WAITing to Be a Great Coach

Being a great coach is all about asking powerful questions, listening intently for the answers, and following up with even more powerful (and usually improvised) questions. Your role in coaching is, not to try to give the coachee the answers, but to stimulate his thinking so that he can come up with his own answers.

The goal of coaching is to facilitate the coachee's process of self-discovery. Rather than be led to answers, people generally prefer to lead themselves to their own answers - a process that results in better commitment and engagement, a better development experience, and better solutions.

Throughout the coaching conversation, the coach should continually focus on opportunities to ask rather than tell - even if that means restraining an urge to rush right in with advice, suggestions, and directives. This can be difficult for many (especially new) leader-coaches, since their past experience may have rewarded them for actions that involve taking the reins and asserting their authority and influence over others.

One indication that may help you judge any natural tendency you may have to maintain a control orientation in coaching: During a coaching conversation, what percentage of time are you doing the talking? The coach's voice really ought to be heard only about 20%-30% of the time during the coaching session. The coachee is really the one who should be "on stage" during the typical session - after all, it's the coachee's thoughts, ideas, and perspectives that need to be put in the spotlight.

If you find yourself dominating coaching sessions, you might try a powerful acronym called WAIT! In your next session, try to take note of times that your voice is being heard more than the coachee's. Then ask yourself "WAIT" - which stands for "Why Am I Talking?"

The more you can WAIT as a coach - even if it means learning to become comfortable with a little silence while the coachee thinks about a response - the better you'll be able to avoid upstaging the coachee, and the more you can stay in the role of supportive side coach.

What's Your Compensation? The Dangers of Overusing Your Strengths

Each of us demonstrates certain behaviors that we consider strengths – a bias for action, say, or the ability to brainstorm creative ideas on a blank page. Unfortunately, many people over-rely on their strengths as “go-to” behaviors to be used reflexively even in those situations where the behavior is ineffective or inappropriate.

Michael Lombardo and Robert Eichinger, creators of the Lominger competency suite, have noted that the overuse of strengths is a common reason why some leaders fail to successfully navigate the path from the individual contributor’s role to the CEO level – the route that Ram Charan has called the Leadership Pipeline. As Lominger associates Linda Hodge and David Workman put it, when some leaders transition to higher levels of leadership, they experience problems “not because of a weakness per se, but because their strengths have gone into overdrive. They continue to use what worked in the past and fail to learn new skills for the new situation.” The first-line manager who routinely knocks down obstacles to get things done may find that bullish approach less effective in a manager-of-managers role that requires more influencing and consensus-building.

So, if we want to move forward in our careers, must we suppress or even unlearn our strengths? The danger is that we may start to overfocus on our weaknesses to the point of losing sight of the natural, distinctive capabilities that have brought us success in the first place. We may then spend the rest of our careers trying to shoehorn ourselves into roles that don’t really fit us.

A better development strategy than downplaying strengths, say Hodge and Workman, is to focus on building “compensators,” which they describe as “competencies that can neutralize or balance overused strengths.” For example, the leader with a strong bias for action can develop interpersonal skills (approachability, humor) that can take the rough edges off his or her hard-charging approach.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

One competency in particular – the ability to truly listen – has been shown to be what Hodge and Workman call “the universal compensator.” “Improving listening skills,” they note, “can take the sharp edges off as many as 30 overused strengths. People who become better listeners look more patient, less arrogant, more approachable.”

·         Do you define “listening” as “the time I have to wait until I can start talking again”?

·         When a team member stops you to discuss something of importance to him, how well does your body language reveal your level of engagement? Are you looking the person in the eye – but pointing your feet down the hall?

·         To what extent do you focus on your own agenda, to the exclusion of other perspectives and concerns? Even if immediate action is required, do you ever circle back with people to address their concerns after the fact?

How to Create Great Questions to Coach Others - and Yourself

In a world in which we often just skip across the surface of topics like so many flat stones, it can be difficult to just pause and go deeper – to ask ourselves not just where we’re headed and how we’ll get there, but also why we’re headed there and what might happen if we chose a different course.

In her coaching role, the YES! Leader also needs to avoid getting drawn into this “full speed ahead” mode by asking deepening questions and truly listening to her coachee – and encouraging the coachee to listen to himself as well in order to get to that deeper level of reflection.

By making almost anything immediately available at our fingertips, technology often feeds this urge to keep moving forward as fast as possible. But it doesn’t have to be that way – if we can find ways to control the technology instead of letting it control us.  Here is one such example I recently created that utilizes a common software application to help coaches create better and deeper questions.

First, note that there are several different kinds of questions that a coach might ask:

INFORMATIONAL: These are the Who-What-When-Where questions that can help clarify the facts and figures in the coachee’s story. “You mentioned Mary – what is her role?” Or “What happened after she said that?”

ANALYTICAL: These ask the coachee to filter through the facts of his story and make some assessments and choices. For example: “Of all the issues you mentioned, which is the most important for you right now?” Or “What is the quickest, lowest-risk action you could take?”

SPECULATIVE: These ask the coachee to mentally project into the future and contemplate the potential outcomes of certain actions. “If you took that action, how do you think it would impact your issue?” “If you knew you couldn’t fail, what would you do?”

EMOTION-ORIENTED: These are feelings-based questions that can help the coachee reflect on his motivators, desires, or concerns. “Why is resolving this issue so important to you?” “When you succeed at your effort, how will it make you feel?”

Also keep in mind that powerful coaching involves listening for and inquiring into things the coachee doesn’t say – such as a metaphor, analogy, or strong choice of words that could indicate more than meets the ear. For example, if the coachee describes another person as creating a lot of “drama” in a situation, that might be a cue to ask: “What do you mean by ‘drama’?”

The activity is conducted by utilizing the whiteboard feature of a web conferencing tool such as WebEx or Microsoft Live Meeting.  You can utilize this in the context of a virtual training exercise for coaches, mentors, or facilitators. Proceed as follows:

·         Instruct each participant to tell a 2-3 minute story on any topic he wants. (Some typical topics: My first job, my biggest success, my hometown.)

·         Before a participant tells his story, display a whiteboard and have the participant minimize his screen.

·         As the participant tells the story, the other participants use the whiteboard to type questions that seek to dive more deeply into certain parts of the story. (Supply the participants with the categories listed above ahead of time.)

·         When the participant finishes the story, have him view the questions on the whiteboard. He can answer as many as he likes right then but doesn’t have to answer them all.

·         Repeat the process for all participants.

·         After all have finished, ask each participant to identify one thing (no matter how small) he or she learned about himself or herself during the activity.

For example, in a recent session I conducted, I offered up my own story of my first job as a book editor for a large publishing company. Here are some of the questions the group generated:

·         How did this work experience influence your future career experiences?

·         What about reading excites you the most?

·         If you could go back and take one aspect of that job and apply it to your current job, what would that be?

·         If you could write your own book, what would your first book be about?

·         You mentioned your first boss was a great mentor – what did she do that reflected great mentorship?

Practicing this activity can help the YES! Leader listen for more than just the facts of a story. It can help her and the coachee listen for the meaning that often lurks beneath the facts.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

The YES! Leader can also use this exercise to help her engage in self-coaching. I came away from the above session in a decidedly reflective mood as I thought, in particular, about the parts of my editorial job that I could see in my current job. More significant, though, were the parts that I didn’t see in my current job but would like to see more of – as well as the parts that I do currently have that I didn’t have in that first job.

What would happen if you devised a set of questions that you could ask yourself every day to stay mindful about, not just the events of your life, but the meaning of those events? For example:

·         What is my purpose?

·         What did I do today that did/didn’t align with my purpose?

·         What strength did I utilize today?

·         How did I improve myself today?

·         How did I get in my own way today?

·         What word describes how I feel right now?

·         What will I do differently tomorrow?

Daylight Saving Time: Giving the World More Time to Play

I’ve been reading an excellent book which recounts the history of a twice-a-year ritual that we now take for granted but which was once highly controversial and widely derided.  From the title – Saving the Daylight, by David Prerau – you can gather that I’m talking about the “Spring Forward, Fall Back” mantra that guides us as we reset our clocks in observance of Daylight Saving Time.

It may be hard to believe, but until the mid 1800s people used to set their clocks according to the tracing of the sun across the sky. Think of the implications: When it was noon in Chicago, it would be 12:17 in Toledo, 12:24 in Cleveland, and 12:31 in Pittsburgh.  But not only that: Using “sun time” meant that tomorrow’s “noon” in Chicago would occur a few seconds later or earlier (depending on the season) than today’s “noon.” As a result, people had to adjust their clocks daily to keep up with the sun’s travels. (To help residents coordinate their daily adjustments, cities would often lower a large “time ball” from a high elevation at a designated celestial time – a practice which continues in vestigial form every New Year’s Eve in Times Square.)

This staggering of clock time across the globe worked fine in an age when travel and communications were highly localized. But the advent of the railroads in the mid 19^th Century changed everything. Expanded cross-country travel drove the need to standardize clock time across a wider region to accommodate and normalize rail schedules. Thus the advent of “standard time” – and Standard Time Zones.

Standard time did not emerge without its detractors – primarily, purists who abhorred man’s departure from the natural order of sun time. On the whole, though, people quickly adjusted to the new order and came to see its benefits.

Then, in the early 20^th Century, came the next phase of a clock-driven world: Daylight Saving Time. The DST movement was started in England by an enlightened few who noted the “wasted” hours of summer daylight between sunrise and most people’s wake-up time. How much better, they thought, to move the clock forward so that the health-giving benefits of the early-morning sun could be experienced at the end of the day?

Many people – even those who had adjusted to Standard Time - scoffed at the DST idea as an attempt to “trick” the summer sun into thinking it was rising later and setting later. Even after DST was widely adopted as a temporary measure (primarily as an energy-saver) during World War I, the fight over DST continued into the 1920s – especially in the United States, which immediately repealed DST at war’s end.

Now why (you might ask) would anyone besides rigid traditionalists object to “moving” an hour of sunlight to the end of the day, when most people would get better use from it? The answer lies with a key group who objected on purely practical grounds: Farmers.

This powerful bloc pointed out that, even though early-morning sunlight was wasted for most people, it certainly wasn’t wasted for them. Cows didn’t care what the clock said: They rose with the sun and needed to be milked.  Farmers were thus at a great disadvantage in trying to coordinate their schedules with a world (primarily with dairy shippers) that was running an hour later.

What I find most fascinating about this part of the story relates to the argument on the other side. In the face of solid objections from diligent, salt-of-the-earth, hard-toiling rural denizens, proponents of DST pointed to the benefits of … play.

The main British advocate of DST, William Willett, noted:

“The brief period of daylight now at our disposal between the hours of work and sleep is frequently insufficient for most forms of outdoor recreation, but the daily addition of one hour … after 6 P.M. will multiply, several times, the usefulness of that which we already have.”

Among the pastimes that people could have more opportunity to pursue, said Willett, were golfing and rifle practice. Extolling the virtues of DST, another proponent summarized its purpose as “bringing the hours of work and pleasure nearer to the sunlight.”

Somehow I doubt that an argument that pitted play against work would have prevailed even 30 years earlier.  DST was an idea whose time had come, I think, because people were starting to realize that there was more to life than just nose-to-the-grindstone industriousness – and that the rapid emergence of modern conveniences was providing the average working person something he not previously had: Spare time.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

One of the foundational behaviors of the YES! Leader’s ExporeFlexSupport model is something I’ve referred to as “the Wow!” – that is, actively seeking out and celebrating the sheer enjoyment to be had in your day-to-day activities. If you live in an area that observes Daylight Saving Time, do you just take the extra hour of sunlight for granted? Or do you capitalize on the possibilities that DST provides for you to experience "the Wow!"?

What would happen if you were to do the following?

·         Treat your time outside of work as an opportunity to rest, recharge, and recreate – rather than ruminate about work.

·         Bring some of that non-work time into your work time – by sharing (and encouraging others to share) the things about your life that motivate and energize you and give your life meaning.

·         Appreciate the things about your job that you really enjoy and that give you an opportunity to play to your strengths – and explore ways to do more of those things.

Don't Look Back! The Feedforward Approach to Success

I once attended a seminar on the topic of giving feedback, presented by a leadership consultant who had coached and advised several executive clients in his career.  During his presentation, the consultant described an interaction he once had with a company CEO who had just filmed a video speech for distribution to the company’s employees. The CEO asked the consultant for feedback on his performance in the video. The consultant said he responded as follows:

“I told him the truth. ‘You stank!’ I said. ‘You just stank!’”

I gather that the consultant had a good enough relationship with the CEO that he could get away with saying that. I also gather that the consultant’s message to us was: As a consultant/coach, you owe it to your clients to tell them the unvarnished truth.

Now, to the consultant’s credit, he also proceeded to say that he provided specific behavioral examples of what the CEO did wrong and could have done better. As I’ve noted before, feedback does no good unless it’s specific enough to guide the recipient to particular actions he needs to change. But I also wonder whether the CEO actually heard much of anything else the consultant had to say after being on the receiving end of such an odious (and odorous) judgment.

I think this situation is a good example of the potential downsides of trying to “help” someone by giving him feedback. The author and consultant Marshall Goldsmith makes the following (somewhat radical) observation about the nature of feedback:

“There is a fundamental problem with all types of feedback: It focuses on the past, on what has already occurred – not on the infinite variety of opportunities that can happen in the future.”

Goldsmith goes on to point out other problems with feedback – for example:

·         Feedback tends to overfocus on gaps, deficiencies, and shortcomings. “Negative feedback often becomes an exercise in ‘let me prove you were wrong,’” says Goldsmith. “This tends to produce defensiveness on the part of the receiver and discomfort on the part of the sender.”

·         No matter how much we remind ourselves that feedback is about our performance, not about us personally, in practice few people can make that fine distinction. As Goldsmith observes, “Almost all feedback is taken personally (no matter how it is delivered). People’s sense of identity is highly connected with their work. It is hard to give a dedicated professional feedback that is not taken personally. Personal critiques are often viewed as personal attacks.”

·         By focusing on the negative, feedback can reinforce the recipient’s sense of futility in the pursuit of improvement.  Says Goldsmith: “Feedback can reinforce a feeling of failure. How many of us have been ‘helped’ by a spouse, significant other, or friend who seems to have a near-photographic memory of our previous ‘sins’ that they share with us in order to point out the history of our shortcomings. Negative feedback can be used to reinforce the message, ‘this is just the way you are.’”

So does Goldsmith advocate that people just ignore those areas where a change in behaviors and actions could lead to improved performance?

Hardly. Instead, he proposes an alternative to feedback called “feedforward.” In essence, feedforward proceeds from the individual’s request for ideas for improvement in a very specific area. The person receiving the request then provides one or two quick ideas that the individual might consider trying out. The only reply permitted is “Thank you” – no discussion, no comment, and certainly no push-back (“I already tried that, and it didn’t work”). The individual then seeks to get as much feedforward input from as many people as she can, to create a database of ideas from which she can select.

According to Goldsmith, the advantages of the feedforward approach include:

·         Rather than getting stuck on the problems of the past, the individual focuses on future possibilities and begins to envision herself successfully changing her behavior.

·         The approach encourages positive, forward-looking thinking and keeps the individual’s mind on how she might be able to put one or more of the ideas into effect.

·         By proceeding from the individual’s request, the approach reinforces the idea that the individual ultimately has ownership of the issue and the selection (and implementation) of the idea.

·         By not permitting a response, the approach avoids the major downfall of most advice-giving, that is, the tendency of the recipient to bring up reasons why it won’t (or didn’t) work.

·         Unlike feedback, which can really only be given by someone very familiar with the individual’s past performance, feedforward ultimately can be given by anyone!

I think Goldsmith’s feedforward approach is consistent with the “coaching through the gap” approach I’ve described previously. Both methods start with a “current state” – the identification of something that the individual wants to change – but very quickly move toward a vivid envisioning of a desired future goal. The bulk of the coaching interaction then focuses, not on why things are the way they currently are, but on how to start moving toward that better future state as quickly as possible.

(The primary difference, I think, between feedforward and coaching through the gap: In the latter, the brainstorming of ideas for change should start with the coachee, to reinforce his ownership of the entire process. Only after the coachee has generated some ideas should the coach offer some feedforward ideas of his own.)

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

·         Is your approach to “helping” people primarily focused on giving them feedback as to things they’re not doing right? Do you get the sense that that approach is causing negativity, defensiveness, and a sense of futility?

·         In your coaching sessions, do you provide people an opportunity to first volunteer their own assessment of their performance and the areas in which they need to improve? Do you then give them a chance (through powerful questioning) to start populating the database of ideas for how they might act differently in the future? Only then do you start to contribute some ideas of your own?

·         What would happen if you – for your own development – asked several people to provide “feedforward” input for a behavior of yours that you’d like to change?

Is There a Recipe for Leadership?

In my first job as an editor for a major book publisher, I had the privilege of working on a revision of Joy of Cooking, one of the most famous cookbooks of all time. (I’ll hasten to point out - especially to current users of the book - that, given my lack of culinary expertise, my role on the project did not involve editing any of the recipes themselves.)

I’m reminded of my Joy of Cooking experience whenever I encounter business books with titles like The Acme Way or Leadership Secrets of [insert name of historical figure here]. I suspect that many people buy these books with the expectation of finding detailed recipes for action that tell them exactly what to do to get the same results as Company A or Person B.

I began reading my own recent book purchase, Talent Management (edited by Larry Israelite), with my usual eye toward whether the authors would encourage this line of thinking by the reader. (“Talent management,” by the way, refers to the collection of things that a company does – interviewing, onboarding, goal-setting, coaching, individual development planning, engagement, etc. – that help employees do the best they can every day to achieve their own and the company’s objectives.)

So it was refreshing to read the following passage on the very first page of the editor’s Introduction:

“I am making no claims whatsoever that what is presented here represents ‘best practices in talent management.’ That would be presumptuous at best and, based on the history of this sort of thing, potentially dangerous. Rather, the authors who have generously contributed chapters to this book describe those talent management practices that have worked for them in their organizations. No one is claiming that what worked for them will work for you – though all who have contributed, I expect, believe that their firm’s talent management practices do contain some universal truths about how to manage talent so that its value is maximized.”

I think that Israelite is making an important observation here about the nature of leadership in general. Leading organizations and individuals is not a matter of finding the appropriate recipe for action for every situation and then applying it to the letter. Rather, leadership is about acknowledging universal truths and general guidelines (what I’ve also referred to as heuristics) and using them to inform rather than dictate action.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Israelite’s observation about universal truths also reinforces one of the YES! Leader themes: Leadership is more of an improvised performance than a scripted play. As I’ve shown, improv is neither about memorizing predetermined lines nor about inventing everything totally on the spot. The performance improviser – and the YES! Leader as well - uses several intervening structures as a guide to her performance and then fills in the blank spaces within the structure as she goes, making in-the-moment adjustments as needed to address each situation as it unfolds.

What are some of the guidelines that inform your leadership practice? Which of the following guidelines (as developed in the YES! Leader blog) might be useful for you?

·         Being a YES! Leader means applying the ExploreFlexSupport model.

·         Leadership involves the appropriate balance of two behaviors: Telling and Asking. (Adjust as necessary.)

·         Leadership involves the resolution of (seeming) contradictions. Frame issues in terms of “both-and” rather than “either-or.”

·         Say “Yes And.” “Yes And” doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position, but it does mean Accepting the Person, Acknowledging the Possibilities, and Advancing with Positive Purpose.

·         Negative energy is often stronger than positive energy. Cultivating positivity requires special attention, ongoing awareness, and eternal vigilance. 

The Slippery Slope of Support

In my previous post, I described William Oncken’s contention that a manager must leave the accountability for tasks with his team members rather than assume that accountability himself.  Oncken used the analogy of a “monkey on the back” to make his point, saying that a manager needs to keep the monkey (i.e., the accountability for the task) on his team member’s back rather than letting it leap onto his own.  I also noted the critique of Oncken's analogy by Steven Covey, who said that, rather than just blocking the monkey’s leap, a manager should provide the team member some measure of support in the care and feeding of the monkey.

Many leaders find this “support zone” to be strewn with banana peels, creating a particularly slippery slope. As a leader, you may think you’ve effectively coached a team member to create a good plan to deal with a problem … only to find yourself leaving the coaching session with more to-do’s on your plate than the team member. These to-do’s can take the form of such items as:

1) Redistributing some of the team member’s tasks so he can focus on his action plan;

2) Agreeing to go talk to others on his behalf so they can lend him some help;

3) Gathering information that he will need to implement his plan;

4) Monitoring his work daily and signing off on every step.

Certainly there may be situations when each of these actions on your part might be appropriate. On the other hand, many times these are really examples of retaining a monkey (or at least a partial monkey) rather than having it reside with its rightful owner – the team member.  For each of the above items, ask yourself the following questions respectively:

1) Do any of us have the luxury of focusing on only one problem at a time? Wouldn’t it be better for the team member to learn how to integrate his problem-solving into the rest of his workload?

2) Can’t he go talk to these people just as well as I can?

3) Can’t he find and process that information just as well as I can?

4) If I’m approving his every step, who’s really making the decisions about how to do the work?

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Many leaders accept monkeys from their team members with a certain degree of reluctance. Like a retail customer, they may vow that they’re not going to be sold anything they don’t want, only to leave the encounter with a plateful of monkeys.

On the other hand, as Steven Covey points out, “many managers are actually eager to take on their subordinates’ monkeys.”  One of the reasons, notes Covey, is that the leader may “subconsciously fear that a subordinate taking the initiative will make [the leader] appear a little less strong and a little more vulnerable.” I also think many leaders (especially new ones) still think of themselves as “doers” rather than “managers” of the tasks. Rather than navigating the uncertain frontiers of influencing and motivating others to perform, they just revert to the surer ground of grabbing the monkey and doing the job themselves.

Why do you think you may be taking on more than your share of monkeys? Do you just have a hard time saying “No”? Do you feel you’re doing your team members a disservice by not “helping” as much as you can? Are you concerned that, if your team members learn to solve their own issues, you won’t be needed anymore? How can you continually remind yourself of the importance of “leading vs. doing”?

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?