The YES! Leader Meets the Monkey

Performance improvisers are taught to take responsibility for themselves onstage while also reinforcing the efforts of their scene partners. They must both offer scene choices and accept the scene choices made by their partners.

This give-and-take can be a tricky business. Each performer needs to chart a middle course between asserting too much of the scene content (and thus taking over) and passively waiting for the other to make the next move (and thus relinquishing responsibility for the scene’s direction).

This middle course has a name: Support. On the improv stage, support consists of letting your partner run his game while also contributing your own thoughts and ideas – all without slipping to either side (taking over vs. abdicating responsibility).

This common improv dilemma came to mind recently as I was reading a famous 1974 Harvard Business Review article by William Oncken titled “Who’s Got the Monkey?” Oncken uses the metaphor of a monkey on one’s back to illustrate how leaders are often quick to take team members’ problems (their “monkeys”) onto their own backs rather than leaving the problems on the team members’ backs. By regularly taking on these monkeys, the leader creates several additional monkeys of her own:

·         She overburdens her own time by doing the work rather than managing (i.e., delegating) it.

·         She becomes a bottleneck as people wait for her to take care of all of their problems.

·         She fails to develop her people’s ability to become self-reliant problem-solvers.

This all leads to a vicious cycle: The more monkeys the leader takes onto her back, the more she encourages her people to keep bringing her monkeys, and the less they learn how to feed and care for their own monkeys.

Steven Covey points out that Oncken’s basic recommendation – Give the problem back to the subordinate – was a welcome (and radical) departure from the command-and-control management philosophy of the time. But Covey also notes that Oncken may have gone too far in suggesting that the leader merely block the monkey’s leap. Instead, Covey proposes some additional leader actions that can keep him more on the “support” middle ground mentioned above.

First, as Covey notes, “when you give problems back to subordinates to solve themselves, you have to be sure that they have both the desire and the ability to do so.” As a leader, you can do this by applying Situational Leadership, which involves assessing the follower’s level of ability (do they know how to do it, have they done it, are they doing it?) and willingness (are they confident, committed, motivated?). Based on your assessment, you can then accompany your monkey-blocking behavior with the right amount of task behavior (e.g., showing how to feed the monkey) and/or relationship behavior (e.g., motivating the follower by emphasizing the importance of having happy monkeys).

Second, says Covey, “To delegate effectively, executives need to establish a running dialogue with subordinates. They need to establish a partnership.” Just blocking the monkey and saying “You take care of it” cuts off further communication and basically (to mix metaphors) tells the follower “The monkey is in your court.” The “partnership” Covey advocates can take the form of coaching, in which the leader helps the follower by asking powerful questions to stimulate the follower’s thinking and facilitate the follower’s ability to arrive at his own solution.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

What is the distribution of monkeys on your own team? Do you carry the majority of them on your back? Do you insist – without doing more – that other team members care for and feed their own monkeys? Or do you maintain the middle ground by supporting team members as they tend to their monkeys?

Planning vs. Improvising

Improv performers are often told to “get out of your head” – that is, quit thinking so much and just act! On the improv stage, a performer can’t spend time scriptwriting in his head but must take action as quickly as possible and trust his onstage partners to support him.

There are many parallels here with the organization environment. It’s one thing to (say) attend a class in conflict management, read a list of best practices on a Powerpoint slide, and apply them to a case study after a 30-minute discussion with your table team. It’s quite another thing to go back into a live work environment and try to apply the practices when you’re suddenly confronted by two employees having a knock-down drag-out verbal fight. In that situation, you can’t say, “Hold that thought, guys – let me refer to my Powerpoint and call my table team.” No, you have to act now!

In those “on the fly” situations, I think most people would value the ability to act improvisationally and not get stuck in their heads, mulling over what to do while the conflict spirals out of control in front of them. But does that mean that every situation calls for improvisational action? Of course not – and I sometimes think that this is one of the biggest barriers to people’s acceptance of Applied Improvisation: The perception that improvisation means totally shutting off your mind and acting by instinct in all situations. On the contrary, there are many situations that require us to slow down, deliberate, and carefully plan what we’re going to do.

So does this mean that the improviser’s art has no place in the world of planning? To address this, I’ll cite one of my favorite quotes, by that great daily improviser Dwight D. Eisenhower:

“Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

Essentially, Ike was recognizing something that the Heath brothers (authors of Made to Stick) also acknowledged: No plan survives contact with the enemy. In other words, a plan-on-paper is built on certain assumptions about the future that will inevitably turn out to be incomplete, slightly off base, or just flat-out wrong. Because of this, sticking rigidly to the plan will likely lead to a march over the proverbial cliff.

But even if the plan is “useless” (and Ike was clearly overstating for effect), the process used to create it is essential  - because, by immersing himself in the problem space and turning over the various possibilities in his mind, the planner trains his mind to bend and flex with each contingency. When reality throws the inevitable unanticipated event in his face, the planner is then in a better position to address it in the moment – i.e., to improvise – because of his mental preparation. Just as the performance improviser prepares by cultivating a mindset of “expecting the unexpected,” so can the planner remain open to the need to change on the fly rather than becoming wedded to his plan.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

How do you regard a plan? As a mathematical formula that must be followed exactly as written in order to get the right answer – or as a framework for action? How do you react when reality doesn’t cooperate with the assumptions cooked into your plan? Are you paralyzed - or can you improvise?

Improvisational Photography: Just Letting the World Happen

For my first job out of college, I worked for two years as an editor for a book publishing company.  Every day when I walked into my cubicle, I had to pinch myself as a reminder that, yes, I was actually getting paid for reading books! (And even though the salary wasn’t that substantial, I have to say in retrospect that my psychological paycheck was huge.)

Since those editorial days, my career path has taken a long and winding road to my current point on the journey. I’ve loved some of my way stations (such as my current one) and regarded others as nothing more than a (hard) learning experience. Yet, through it all, that first job has always called out to me, waving from the distant starting line.

Prompted by my ever-present nostalgic streak, I recently took a detour from a planned trip and traveled back to the site of that first job – a place I hadn’t visited since I punched out for the last time many years before. I had brought along my good camera so that I could snap a picture of the part of the building where my cube was located. As I drove down the street that bordered the building, I intended to stop my car by the roadside, adjust my camera, carefully frame the shot, and capture the view for posterity.

But as I approached the building, I realized that there was no good place to pull over. Feeling pressed by the traffic bearing down on me from behind, at the last minute I grabbed my cell phone, stuck it out the driver’s side window with my left hand, and (keeping my eyes fixed on the road ahead) took a Hail Mary shot that I hoped would capture at least some of the building.

Given my schedule, I knew that I couldn’t double back to try again. So I headed back to the main highway, kicking myself for blowing my only chance and preparing myself to see a fuzzy picture of a ditch by the side of the road.

So imagine my surprise the next day when I saw the following image in my phone:

There it was: A perfectly centered, in-focus shot – with the sun forming a halo effect directly over the part of the building where my cube used to be located.

I can’t say that I found any cosmic significance in the image that resulted from my point-and-click moment. No, the message for me was a bit more down-to-earth: That sometimes just letting things take their course can result in even more amazing outcomes than we could bring forth if we tried to plan and control everything in advance.

Hmm, on second thought, maybe that is a pretty cosmic message.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

One of the hallmarks of an effective improviser is the ability to give up the need to plan and control what happens next in a performance. This requires improvisers to trust their fellow performers and to trust that great things will emerge from the collaborative process.

Here are some questions to consider in your own practice of YES! Leadership:

·         To what extent do you try to control every outcome – including the actions of the people who might generate those outcomes?

·         What would happen if you just “let go” and lived with some discomfort for a bit while things (and people) took their natural course?

·         When things don’t go according to plan, do you anticipate the worst? Or do you keep yourself open to the possibility that things might work out even better than you could have planned?

Don't Lose Your Head! Protecting Your Personal Brand

What comes to mind when you think of the word Disney?  If you’re like most people, you probably would answer with words like “fun,” “family-friendly,” “entertaining,” and even “magical.”

Such is the power of branding. A brand can be defined as a set of perceptions developed in people’s minds based on many experiences and touch-points over time. If each of those contacts (either personally or via word-of-mouth) is positive, the company’s brand is reinforced accordingly. People then trust that future interactions with the company will result in a similarly positive experience.

But what would happen if you went to Disney World and saw the Mickey Mouse character reclining in the grass with his “head” lying next to him? For most people, this would likely shoot their whole image of Disney as a place to suspend disbelief and escape the “real world” for a while. (In fact, when I mentioned this image in a recent session, a participant immediately exclaimed “Oh, no!” – as if the mere suggestion were enough to burst her bubble.)

                                                                                   

Disney is of course a famous company brand. But can a person have a brand? Can you have a brand? Of course – as becomes clear when you apply the above definition of a “brand” to yourself.

Other people form perceptions of you via the actions you take over a period of time. These “touch-points” they experience leave a certain impression of you in their minds. If the impression is strong enough, they’re likely to mention it to others, who will very likely form that same impression (even if they’ve never met you). In their subsequent contact with you, each of these people then carries a set of expectations (either positive or negative, depending on their experience) of how you will act.

And, as in the case of Mickey Mouse lounging next to his head, it can take only one strongly negative experience – one “Oh, no!” reaction – for your brand image to be destroyed.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Improv performers know that it’s the small things – timing, gestures, stage presence – that make a big difference in the success of their performance. Two performers might come up with equally creative lines, but if one says them confidently and “on the beat” while another consistently stumbles over the words and speaks to the floor, there’s no question of who will leave the better impression with the audience.

Similarly, the YES! Leader's personal brand can be negatively impacted by small yet chronic actions that always hit just the wrong note. While (as with the Mickey Mouse head) one big action can sabotage your brand, more often it’s a series of those little off-key actions that can slowly erode your positive image in others’ minds.

Take a look at the following sample list. Which of these might describe a chronic off-key action of yours?

·         Making sarcastic comments at others’ expense.

·         Exhibiting a cynical attitude about anything and everything.

·         Overpromising and not quite delivering.

·         Using Idea Killers to stop discussions in their tracks.

·         Dominating discussions and acting as a know-it-all.

(And if you don’t think you ever engage in any chronic off-key actions, I challenge you to actively seek honest feedback from those around you. You might be surprised at what you hear.)

The Power of Positive Standards

OK, it’s YES! Leader Pop Quiz Time!

You’re sitting in your office when an employee of yours named Chris marches in and launches into the following rant about another of your employees named Ed:

“You won’t believe what Ed just did! I thought we said the whole team had to agree before taking on any new work. But now I hear that Ed promised Chandra in Accounting that we’d create some new reports for her by the end of the week! So we all have to bust our behinds while Ed comes off looking like a hero! What kind of guy would pull a rotten stunt like that??!! I’ve just about had it with him!!”

Which of the following would be the best thing to say to Chris?

(a) “Wow, that was a pretty rotten thing to do!”

(b) “OK, OK, just calm down. Let’s do some problem-solving here.”

(c) “I know how you feel.”

(d) None of the above.

You probably know not to select Option (a). Besides not having the full story, you don’t want to be seen as taking sides in the issue. Otherwise, Ed may feel as if you’re ganging up on him, which could poison your (and Chris’s) subsequent relationship with him.

At first glance, Option (b) may sound good, as a way to get past Chris’s emotion and tackle the issue in a coolly rational way. However, ignoring emotions won’t make them go away, and in fact may aggravate the issue if Chris feels that you’re patronizing him and dismissing his concerns. And no matter how much you tell him to “calm down,” he’s still likely to be under the influence of his emotions – and thus won’t be in a problem-solving frame of mind anyway.

So if we don’t want to take sides or ignore Chris’s emotions, then Option (c) might seem to be a good choice. Unfortunately, it also risks running afoul of the downsides of either (a) or (b). Chris might react (at least internally) in one of two ways:

·         “If you know how I feel, then you’re agreeing that I’m justified in feeling that way” – which means he thinks you’re taking his side.

·         “You don’t know how I feel! Nobody could know how I feel right now!” – which means he thinks you’re patronizing him.

So that leaves Option (d) as the best answer – which still doesn’t tell the YES! Leader what to do. To supply the answer, I'll suggest the following four-step process:

(1) Check for Understanding. “You say Ed made a commitment without consulting the team.”

(2) Name the Emotion. “This is about as angry as I’ve ever seen you.”

(3) State a Positive Standard. “We need to make sure we’re all working together as a team.”

(4) Test for Coaching Readiness. “What’s most important for you right now?”

This approach has the following benefits:

(1) Check for Understanding. This lets you validate your understanding of the facts of the issue and shows Chris that you’re truly listening.

(2) Name the Emotion. This lets you test whether you’ve grasped Chris’s emotions of the moment and shows that you care as much about the impact on him as the impact on the team’s work.

(3) State a Positive Standard. This lets you establish the standard that any resolution of the issue will need to meet – regardless of what the “true facts” of the matter turn out to be. By stating this, you maintain your neutrality while also subtly reminding Chris that he might also have contributed to undermining the teamwork principle (by, say, leaping to conclusions about Ed’s behavior rather than working things out with Ed directly).

(4) Test for Coaching Readiness. By asking what’s most important for him right now, you’re essentially testing Chris’s readiness to put his emotion aside and start focusing on a solution. If he’s open to problem-solving, you can then engage him in coaching so he can devise an appropriate course of action. If he’s still in the grip of his emotions, you may find you can best serve him by just acting as a sounding board and letting him vent. (That may be all he wants to do anyway.)

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Notice the connection between the Positive Standard concept and the “position-interest” distinction I described in my previous article.  Basically, a Positive Standard represents an attempt to get Chris and Ed past their conflicting positions by framing a common interest that can serve as the basis of a mutually acceptable agreement. As long as each holds to his position (Chris: “Ed’s actions were rotten!”; Ed: “I was helping another group!”), the two will never reach a satisfying resolution.

A Positive Standard can also be thought of as a norm, i.e., a shared principle that guides the group members in their interactions. What are your team’s norms? What would happen if you individually asked your team members to identify the team norms? How much agreement would there be? What would happen if you then conducted a full team discussion and attempted to reach consensus on the key norms of your team?

How to Engage in Positive Disagreement

I’ve pointed out a number of times how taking a Yes, And approach can help the YES! Leader maintain a positive, collaborative atmosphere.  I’ve also mentioned that saying Yes, And doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with another’s Position, but it does mean:

·         Accepting the Person;

·         Acknowledging the Possibilities in what he says; and

·         Advancing with Positive Purpose.

But it still seems as if we have a paradox here: What does it mean to say “Yes” to someone while disagreeing with his position?

A classic example can help illustrate this point. Let’s say that I’m scripting a scene involving two people (whom I’ll cleverly call Person A and Person B) who are eagerly eyeing an orange sitting in a bowl on a table. Imagine that I begin writing dialogue that goes something like this:

PERSON A: I want the orange!

PERSON B: No, I want the orange!

PERSON A: I want the orange!

PERSON B: No, I want the orange!

PERSON A: I want the orange!

PERSON B: No, I want the orange!

OK, this scene is going nowhere fast. I’ll wad up that attempt and try again:

PERSON A: I want the orange!

PERSON B: No, I want the orange!

PERSON A: OK, you say you want the orange – but why?

PERSON B: I want to make juice.

PERSON A: Well, I want to make marmalade.

PERSON B: In that case, here’s an idea: Why don’t I take the inside of the orange …

PERSON A: … and I’ll take the rind!

PERSON A & B (together): Brilliant!

Ah, yes, that’s much better – and let’s see why.

In Version 1, the two characters had fallen victim to what’s called Getting Stuck on a Position. As long as each character presents his “want” in terms of acquiring the only available orange, there’s no way to satisfy them both. The result is impasse and stalemate – and a complete block to further progress.

However, in Version 2, Person A decided to get unstuck from his position. He chose to Advance with Positive Purpose by exploring what interests lay behind Person B’s position. By asking that key question – Why? – he was able to find common ground with B and thereby discovered that the availability of only one orange was not a barrier to both of their interests being met.

This is how you can disagree with someone else’s position while still saying “Yes”! You don’t have to look for agreement only at the “position” level. By asking “Why?” you open yourself (and the other) to the possibilities for saying “Yes” at the “interest” level.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Have you ever been in a business meeting where two or more participants engaged in dialogue that sounded like Version 1? Where they just repeatedly batted the same position back and forth, with maybe a few word variations but basically the same message? Was it about as productive – and as interesting – as Version 1? What would have happened if one of the participants had asked “Why?” And – shades of picking up trash in the forest – what was stopping you from asking “Why?”

Steady in the Wind: The Benefits of Consistency

In recent articles, I’ve been dealing with the question: Is it better for a leader to be flexible or to be consistent?

I think the answer is: There’s a time and a place for each. A simple answer on paper, of course, but not so simple in practice.

I’ve described some of the reasons why flexibility is a hallmark of the practice of leadership for the YES! Leader. I’ve also noted some of boundaries that must be placed on the YES! Leader’s flexibility. Today I’d like to address the question: What are some of the benefits of consistency?

I think there are at least three areas in which consistent behavior by a leader is not only beneficial but essential:

1) Predictability and Safety. Each of us has probably worked for someone with an erratic personality. He might come through the door in a calm, laid-back mood one day, screaming and yelling the next.  He may respond to a critical situation in a level-headed manner, then be set off by a small issue. You never know exactly “who” this person will be at any given time. This kind of leader creates an unsafe environment which often causes people to withhold or parcel out information for fear of the reaction it might provoke.  A leader must keep control of his emotions and reactions in order to maintain a consistent demeanor upon which others can rely.

2) Trust. In order to build trust with others, a leader needs to send a consistent message. If she communicates conflicting opinions and factual characterizations to different people at different times, or if she fails to follow through on what she says she will do, then she will quickly undermine her credibility.

Of course, consistency isn’t a matter of saying “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it” – no matter what. There may be times when she recognizes the need to vary from a previous message – say, because she learns new information that indicates the need for a course change.  In that case, she must openly and honestly acknowledge the variance, explain the reasons behind the change, and admit to any mistakes on her part.

3) Decision-Making. An effective leader must have a reliable internal compass – a sense of True North, as the author Bill George puts it – in order to provide an underlying coherence to his decisions and actions. If he seems to bend with the prevailing winds when it comes to making decisions or forming opinions (a syndrome known in the political world as “flip-flopping”), then people will quickly question whether he can be depended upon to keep a steady hand on the wheel. (And - to carry the metaphor one step further – they may well ask: Can his actions and decisions provide calm in any storm that might be encountered?)

Consistency doesn’t mean rigidly applying a set of simple rules in a black-and-white manner. Instead, it means possessing (and living) a firm set of values and principles that serve as a guideline to dealing with the sometimes gray areas of life.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

I’ve observed the ways in which flexibility is important for the YES! Leader. But consider the following:

·         Are you so flexible that you keep people off guard, not quite sure from minute to minute “who” you are – or how they should interact with you?

·         Do you sense that people are being less than totally open with you for fear of how you’ll react?

·         Are you trying so hard to be everything to everybody that nobody can take what you say at face value?

·         Can you point to a set of personal core values that guide your day-to-day (and even moment-to-moment) decisions and actions?

Can You Play a Role *and* Play Yourself?

Many times in this blog, I’ve said that an effective leader must be flexible in his behavior. Indeed, for the YES! Leader, the ability to flex is the (literal) centerpiece of the ExploreFlexSupport model.

In a recent article I dealt with the question: Rather than flexing her behavior – i.e., acting differently around different people – shouldn’t a leader be consistent in her behaviors?

In that article, I pointed out that I didn’t believe there was an inherent incongruity between flexing one’s behavior and behaving consistently. And I recently ran across a passage in the book The Art of Woo, by G. Richard Shell and Mario Moussa, that reinforces this point.

Shell and Moussa emphasize that a person must be able to shift his communication style in order to effectively influence others. Some listeners you’re trying to persuade may respond to a high-level, just-the-facts approach, while others may want to see more in-depth details and rationale. Some listeners just want to know WIIFM? (What’s In It For Me?), while others have a concern for how your idea will impact others. Your ability to shift the emphasis of your message and to adapt your own communication style will help you sell your idea (and yourself) to a greater variety of people.

But Shell and Moussa also recognize the “apparent paradox” at work here:

“Won’t you lose credibility and self-respect if you become a shape-shifter, changing yourself for each new audience? … Your personal credibility, which has its roots in perceived consistency and trustworthiness, provides the foundation for influence. Yet effective persuaders are, [certain] authors say, ‘like chameleons, capable of adapting to the demands of the situations they face.’”

Shell and Moussa then pose the basic question: “Is it really possible to be a ‘credible chameleon’?”

Their answer: Yes - but only within limits.

“You play many roles in your life such as spouse, parent, professional, employee, boss, sports fan, customer, community leader, student, and teacher. And in each of those roles you naturally display different aspects of yourself…. Nevertheless, it is always just ‘you.’ There is a core set of traits, commitments, standards, and impulses that connects you in these various roles.” (emphasis added)

The leadership expert Marshall Goldsmith also echoes this theme about the various roles we play in our daily lives. In his article “The Born Identity,” Goldsmith points to the example of the Irish singer Bono, who went from being a regular bloke hanging around with his mates in Dublin to being a world-famous rock star and a tireless humanitarian. Goldsmith observes:

“He was still a regular guy, with a wife and four kids at home, but when he was in public, his identity was clearly rock star. Without being arrogant, he was smart enough to recognize this as an important part of his identity.”

Bono also figures in an example cited by Shell and Moussa in The Art of Woo.  They describe an unlikely meeting between Bono and conservative U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, whom Bono wanted to persuade to support a program to help African countries fight AIDS. During the meeting, Bono quickly shifted from statistics-speak (to which Helms was not responding) to a more personal (and more effective) appeal to Helms’s Christian concern for the poor.  Inauthentic? Manipulative? Arguably so, except that Bono himself was a born-again Christian and a student of the Bible – yet more “roles” of his. Bono's religion-based argument was an authentic expression based on a faith he shared with Senator Helms.

I think these examples show the importance of possessing a core set of traits and values that inform your actions in all of your encounters. This core, this essence, comprises your consistent, authentic self. And as you go about your life, you will wrap this core in a wide diversity of roles that guide your behaviors as you interact with the different people who inhabit your world. You may choose to reveal more of your self in one role, less in another. But no matter what role you're leading with, it's still you.

It’s only when the different roles you take on conflict with certain aspects of your core – when the role of the moment becomes the person of the moment – that your “shape-shifting” crosses into inauthentic behavior.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

·         What are the various roles that you play in your life?

·         Which of these do you play most often?

·         Which are the most comfortable for you? The least comfortable?

·         How does each of them track with (or not track with) what you consider to be your core self?

·         What would happen if you played your most comfortable role more often?

·         In what ways (if any) are you undermining your roles by not making them reflect your core traits and values?

Encouraging Collaboration by Saying "Yes And!"

Organizations can learn a lot from the world of improvisational theater – especially about what it means to work together in a truly collaborative way.

Above all, improv performers are taught to say “Yes And.” “Yes And” means that a performer must not deny the reality asserted by an onstage partner but must accept it and build on it during the scene. If your partner says there’s a net strung across the stage, you answer “Yes” and immediately start “playing tennis.” Saying “No” leads to onstage power struggles among the performers and blocks a scene from ever getting off the ground.

Similarly, adopting a “Yes And” attitude in an organization reminds people to keep an open mind and work together to discover the opportunities in each others’ ideas. “Yes And” doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position, but it does mean:

(1) Accepting the Person (that is, treating each other with respect);
(2) Acknowledging the Possibilities (that is, being curious about where an idea could lead); and
(3) Advancing with a Positive Purpose (that is, incorporating everyone’s best thinking to create a great result).

Collaborating with others in an organization isn’t just “like” improv – it is improv! Reflecting the “Yes And” attitude in our team interactions can let our collective brainpower thrive, leading to successful “scenes” for us and our customers.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Many leaders have a strong, constant urge to control what happens in their organizations and their work groups. To what extent is this true for you? What would happen if you “gave the spotlight” to your fellow team members and let their ideas, actions, decisions, perspectives, approaches, experiments, etc., truly shine through?

Want a Bigger Paycheck ... Today? Consider Your Psychological Salary!

Is another company dangling a big paycheck in front of you? Are you tempted to leap after it and leave your current job behind?

Many people focus on money as the primary driver of their career decisions – even in the face of other factors that can contribute to job satisfaction. For example, surveys conducted by Career Systems International show that people repeatedly cite the following items as important factors in their decisions to stay in their current jobs:

·         Career growth, learning, and development

·         Being recognized, valued, respected

·         Having exciting, challenging, or meaningful work

·         Working with great co-workers or clients

·         Fun, enjoyable work environment

However, if you’re one of those people who would immediately jump ship from your current job if your magic dollar figure were offered, let me ask you this: Would you still accept that other offer if the following were true of your new workplace?

·         Movement within the company is discouraged

·         Training opportunities are limited

·         You do the same thing day in and day out

·         Your work is taken for granted – and so are you

·         A “reward” consists of the privilege to come back to work tomorrow

·         Your co-workers engage in backbiting, rumor-mongering, and bad-mouthing among themselves

·         You have little say in how you do your work

·         You work long hours under high stress in a deadly serious environment

If any or all of these factors were present, you might think twice about making the leap. Indeed, what you are doing is “factoring” each of these things into the overall value proposition. Viewed in this way, each of these factors carries a “psychological cost” that needs to be deducted from the salary in order to compute the true amount of the offer.

Now, let’s look at it from the perspective of the job you’re thinking of leaving. Even though your current paycheck might not meet your magic dollar figure, how is it being supplemented by the presence of other factors (such as those in the first list above) that provide a “psychological salary”? How could you quantify the benefit you’re receiving by working in a job where (say) you’re respected and valued, you have flexibility, your voice counts, and your work makes a real difference in others’ lives?

Everyone would probably assign a different psychological value to each of these factors. For example, some people might not mind the lack of variety or autonomy, whereas others might feel stifled.  The important thing, though, is to do the work of reflecting on each of these factors and compute its true worth to you.

You might conclude that you're really "making" more than you think!

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Many leaders who regularly ask their people about the factors that motivate and engage them report some frustration with an answer they frequently hear:

“Pay me more money!”

As a YES! Leader, what would happen if you discussed the “psychological salary” concept with your people, as a way to have them consider the full amount of their current “paycheck”?