... thinking ... (out loud)

counting the cost of an ‘office affair’

A while ago, I was approached by a client to investigate a sudden management team ‘communication’ problem in one of his company's divisions.  Once the rubble was cleared away, what was left were the immediate and long-term effects of an office affair.  Without going into the gory details, a very senior manager was concentrating on studying anatomy, and his Executive Assistant (EA) had a related and significant change in her opinion of herself and the importance of her role as gatekeeper between the very senior manager and the balance of his management team.  Messy.   

What struck me at the time quite forcibly was the added stress others in the organisation had had to endure.    Which also made me pause to consider the potential commercial costs from the company's perspective. 

I came to an early conclusion: from an organisational point of view - the best outcome of an office affair is neutral.

That’s it. The best outcome for a company from an affair is that there is no detrimental impact in the short and long-term. In all other circumstances, it seems to me the company loses directly or indirectly.

I would really like to hear of circumstances where there was a direct affair-related benefit to the company. I am excluding unsubstantiated (apocryphal?) claims of horizontal sales successes, thank you very much. (Or to put it another way, it would make for an interesting customer survey: “So you can confirm that we only got the order because our sales rep slept ….”    You get the idea.)

 

Point #1  - What happens next?

In a related aside, my then 15 year-old son demonstrated wisdom beyond his years regarding why he would never go out with girls from his own school, 

“If you break up, Dad, you are both still at the same school. You’ve got years of afterwards to get through. Not smart.”         
(Such wisdom at such a young age .... must be his Mum’s influence…)

Most affairs end. Some amicably; some due to one partner rethinking; some just fizzing out; some by discovery.   So in line with a 15 year-old’s wisdom is point #1 - What happens next?    What about all those ‘afterwards’? 

What are the odds both can continue to work as before, unscathed?

In the best case, yes.   In all others, less than certainly.  I wonder how frequently the reasons given for someone resigning hides another truth: that an office affair never ends (or for their spouses, is proven to end) until there is physical separation/ no contact.

And for the company?  It pays in lost productivity, and resultant associated costs of recruiting new staff, retraining, etc. - that will probably be attributed to ‘natural’ turnover.

 

Point #2  - Impact on work colleagues can be subtle and often difficult to assess or anticipate.

Back to our very senior manager: he granted his EA a ‘significant’ salary increase (read: % greater than most) that given the quietly growing knowledge of their relationship, resulted in some staff being disgruntled about lack of  fairness … and some classic cracks about the latest innovation in how to conduct a ‘performance’ appraisal.   
At this point, it was irrelevant how well the EA completed her work (and opinions varied greatly on that point): any salary review or bonus payment above the norm was construed as undeserved.

So, for the company, one unanticipated impact of the affair?    A degree of loss of trust by staff regarding transparent fairness by management in how they [staff] are treated and valued; that the performance appraisal system, for example, reflected work-based merit.

In this case, it got worse.  The clearly-defined role of an EA became distorted due to an inflated sense of self-importance.   The EA had been encouraged to consider her role as more than a diary gatekeeper - more like a gatefilter.   

For managers, the EA was now unpredictable and ‘politically dangerous’.    Messages to the very senior manager were correspondingly more cautiously expressed and subtly slowed as managers sought greater consensus prior to putting forward concerns or new ideas. 
It was no surprise, then, that the problem presented initially to the Group MD as a management team communication issue ...

With many circumspect office affairs, there is probably little if any impact on work colleagues; here it slowly became anything but ...

The inevitable was predictable once others started to pay a cost.   I heard later that the EA 'decided' it was time to move on; the very senior manager found he had lost the until then complete trust of the Group MD and some time later also left.

The whole episode, along with its associated costs, was filed away under

"one of the many unpredictable things
a CEO has to deal with
- the less said the better".

Cheers
Nic

the art of obtaining constructive feedback

These days at least 95% of applications for a new job are received by e-mail.  Personally, I do not think it too much to ask of executive recruiters that each applicant receives both:

• an acknowledgement of receipt of his/her application by return e-mail; as well as
• provide a second follow-up outcome email – a simple "thanks but no thanks" for those who made an effort to put their hat in the ring but were not successful.

After sending a recent ‘thanks but no thanks’ email, I received two phone calls in quick succession.   Both candidates missed making the final interview list and rang to seek feedback on their respective applications.   

The difference in their approach to the same conversation made an extraordinary difference to the outcome. 

‘Tony’ was the first to ring: what happened in the first seconds of his call gave great insight into the art of how (not) to obtain meaningful feedback ...

He launched into the conversation,

"I would appreciate receiving some frank feedback.  Given my significant experience, I am amazed that I was not offered an interview."

  His request for feedback was fine but I distinctly recall the words ‘significant’ and ‘amazed’ were accompanied with a tone of voice that suggested a prickliness of someone ready to argue the issue.

His phone manner recalled my hesitation when reading his application originally regarding his written expression …a sense he was not shy in stating how confident he was in his experience and what he had to offer.   There is a balance in all things, if you get my drift.   On this occasion however, he was clearly not the best candidate in either experience or qualifications. 

Irrespective of how good or bad I might be at providing feedback, in those opening seconds he communicated one basic point.   His primary emotional reason for the call was not feedback but to reassure himself of his intrinsic worth; the very reasonable need to be acknowledged as valuable and experienced.

My response was caution: I was conscious of immediately being careful with the words I chose in reply.    I felt he wasn’t listening for learning but possibly for ‘ammunition’ to mount an argument.   I became guarded, less frank, and potentially less useful.

After his phone call, I sat and thought about Tony and his approach to the phone call.   I had to laugh at myself: I undoubtedly have approached similar circumstances in the same frame of mind.

For Tony, what would usually be the aim of seeking feedback on his application?   Clearly, to find out more of what the recruiter is looking for so as to improve his résumé and hence, increase the chance that the (next) recruiter is persuaded to ring and ask for an interview.

Tricky things, résumés. They need a lot of work to get right.

Literally five minutes later, ‘Greg’ rang to thank me for informing him of the outcome of his application (he thanked me) and politely asked for feedback on his application.   He asked open questions about content, layout - he raised issues, seeking my opinion.   He had clearly prepared in advance, thought of what he wanted to know, areas to explore.

It was more than that though.   Preparation is important but it was his attitude that was the key.   Greg clearly communicated to me that here was someone keen to do better and here was a recruiter he could tap to do so.    I was struck by his intelligent approach to the conversation …. and no, this was not because I like the sound of my own voice...    His attitude immediately created an ease in speaking with him.    He did not challenge what I said; rather he listened and then asked clarifying questions.    It was well done.

Oh yes, I made careful notes on his file regarding both his preparation and obviously sound inter-personal skills.   If he applies for another position I am managing, I will have good reason to pause and think more carefully.   After all, I now have first-person information in addition to his résumé to motivate me to call!    And I'll bet his résumé improves too …

So let’s go back to the start.   

Because it is before the request for feedback is made that the probability of realising the potential of constructive feedback is won and lost.

Thought # 1 is clear – asking for feedback is usually a good thing.    The response to requests for feedback is generally positive.   We all like to offer our cent’s worth and most of us are very willing to do so with little prompting …

Thought # 2 – one agenda and one emotion at a time!    With Tony, his opening words introduced other emotions, other motivations over and above seeking feedback.    If you are not ready to listen then wait until you are.

Thought # 3 - feedback is as good as the motivation of both parties allow.
With Tony, I didn't even have the opportunity to be useful (or not!): he wasn't listening.    Greg on the other hand was all ears …

Thought # 4 – if you seek feedback, then your role is appreciative enquiry – that is shut up and listen!    Asking for feedback infers you value the opinion of the other person.   That they have a valid point of view, a position of authority, or experience that generates respect.   If it is worth asking, then it is at least worth listening.

Thought # 5 – in constructive feedback, preparation and then ‘open’ questions generate more information and are not perceived as defensive or laden with other issues.  This is a one-off opportunity to collect new data - your primary task is to listen.   Thinking about what is said should be reserved for later, after you have had time to consider what was said and why.

Thought # 6 – take notes and say so – it is much harder to argue when you are also trying to write notes of what is being said!       Besides, this greatly assists your own post-discussion debrief.    In this case, these were my opinions that were sought; both Tony and Greg are welcome to agree or disagree, use or not at their leisure.

Thought # 7 – emails are cheap – send a thank you!!!

Tony may not have helped himself, or maybe he did the best he could at that moment.    However, he and Greg certainly reminded me that preparation and attitude in how I approach such a simple task dictates ultimately the value of what I receive.

 

Cheers
Nic

 

word inflation – when only 250% makes the grade …

It seemed only last week I heard someone use 210% but I guess it was inevitable that the bench mark of ‘true commitment’ would be reset.   Recently, I sat through a sales pitch where we were assured by the consultant:

"we give 250% … to everything we do!"

The time for a mathematically reasonable 100% is gone apparently.   So has demonstrating commitment by ‘giving 110%’.   Was 250% an implied promise to put two and a half people on the assignment, all for the price of one?    I doubt it.

There was more to the 250% offer though.   This was to be 250% of ‘proactive’ effort.    Apparently being ‘active’ was not up to the mark either.   No, absolutely not.   By claiming to be ‘proactive’, we are meant to conjure images of stunning innovation accompanying an abundance of greater effort.   All of which infers unquestionably significant results and greater value.

Just don’t ask for details of what it all means or how it is measured.

By the way, my client’s reaction to this proactive new bench mark?

“Summed up the whole presentation really”, he said.   “Heard it all before. Nothing different ...”

Well, this was one sales pitch that failed before it finished.   My client automatically  filtered through the sales jargon, sifting for something new or of greater value.   And found?   What he expected.  Words.  Generalities.  The additional proactive 150% was not backed with specific, commercially relevant benefits.

Here is a classic example of a consultant speaking in words without substance.   Figures of speech no less and definitely no more.

However, if we don't question the basis of the language thrown at us, we can easily find ourselves accepting the ‘spin’; accepting the presumptions that the language has been designed to imply.

Welcome to the marketing equivalent of the arms race: the words race.   The seemingly endless drive [or is that drivel?] through words alone - to create a point of differentiation in the mind of the potential buyer, and a sense of superiority and justification in the mind of the seller.

‘Proactive’ and ‘250%’ are both examples of cliches that infer an underlining sense of increase in quantity; of ‘more’, of better value for money.   This is the world of reverse psychology.

Not that 250% is greater than 100% but its opposite:

• 100% is somehow perceived as less than 250%,
• active less than proactive,
• that at 100% we might believe ourselves to be receiving less than the best available (currently a very proactive and probably ‘sustainable’ 250% as I now have witnessed...)

100% just doesn’t sound as big, does it?    We expect 100% effort … by not promising to go beyond this (however meaningless this might be), can we infer you aren’t going to try as hard as the competition?     At 250%, someone must be very keen to win the contract … after all they are prepared to go the extra mile (don’t ask what that means either ….).

Perhaps there is a discount for just being ‘active’ or for only 100% effort?  Don't hold your breath, Nic.

Enough.   We all get the point.

My client summed it up quite well – along the lines of,

“Give me people who think for themselves; who express themselves clearly regarding what is important and what options I can consider.”

“Cut the ‘sound bites’, the generalities and jargon catchphrases.”

So,
The next time you are offered a greater than 100% proactive effort, humour me and ask for clarification of what the inferred additional benefits might be and how they are valued. 

The answer should tell you all you need to know.

Cheers
Nic

PS

So what happened to the word ‘active’?

I guess it has now been relegated to a milder form of its earlier meaning; along the lines of ‘a little bit’ of activity.
Or perhaps just some form of neutral: the engine is on but we are not going anywhere until it is ‘proactively’ put in gear …

In short, a perfectly good word has been neutered by meaningless word inflation.

I can only presume that shortly proactive will, in its turn, be equally passé. Standby for the next prefix beyond ‘pro’…

Nic