"Give More in Value Than You Take in Payment": A Recipe for Success!

This week I’ve been reading an excellent book recommended by a good friend of mine – The Go-Giver, by Bob Burg and John David Mann. Burg and Mann’s brief yet profound business fable sets such concepts as “achievement” and “success” on their collective heads.

Their message: Rather than trying to attain your goals by being a “go-getter” and setting your sights on grabbing as much as you can for yourself, you should instead be a “go-giver” by putting others’ interests first and continually adding value to their lives. It follows that the more you focus on what you give to others rather than on what you get in return, the more you’ll see your primary goal as always striving to exceed others’ expectations.

Burg and Mann characterize their premise regarding giving as The Law of Value, which they state as follows:

Your true worth is determined by how much more you give in value than you take in payment.

Rather than being a formula for business disaster, say Burg and Mann, The Law of Value reflects a principle for success that great business people have known for years. As one of the characters in their story says about giving:

It’s not a strategy. It’s a way of life. And when you [give], then very, very profitable things begin to happen.

In other words, if you are primarily focused on giving – be it in the form of products, services, information, knowledge, or even just yourself – then the energy and passion behind your contributions, and the quality of what you are giving, will be strikingly apparent to the people you are serving. As a result, they’ll  seek you out for further service and recommend you to others.  As another one of the characters in The Go-Giver says, "Givers attract."

Your own personal success will come, say the authors, but more as a byproduct of your service focus than as something for which you directly strive. You distinguish yourself, not by offering the same transactional “service for payment” that anybody else could offer, but by going over and above what’s expected. The extra value you provide is what attracts others, expands your network, increases your influence, and ultimately leads to your success.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

It strikes me that The Law of Value applies to the realm of personal relationships as well.  As I was reading The Go-Giver, my classic-rock brain immediately plugged into one of the Beatles’ most famous lyrics, from their Abbey Road album:

And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

But it seems that the Beatles’ math may run slightly counter to The Law of Value, in this respect: The goal of giving is not to be concerned about the balance between the outlay and inflow sides of the ledger, making sure they’re always equivalent. The goal of giving is to give for its own sake.

If we want find another classic rock lyric that better squares with The Law of Value, I’d point to Andy Gibb’s recording of “I Just Want to Be Your Everything” (written by his brother Barry):

If you give a little more than you’re asking for, your love will turn the key.

Framing Your Way Out of Contradictions

In my previous article, I discussed the fallacy of the Fool’s Choice, in which people consider potential courses of action in terms of only two either-or options rather than stepping back and seeing the myriad choices available to them.  Organizational leaders who regularly fall prey to the Fool’s Choice severely limit their range of action and lock themselves into rigid patterns of thought and behavior. In the worst case, they view all situations through a single either-or lens (e.g., “you’re either with me or against me”).

The Fool’s Choice is an example of how framing can lead us astray. Framing is a linguistic device in which words conjure up certain images that affect how we react to a topic. For example, you may hear the word “friend” and immediately see in your mind a person you can call anytime to share your secrets and vent your frustrations, secure in the knowledge that that person won’t use your words against you later.  If you then encounter someone who asserts that it’s possible for a person’s boss to also be his “friend,” you may well disagree, on the grounds that it wouldn't be appropriate to open up to your boss the same way you would open up to your mentally pictured friend. Your conclusion: “You can be either a friend or a boss, but not both.”

But this isn’t the only way to frame the word “friend.” It can also mean a colleague whom you respect and with whom you can talk shop. It can mean someone who frequents the same Starbucks as you and with whom you’ve struck up a couple of conversations. And it can simply mean someone with whom you are friendly. If you use one of these alternative frames, you can see that the “friend” concept and the “boss” concept need not be regarded as inherently incompatible polar opposites at all.

While getting caught in a single (and often unconscious) frame can lead to the Fool’s Choice, being open to the multiple alternatives for framing a situation is one of the most powerful ways to resolve (seeming) contradictions. In the example above, rather than just reacting to your own framing of the “friend” concept, you can step back and ask what the other person meant when he asserted that a boss can be a friend. His answer may help you instantly reframe the entire conversation into one of agreement rather than disagreement – and show you that the seeming contradiction of the “Friendly Boss” is in fact not so contradictory after all.

How Saying "Yes And" Can Keep You from Playing the Fool

In a recent article in The YES! Leader, I described the essence of the improviser’s art as the ability to resolve contradictions. So I was particularly intrigued to run across the latest edition of the Crucial Skills newsletter, in which consultant and author Al Switzler (Crucial Conversations, Influencer) describes a common danger to which many people – especially leaders – fall prey.

Switzler was responding to a reader’s question: “How can I be both an effective boss and also a friend to my employees?” The query was signed “Friendly Boss” – which, to many people, would be yet another instance of the kind of incongruities (e.g., being doggedly flexible, being deliberately authentic) that I dealt with in my previous article.

In reply, Switzler wrote, “The challenge you’ve presented is the perfect example of the Fool’s Choice. What we mean by this is that we can only see two options [for addressing the issue] that seem diametrically opposed. We don’t see it as a false dichotomy but as an unfortunate reality.”

Switzler’s characterization of the challenge as a “Fool’s Choice” reminds me that my references to “resolving contradictions” are really intended as shorthand for “resolving seeming contradictions.”  When we see these types of paired concepts – being friendly or being the boss, being committed to a course of action or being open to course changes, being trusting or being skeptical – as mutually exclusive, either-or choices, it’s usually because of our failure to step back and see the larger picture and the possible future. When we do take that step back, the apparent incongruities often fade away, revealing the opportunities for synthesis.

Successful leaders know that taking that step back in order to gain a broader perspective – what I’ve previously called taking the Widescreen View – is essential for navigating the ever-changing circumstances of daily organizational life. As I’ve written previously:

“Just as the successful improv performer can resolve the incongruities of the situation without missing a beat, the successful leader can nimbly shift his actions throughout the day to effectively address each circumstance. In most cases, this is preferable to taking the easier course of always applying the same style in all situations with all people – an approach guaranteed to fail at least some percentage of the time.”

Switzler, in his response to “Friendly Boss,” makes a similar point:

“What we found from studying leaders and team members is that the best performers don’t fall into the trap of managing on one end of the continuum or the other. They value getting results and getting along. They value quality and productivity as much as they value harmony. They can clarify high expectations and rally a team to be both motivated and able to accomplish them. They can have tough, honest, candid conversations with care and courtesy. They have found the ‘and.’” [emphasis added]

In improv terms, what these “best performers” are doing is avoiding Fool’s Choices and instead saying “Yes And” – or more specifically, as applied to "Friendly Boss's" situation:

“Yes, it’s important to be friendly with my direct reports while also ensuring they’re working up to standards. And if I step back, acknowledge the possibilities, and advance with positive purpose, I can find a way to achieve both goals.”

Which DiSC Style Makes the Best Leaders?

In my leadership programs over the years, I’ve done considerable work with the DiSC behavioral model. The DiSC model defines four primary styles of behavior for which people tend to show preference. At the risk of oversimplifying, I would describe the four styles as follows:

D – The DIRECTING style. People with a D preference tend to focus on the rapid accomplishment of tasks. They are driven (and drive others) to achieve results and don’t like to be bogged down in details.

i – The INFLUENCING style. People with the i preference tend to focus on persuading others by building networks and generating enthusiasm for their ideas. They interact easily with others and don’t like to focus on hard realities that might block their ideas.

S – The STEADINESS style. The S style tends to focus on achieving harmony, consistency, and balance in the workplace. Like the i style, they gravitate toward people but in a lower-key, often deeper way. People with an S style tend to dislike what they see as change for change’s sake.

C – The CONSCIENTIOUSNESS style. The C style, like the D style, tends to focus on tasks and outcomes rather than on people. However, the C style prefers a more deliberate pace than the D style, since they highly value accuracy, attention to detail, and the following of consistent processes. The C style resists ambiguity, lack of clarity, and rapid action unsupported by careful analysis.

In presenting the DiSC model to new leaders over the years, I’ve often encountered the question: “Which DiSC style makes the best leader?”  In the discussions that follow the question, I usually hear people say that the D style is “the leadership style,” on the grounds that this is the style that takes control, directs others, and rapidly drives toward results.

In order to deal with this question, I’ve taken to doing the following: Before we ever get to the DiSC model during a program, I ask participants to flipchart responses to a very simple question:

“From your experience, what are the characteristics of an effective leader?”

The list that they generate usually includes words such as:

·         Gets results

·         Overcomes obstacles

·         Influences others

·         Inspires others

·         Helps people deal with change

·         Creates a sense of stability

·         Sizes up situations

·         Makes good decisions

Later, when covering DiSC with the group, I’ll deal with the inevitable observation about D being “the leadership style” by referring to their “best leadership characteristics” flipchart and asking them to answer the following question about each item in the list:

“Which DiSC style do you think best supports this characteristic?”

As they consider each item on the list (which they themselves created), they quickly come to see that different DiSC styles support different leadership characteristics. A D style might be best for getting results and overcoming obstacles, but the persuasive approach of an i style is more appropriate for influencing and inspiring others, the steadying influence of the S style supports helping people deal with change and creating a sense of stability, and the analytical focus of a C style tends to work best for sizing up situations and making good decisions.

This exercise ultimately reinforces the important insight that leadership is not a “one size fits all” proposition. An effective leader must be able to shift her behavioral style to match the needs of different people and different situations – and the better she can learn to shift, the better leader she will be.

Resolving Contradictions: The Essence of the Improvising Leader's Art

What’s the one essential skill that any performance improviser must possess? Being quick-witted? Hilariously funny? Totally unflappable?

Many if not most people (especially those who have seen Whose Line Is It Anyway?) probably equate improv with thinking fast and making audiences laugh. When regarded this way, improv can seem as relevant to the lay person’s daily life (especially on the job) as the Three Stooges. But the entertainment factor is really a byproduct of the skills involved in improv – for example, listening fiercely, being completely present, and fully supporting troupe members. These types of skills are most definitely applicable to the everyday effectiveness of organizational “performers.”

But even more central to the improviser’s art (either onstage or in the meeting room) is a skill I call the ability to resolve contradictions.

On the improv stage, contradictions usually take the form of incompatible roles and situations that audiences pitch to the perfomers (e.g., a first-grade teacher as a master drill sergeant). Savvy audiences know that the entertainment comes, not from hearing wisecracks and jokes based on the situation, but from seeing how the performers weave the incongruities of the situation into a seamless scene.

Similarly, a leader’s effectiveness in his organizational performance is largely determined by how well he can resolve the jumble of contradictions presented to him each day. For example:

·         Being drivingly collaborative. Influencing the direction of events – while being open to the influence of others.

·         Being doggedly flexible. Being resolute in following a certain course of action – while staying alert to the need for course corrections as events warrant.

·         Being skeptically accepting. Showing trust in others at the start of a working relationship – before they’ve demonstrated how trustworthy they really are.

·         Being deliberately authentic. Flexing a natural behavioral style in order to adapt to certain situations and certain people – without becoming insincere or manipulative.

A leader’s success in navigating these shoals is largely a matter of shifting her responses between the two incongruous actions at different times to meet the needs of different situations. For example, she might follow her natural take-charge style when urgent action is needed but defer to another person’s ideas and judgment when she’s coaching the person to develop his problem-solving abilities. In most cases, this is preferable to taking the easier course of always applying the same style in all situations with all people – an approach guaranteed to fail at least some percentage of the time.

Just as the successful improv performer can resolve the incongruities of the situation without missing a beat, the successful leader can nimbly shift his actions throughout the day to effectively address each circumstance. At first, a new leader may have to stop and reflect (and often stumble) as he grasps for the best response. But with time, practice, and commitment, he can develop his own inimitable style that handles the ambiguities, dilemmas, and contradictions of organizational life without letting the seams show.

Presence as a Core Skill

In recent articles, I’ve been describing the core skills that are essential for any organizational performer, at any level of the organization:

·         Influence– The ability to “move” others to think or act in a certain way.

·         Openness– Receptivity to multiple perspectives, opinions, possibilities, and ideas.

·         Analysis– The ability to think critically, using facts and objective measures to make decisions.

Today I’d like to look at a fourth core skill that everybody needs to possess to ensure individual and organizational success. I call this skill Presence.

You can think of Presence as a stair-climbing process that occurs during any interaction with another person. Step One is recognizing one’s own thoughts and feelings and understanding the triggers (or “hot buttons”) that can prompt them.

So far so good for most (though not all) people. It’s Step Two – managing their reactions to their thoughts and feelings – that can start to make the staircase slippery. Instead of choosing appropriate reactions, many people act as if they’re victims of circumstance – the “circumstance” being those inner thoughts and feelings that give rise to uncontrollable knee-jerk responses.

But how to judge what constitutes more appropriate responses? This is Step Three – sensing how one’s actions are impacting or could impact other people.  This is often called the ability to “read” others, drawing on such signals as tone of voice, word choice, and body language to gauge what the other is likely experiencing. Step Three can be another stumbling block for many people, especially those who overfocus on themselves or fail to pick up on social cues.

Even a person who ascends this far can fail to navigate Step Four – sustaining his interactions with the other person in order to achieve an outcome that meets the needs of both of them. For example, a person trying to influence another may recognize his own negative feelings toward a resistant prospect (Step One),  manage his actions to keep them positive (Step Two), and sense that his “pitch” is working better but still isn’t having the desired persuasive effect (Step Three).  However, at this point he may be stymied as to what alternative approach to take next to overcome the lingering resistance (Step Four). Successful navigation of Step Four requires follow-through and finesse in order to bring the entire interaction to a mutually satisfying resolution.

What does this all have to do with Presence? The whole process described above takes place almost instantaneously, simultaneously, with few seams showing to denote the transitions. In fact, Step

Four itself is essentially a constant cycling through Steps One, Two, and Three – and not always in that order. Being able to keep up with the ever-shifting dynamics of the interaction requires a person to be relentless about staying in the here and now – that is, to be fully present during every second of the interaction.

How can a professional-skills curriculum teach “Presence 101”? Very simply – because the process I describe above is essentially describing the Emotional Intelligence (EI) model.  Grounding all organizational members in the basic skills of Emotional Intelligence can create a shared language and common awareness of the importance of not reflexively acting on our emotions but instead managing our responses in order to create positive, mutually beneficial outcomes for all. The foundational Emotional Intelligence skills can then be built upon in later programs in the curriculum, especially to teach the Step Four skills that will help people learn to sustain their EI skills in different contexts (sales, negotiation, coaching, influencing, etc.) with deftness and aplomb.

The Two Sides of Creativity and Innovation

Mention “brainstorming” to most people and they immediately think of a free-for-all, anything-goes session in which crazy, off-the-wall ideas pour out of the participants. When thought of in this way, brainstorming meets with resistance from many people who say, “I’m just not very creative” – that is, they’re not adept at generating new ideas on a blank page.

But this attitude represents a misconception of brainstorming – and of the whole process of creativity and innovation as well. As originally conceived in the 1950s by advertising executive Alex Osborn, brainstorming represents only one phase of the creative thinking process - a phase that consists of a group of people unleashing their thinking about an issue and generating as many (often crazy and impractical) ideas as they can.

Yet Osborn realized that a bunch of crazy ideas stuck on a wall won’t by themselves accomplish very much. Equally important to Osborn’s method is the activity that follows the brainstorming session: the evaluation of those ideas to see which ones might be viable and practical, or might point the way to ideas that could work in practice. This separation of idea-generation from idea-evaluation represents Osborn’s key insight into the creative-thinking process. (If you’ve ever been in a “brainstorming” session in which participants immediately criticized new ideas as soon as they were voiced, you can see the idea-chilling impact of trying to generate and evaluate ideas at the same time.)

There are many tools and methods a group can use to evaluate ideas effectively. For example, the group can first establish a standard that any idea must meet to address the needs at hand (e.g., “must cost less than $1,000 and be implementable in 90 days”). They can then judge each idea to see if it meets the standard or could meet it with further refinement and adaptation.

The process of creative thinking, then, requires more than just the core skill of Openness – i.e., opening one’s mind to new possibilities – that I described in a previous article. It also requires another core skill called Analysis – the ability to think critically, using facts and objective measures in order to make choices among options, reach supportable decisions, and establish clear courses of action.

Openness and Analysis are the two sides – the yin and yang, if you will – of the process of creativity and innovation. The critical, rational thinker has just as much to contribute to the process as the person who can conjure up new concepts out of thin air.

Say "Yes And" to Provide Great Customer Service

Many people have difficulty responding to objections to their ideas, opinions, and proposals.  They themselves may avoid rushing to judgment (and using an Idea Chiller) when others put forth an idea, but then they’re surprised when others don’t use the same restraint. Unfortunately, they then often descend to the other person’s level and start “playing defense” or even counterattacking. It’s as if they forget everything they learned about the core skill of Openness – listening, asking questions, clarifying, showing curiosity, working to resolution.

Customer-service providers often find themselves on the receiving end of objections. For example, a customer might call a customer service line with a complaint: “I want to place an order on your website but I can’t find the link. Why don’t you people make it easier for customers to access it?”

A quick (silent) thought might flash in the service provider’s mind: “Why don’t you slow down and try to find it before leaping onto the phone?” Based on this instant assessment of the cause of the issue, the provider might then go on the offense and say, “Sir, we’ve thoroughly tested the interface with users, and they’ve told us they have no problems with it. You just need to look more closely at the screen.” 

As I mentioned in my article on Openness, the provider’s immediate dash up the Ladder of Inference will probably lead to a dissatisfied customer. A better way to respond (and to put Openness into practice) is to take a Yes And approach.

As I’ve described it previously, saying Yes And doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position that the other person is taking. Instead, it means:

·         Accepting the Person;

·         Acknowledging the Possibilities in what he’s saying; and

·         Advancing with Positive Purpose.

In the above example, the provider could apply the Yes And model as follows:

ACCEPT THE PERSON: As she answers, the provider should first of all be polite with the customer, to validate the fact that the customer has a problem and that the provider can offer help. As the customer describes the issue, the provider should maintain a positive mindset toward the customer, framing him in her mind as a person who’s genuinely trying to overcome an obstacle. In doing this, the provider should do her best to put herself in the customer’s shoes and see the problem through his eyes.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE POSSIBILITIES: To avoid rushing up the Ladder of Inference, the provider should try to discover the source of the customer’s problem through strategic questioning. “Strategic questioning” involves a mix of open-ended questions and closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions (e.g., “What are you seeing on your screen?”) work best for discovering what the customer is experiencing – so that the provider truly can “see through his eyes.” Closed-ended questions – those that can be answered with a “yes,” “no,” or other one-word answer – are best for establishing threshold facts (“Are you logged on?”) and confirming results (“Did that work?”).  

ADVANCE WITH POSITIVE PURPOSE: By asking questions, the provider opens herself to

several different possible explanations for the customer’s problem.  It could be that the customer is on the wrong tab, or that he needs to scroll horizontally to find the link. Or it could be that the website itself is experiencing a problem. By broadening the possibilities, the provider also broadens the range of solutions that might address the issue.  The provider can also then offer multiple options to the customer in order to involve him in a joint search for solutions. As we saw with the Tradeoff Triangle, providing the customer with choices is the essence of advancing with positive purpose – for purposes of not only solving the immediate issue but also sustaining a relationship with the customer in the future.

The Yes And approach can work effectively in a wide range of contexts – customer service, sales, team meetings, conflict, and any other situation in which objections can occur. It’s another great example of the application of the core skill of Openness.

The Core Skill of Openness and the Ladder of Inference

In my previous article, I described the value of identifying Core Skills as a way to lend structure and continuity to a leadership-development curriculum, with the Core Skills forming the “101” level and subsequent “electives” allowing more specialized applications of those skills. By identifying the “few but pervasive” Core Skills, an organization can start building a shared language for performance at all organizational levels.

Last time, I described the first of those Core Skills: “Moving Others.” Regardless of one’s level in an organization – from Individual Contributor to CEO – the ability to “move others” toward behaving and/or thinking a certain way is a key component of success. While the scope and complexity of that skill increases as one goes higher in the organization, the basic components of that skill remain the same.

In this article, I’ll describe a second Core Skill: Openness. I define Openness as the ability to entertain comfortably a variety of alternative possibilities without feeling compelled to select any of them.

The key words here are “comfortably” and “compelled.” Many people have difficulty dealing with situations that aren’t cut and dried, with information that isn’t neatly categorized, with people who don’t match their idea of what people “should” do or be. In an attempt to reduce the internal discomfort they feel, they seek as quickly as possible to land on a certain interpretation, decision, or evaluation – usually the one that causes them the least amount of angst. However, in rushing (often headlong) to judgment, they close themselves off too soon from data that might present a better way of regarding the situation.

An apt metaphor called the Ladder of Inference, developed several years ago by Chris Argyris, illustrates the pitfalls of this rush to judgment. The Ladder of Inference depicts four steps in our decision-making processes:

RUNG ONE: We Select Information from the world around us.

RUNG TWO: Based on that Information, we Make Assumptions about the world.

RUNG THREE: Based on those Assumptions, we Draw Conclusions.

RUNG FOUR: Based on those Conclusions, we Take Action.

Each of these steps is natural, normal, and essential for functioning. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier article, none of us can directly respond to “things as they are” (Rung One) but instead must use intervening structures (Rungs Two and Three) to make sense of and deal with our world (Rung Four).

The problem arises when we become so driven by the need for an anxiety-reducing instant resolution that we proceed too quickly up the Ladder. Rather than taking time at Rung One to consider a wide range of alternative information, options, and possibilities on which we might base our conclusions, we grab onto a small set of data and “fill in” the rest of the set at Rung Two with our assumptions.

For example, suppose a customer service rep is told by a caller “I can’t find what I’m looking for on your website.” The rep - mindful of the need to handle calls quickly - may immediately assume that the caller is technically challenged, conclude that he can’t perform basic browsing steps, and act by saying “Don’t you know how to use a scroll bar?” However, if the rep had spent time gathering more information at Rung One, he might discover that the website is experiencing technical problems and that nobody can find what they’re looking for. By not keeping his mind open to other possibilities that lay behind the caller’s question, the rep rushed too quickly up the Ladder of Inference, took an inappropriate action, and ended up insulting a customer.

Failures of Openness occur all the time in our organizational lives. In a meeting, a person hears the first few words that another person says, assumes he knows what’s coming next, and stops listening.  A team member hears an off-the-wall idea from a co-worker, assumes it would never work, and applies an Idea Chiller such as “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!” A manager observes a direct report hemming and hawing during a presentation, says to himself “She can’t think on her feet,” and refuses to consider her for assignments involving any kind of off-the-cuff speaking. Each of these reactions stems from an unwillingness to spend enough time at Rung One gathering more information that would point the way to an alternative action that might be more appropriate.

As with “Moving Others,” Openness is a Core Skill that can apply to anyone, in any role, at any level of the organization. As such, it can form another part of the “Core Skills 101” curriculum of an organization. The learning can include:

·         The ways in which assumptions (especially unconscious ones) underlie our thinking and acting;

·         The importance of gathering enough information at Rung One before climbing the Ladder of Inference;

·         The emotional prompts that send us up the Ladder too quickly (e.g., the press of time, the cognitive dissonance that makes it difficult to consider conflicting ideas, the desire for certainty in ambiguous situations);

·         The value to the organization of acting openly, candidly, and with integrity in all internal and external interactions.

With “Core Skills 101” under their belts, learners can then take “elective” courses to develop their ability to use the skill of Openness in specific contexts, such as:

·         Customer Service: Asking open-ended questions to get the entire story before rushing to provide a solution that might not address the real issue.

·         Negotiation: Staying open to multiple options in order to create win-win solutions. (See also my article on the Tradeoff Triangle.)

·         Creative Thinking: Using “mind tools” such as brainstorming to open up the field for potential solutions to problems.

·         Innovation: Keeping an open mind to possibilities and avoiding the “that’s not how we do things here” syndrome.

·         Career Development: Opening oneself to different ways of overcoming barriers (real and self-imposed) to achieving career goals.

·         Coaching: Being open to people’s potential rather than focusing on their supposed limitations (which can quickly become self-fulfilling prophecies).

Of course, as with any skill, the overuse of Openness can lead to ineffective performance as well. Next time I’ll describe a third Core Skill that must be used in conjunction with Openness to assure a proper balance between considering possibilities and taking action.

Simplifying Talent Management by Defining Core Skills

In my recent articles, I’ve been discussing Dan Pink’s outstanding new book To Sell Is Human and its basic premise that “Everybody’s in sales now!” Pink notes that almost all people, regardless of job title, are to at least some degree engaged in the business of “moving others” – i.e.,  getting them to change their behavior and/or attitude in a certain direction. Pink then sets out the skills and attributes that support anyone in his attempts to “move others.”

I’m sure that many people who want to become more effective in their jobs intuitively understand the universal importance of “moving others,” even if they’ve never thought of it in those terms. More likely, though, they’ve probably thought of their development challenges in terms of distinct situations such as:

·         Influencing others to adopt a certain point of view;

·         Managing up, i.e., influencing their direct managers;

·         Negotiating with suppliers and vendors;

·         Inspiring others to get behind an initiative they’re spearheading;

·         Motivating direct reports to improve their performance.

And of course:

·         Selling goods and services to customers.

Depending on how a person defines her development challenge, she’s likely to go looking for a training class that targets the specific situation – say, “Being an Inspirational Leader” or “Motivating for Results.” (I made up these titles, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are actual classes by those names.)

I think Pink’s book highlights an important fact: Regardless of the specific content of any of these types of programs, there exists a set of core skills that are common to all of them – in this case, the “moving others” skill set.  Some of these core skills include:

·         Seeing the world through others’ eyes;

·         Showing curiosity about others’ point of view by asking powerful questions;

·         Addressing people from their own frame of reference;

·         Avoiding regarding others as “adversaries” or “resisters” but instead thinking of them as potential partners in a joint search for solutions;

·         Showing people how an idea will benefit them and make their lives better;

·         Communicating ideas and concepts in the other person’s language and seeking to connect your idea to something they care about.

Identifying a set of core skills such as “moving others” can help establish connections between individual development planning and organizational talent management. For example, a curriculum could be established that focuses on conveying the core skills first (say, Moving Others 101). Learners could then “major” in more specific areas that build on the core set, such as influencing, motivating, selling, and so on.

Defining core skill sets can also facilitate the identification of performance expectations for each role within the organization. For example, a project manager could be held accountable for using the “moving others” skill set in order to secure resources from functional managers and motivate team members to complete tasks. By contrast, while a group manager would still use the same basic “moving others” skill set, the results to which she would be held accountable via that skill set would look very different – say, getting functional managers to work together, or inspiring others to get behind an organizational change. In this way, the exercise of the skills doesn’t become an end in itself but is seen as a means to achieving goals that can be measured in operational terms.

Finally, defining core skills can benefit succession planning, career pathing, and individual development by highlighting the similarities among skills in different job families and/or levels of responsibility. In the above example, the project manager can see his role as providing an on-the-job development experience for the "moving others" core skill (and other core skills) that can prepare him for a wider scope of leadership responsibility within the organization.

In my next article, I’ll elaborate on this concept of core skill sets.