like they always do! And they never know how to fix things either, so I'm not even going to bother calling them. They should be called the Helpless Desk! Now I won't be able to get any work done, which will put me behind on my projects, which will give my manager the excuse he's been looking for to fire me. He is so rude - He never thanked me for the candy I put in his dish last week, and I am still waiting for an apology from him for the time he took my favorite parking space. Getting fired is going to ruin my life! Without health insurance, I won't be able to afford my allergy meds, and I'll have to get rid of my cat! A poor, defenseless animal is going to lose its home just because the company insisted on upgrading to the newest verson of Office!"
Because distorted thinking is so ridiculous, humor is a great antidote. Write out some of your most ridiculous distorted thoughts and have a good laugh. Don't let something this silly destroy your life and career.
Check your own internal monologue to see if you're guilty of any of these dangerous distortions:
Overgeneralizing
You walk to the shared office printer, and for the second time this week, the pages of your document are out of order. You say to yourself, "This always happens! Can't I just once print my letters without going through this ordeal?" "No one here has any manners!" "Have we lost all basic decency in this day and age?"
By overgeneralizing, you blatantly disregard all evidence of times when things went right, when people were considerate of you. Dismissing all of the good things around you just because of a few problems is destructive and inaccurate. A better reaction would be: "This has happened a couple of times now, and I wonder if I can do anything to prevent it from happening again, or if I should just let it go."
Destructive Labeling
After a single incident, you're ready to label someone for all time. A tech support rep gave incorrect information to a customer, and now you're sorting out the problem. "That rep is incompetent!" "He has no business working here!" "That whole department is incompetent!"
Everyone makes mistakes (yes, even you). Using a single incident to label someone, or worse yet, a group of people, is disrespectful and dangerous. You're also telling yourself that nothing can be done to fix the situation - if the whole department is broken, then it's easy to feel hopeless. A better response would be, "It seems he was mistaken in what he told the customer, so I'll fix the customer's issue and let the tech support rep know the correct answer for next time."
Mind Reading
Your manager arrives at work and isn't her usual, friendly self. "She's upset with me." "She's probably unhappy with my customer satisfaction ratings from last month. She's never liked me, and now my low scores give her a reason to punish me. I had better stay away from her today."
Putting thoughts, especially negative ones, into someone else's mind will cause you nothing but useless anxiety. If someone's behavior is puzzling you, why not ask directly - "You look like you have a lot on your mind. Is there anything I can help with?" She might just be feeling ill or have missed her usual shot of espresso.
Making up Rules
You mentally create a code of thinking and behaving for other people, then are baffled or disappointed when they don't follow it. "My boss should have apologized for what she said in that meeting." "The team should feel really grateful that I fixed the copier." "Everyone should know I'm due for Employee of the Month."
By expecting others to think and behave as you want them to, you are setting yourself up for a life of anger, disappointment, and perceived injustice. Human motivation is very complex. If someone's actions confuse you, and the relationship is important, try to better understand that person by asking questions and listening openly.
Perspective Distortion
You wait til the last minute to reconcile your monthly expenses, and when you log in, the accounting system is down. "This is a disaster! I can't do my work! The monthly budget numbers will be all messed up, and I'll get in trouble for sure! If I get fired, I won't be able to afford my house payments, and I'll have to move back in with my parents!"
If there is a solution or workaround, it is not a disaster. In this example, you could call or e-mail your boss or someone from accounting and let them know that you couldn't submit your report through the system. It might be a little embarrassing to admit that you waited until the last minute, and you might have to do your report manually, but you will recover. Calliing a setback a catastrophe or a disaster magnifies its intensity, triggers your own "fight or flight" response, and distorts your thinking even more.
Distortion Smorgasbord
Practitioners of distorted thinking seldom use just one method. Their internal monologues are often a buffet of distortion patterns that lead to one miserable conversation. Imagine a distorted thinker if his or her computer crashed:
"This is a catastrophe! Bad things always happen to me! Those ignoramuses at the Help Desk messed everything up when they installed the new version of Office, like they always do! And they never know how to fix things either, so I'm not even going to bother calling them. They should be called the Helpless Desk! Now I won't be able to get any work done, which will put me behind on my projects, which will give my manager the excuse he's been looking for to fire me. He is so rude - He never thanked me for the candy I put in his dish last week, and I am still waiting for an apology from him for the time he took my favorite parking space. Getting fired is going to ruin my life! Without health insurance, I won't be able to afford my allergy meds, and I'll have to get rid of my cat! A poor, defenseless animal is going to lose its home just because the company insisted on upgrading to the newest verson of Office!"
Because distorted thinking is so ridiculous, humor is a great antidote. Write out some of your most ridiculous distorted thoughts and have a good laugh. Don't let something this silly destroy your life and career.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)