Author: Dr. Brad Lebo

What is a Multiplier? In brief, it’s someone who multiplies the efforts of those around them–the effect of which is to, at least, double the productivity of a group. They are in contrast to Diminishers who have a negative effect on the productivity of a group.

Chances are good that you have experienced both a Multiplier and a Diminisher in your career, even if you did not label him/her as such.

The book Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter by Liz Wiseman, contrasts Multipliers and Diminishers using the following matrix:

Dimension/Discipline	Multiplier	Diminisher
Attract and Optimize Talent	Talent Magnet–attracts talent that wants to work for him/her.	Empire Builder–hoards talent and maintains control at the expense of developing others.
Create Intensity that Requires Best Thinking	Liberator–produces a climate focused on results that is both comfortable and intense.	Tyrant–to get results, introduces a fear of judgment that stifles thinking.
Extend Challenges	Challenger–challenges themselves and others to push beyond what they know and have done before.	Know-It-All–gives directions to showcase their knowledge and competence.
Debate Decisions	Debate Maker–drives decisions through rigorous debate from all constituents.	Decision Maker–makes decisions in relative isolation and without meaningful debate.
Instill Ownership and Accountability	Investor–provides resources and expectations that stimulate commitment and high performance.	Micromanager–holds on to ownership including attention to details and directly managing for results.

So, what’s the point?

Simply that you should use the Multiplier/Diminisher concept when you next hire or promote someone. It is another lens to view someone’s career through.

For a long time, we’ve preached paying attention to a person’s values and traits when hiring–along with their competencies, of course. We added the Multiplier/Diminisher “lens” this past Fall to great effect. A few questions during an interview can distinguish between the two–definitely verified by talking to past supervisors and other references.

As an aside, the website for the book Multipliers has an assessment for free to determine whether you are an Accidental Diminisher–for the brave at heart.

As always, please let us know if you would like some help with this topic or any of our newsletter topics from the past…

From our newsletter (please subscribe to receive these posts directly–see column on right):

Cash Supply

One challenge faced by all but a few organizations is Cash Supply. Cash is analogous to oxygen for an organization–when it is plentiful, it’s easy to breathe and move about freely (explore new opportunities). When it’s in short supply, both basic movement (standard operations) and new movement (growth) are hard, if not prohibited.

One way to face the challenge of Cash Supply is to examine and improve the Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC). The CCC measures how long it takes from the time you spend a dollar (on sales, marketing, proposals, rent, inventory, wages, etc.) to when you get that dollar back.

In the early days of Dell, their CCC was running 63 days and caused them to almost run out of cash. By focusing on decreasing the cycle, Dell got it down to minus 35 days. This, in effect, meant the faster they grew, the more cash they generated–an enviable position for any business.

We believe all growth firms can significantly improve their CCC like Dell or at least lower it to the point where they give themselves sufficient internal cash to fuel growth. Like most things, improving the CCC does not happen by accident or without hard work.

At a minimum, we suggest company leaders read Neil Churchill’s famous Harvard Business Review article entitled “How Fast Can Your Company Afford to Grow” which provides the formulas for calculating your Cash Conversion Cycle.

Give us a call if you would like to discuss further exploring your cash conversion cycle… Mention this post to receive a free review of your Cash Conversion Cycle (certain restrictions apply).

 

The following slide show discusses how to identify and develop leaders at all levels of your organization.

Please use the following link for accessing the self-awareness scale mentioned in the presentation: Link.

Also, please contact us if you have questions or would like help with developing the leaders within your organization (including yourself).

Wherever there is an effective organization, there is a high performing leadership team. They go together.

What distinguishes high performing leadership teams from average teams is an intense focus on results, a norm of holding each other accountable, and the habit of responding quickly and effectively to challenges.

Patrick Lencioni (see The Five Dysfunctions of a Team below) knows that high performing teams are only possible when there is a high level of INTERPERSONAL TRUST. As Lencioni points out, this is not just any kind of trust, however. He distinguishes between PREDICTIVE TRUST and VULNERABILITY TRUST.

PREDICTIVE TRUST is the kind that allows you to be confident people will do what they say they are going to do. VULNERABILITY TRUST, on the other hand, is the type you have when you are confident others will accept you as you are—warts and all.

In a team setting, VULNERABILITY TRUST means being able to say, “I need help” or “I screwed up” without fear that other team members will react with criticism, overt or covert ridicule, shaming tactics or other demoralizing behaviors.

It also means people are “real” with each other and genuine in their expression of their thoughts and emotions. We all have limitations and hopefully have learned to have compassion for our own limitations as well as the limitations of others. After all, it is limitations that high performing teams overcome…together.

VULNERABILITY TRUST further entails people being able to lower the “mask” they wear to protect themselves from criticism and fear of rejection. We all wear this mask and it serves us well because the world is full of people who will criticize and otherwise try to exploit weakness. But in a team environment, to optimize performance, we must be able to drop the mask and feel we belong and are appreciated despite any limitations.

This is the case because it takes a lot of energy and time to maintain a mask. Excuses, blaming others, ignoring deadlines, sweeping things under the rug, and white-lies all help maintain the mask but cost both energy and time that would be better spent working toward the organization’s goals.

There is no faking being “mask-free” or “genuine,” either. We all know the difference between someone who is being genuine and someone who is being phony. It’s easy to discern the real message when the words are “I’m sorry” but the tone is “I’m not sorry.”

The team without VULNERABILITY TRUST is rife with workplace politics, has minimal fun, exhibits poor engagement and has little claim on positive results. The team with VULNERABILITY TRUST, in contrast, has fun, lacks ambiguity and asserts their ownership of positive results without dispute. People who are members of such a team FEEL the difference—which is often the greatest reward.

It is not easy to establish VULNERABILITY TRUST. Like most trust, it builds slowly and needs constant nurturing if it is to grow. It’s hard but rewarding work…kind of like gardening or farming.

You can accelerate the build-up of VULNERABILITY TRUST by being intentional about it and vigilant when the inevitable lapses occur. Tone of voice and sideways glances alone can send the wrong message and erode hard-earned gains. Shaming and other demoralizing behavior are even more devastating to VULNERABILITY TRUST.

Leaders can leverage their position and model trust-building, mask-free behaviors. The only leadership behavior more important than modeling genuineness is “crushing” anyone who acts in a demoralizing way toward others. The saying “one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel” is very apt when it comes to demoralizing behavior within teams.

This is not to say teams need to walk on eggshells for fear of upsetting anyone. Quite the opposite. But until proven otherwise, problems are shared among team members and individual limitations are seen as an opportunity to pitch in or contribute extra attention in those areas for the sake of the organization. What’s best for the team and the organization trumps everything and team members contribute to the best of their ability to everyone’s gain.

Start to build VULNERABILITY TRUST today.

EXECUTION

There are many factors that separate organizations that execute well from those that regularly stumble. In the next three newsletters we will discuss five disciplines that improve execution.

The first of these disciplines is CLARITY. What we mean by clarity is that people know exactly what is expected of them as well as how their performance is going to be measured.

This is much easier said than done because of the “fog” created by assumptions, poor communication, poor attention to details and poor memory.

If you are really invested in clarity, have someone repeat back to you what they think you expect of them. Better yet, have them show you through their planning or actual behavior what they think you expect. You’ll be surprised how powerful this simple technique can be.

The second discipline is building a CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY. Culture is something that forms by itself (like jungles grow) or intentionally (like a cultivated piece of land). Our observation is that execution improves if the culture is such that everyone takes accountability seriously and this only happens when it is done intentionally. In other words, intentionally focusing on accountability as a feature of your organization’s culture improves execution.

It takes the discipline of holding others accountable to instill a culture of accountability. This starts at the top of the organization BUT must be shared by everyone, at all levels. Accountability is achieved with the aid of clarity and confrontation (as described below). It doesn’t happen by accident, however. It happens by consistent and sustained attention to it.

The third discipline is CONFRONTATION. It becomes necessary if CLARITY and a CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY are not enough.

We’re speaking here of the skill of confronting behavior that is not meeting expectations. Confronting someone constructively is much harder than intimidating or otherwise “striking fear into them.” It is often heavy lifting to figure out why someone is underperforming–to jointly problem solve what is going wrong. You might even have to accept responsibility for not being clear or for not providing enough of some resource (time, people, money, etc.). Much more information about the discipline of confrontation can be found in the book Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson.

Give us a call if you would like to discuss any of these execution disciplines in greater detail…

PEOPLE

Developing and retaining top performers should be a priority at any organization. It is people who are the prime movers in making things happen within a company and top performers are better at making things happen than others. That said, developing and retaining top performers is best considered as two distinct challenges.

Developing top performers is an intentional effort to train and mentor/coach individuals on two fronts: Best practice and leadership. Best

practice refers to the best technical and managerial practices available and appropriate to your organization. Leadership is used in the broadest sense and includes improving the effectiveness of anyone in the organization at influencing others. Examples of managerial best practice include:

strategies for determining priorities, measuring progress toward goals and holding people accountable. Examples of leadership development include: understanding one’s preferred way of influencing others, nurturing self-awareness and implementing strategies for confronting problem behaviors.

Retaining top performers is again, an intentional effort to give these individuals what they want and need to remain committed to the organization. Perhaps surprisingly, research shows that what top performers want and need to stay engaged is not more money. Instead, a Gallup study listed knowing what was expected of them, having the right resources, having the opportunity to do what they do best, being appreciated and being cared for as the top five factors in keeping employees engaged. Engaged workers are more likely to stay or be retained. This is not to say that top performers are  insensitive to being financially rewarded for doing their job well. It is to say that an intentional effort to retain top performers must include other elements than a great compensation and benefits plan.

Give us a call if you would like further guidance on either developing or retaining your top performers. We can address many of the development and retention issues raised here and can steer you to other specialists should you have a question about compensation or benefits.

 

See here for the article that appeared in the March 22nd 2013 edition of New Hampshire Business Review.

This is a copy of the article appearing in the Portsmouth Herald 11/26/2012 (see here):

© 2012 Brad Lebo — brad.lebo@vitalgrowthllc.com
© 2012 Don Sweet — don.sweet@vitalgrowthllc.com

Founded in 2000, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) is a not-for-profit association that serves 11,500 members in 70 countries. IAPP helps privacy professionals around the world better manage and protect the data that their organizations communicate and store.

More than just a professional association, the IAPP provides a home for privacy professionals to share experiences and enrich their knowledge through training and collaboration.

In 2000, current CEO, Trevor Hughes, was the sole employee at a small office in York Harbor, Maine. IAPP now is 60 people strong and located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire at the Pease International Tradeport.

By all accounts, IAPP has a thriving culture, characterized by passionate professionals dedicated to the organization’s mission of improving the practice of protecting data.

We can see the roots of IAPP’s current culture in the values that shaped Mr. Hughes’ decisions when he was just starting out. For example, there were times when he needed to leave the office to attend one of his son’s school events or to take one of his children to a doctor’s appointment. He recognized that as long as he delivered excellence at the end of the day, the hours of eight to five weren’t sacred. It was clear to him that in order to live a full and balanced life, the workday would have to be both flexible and accommodating.

Values are the foundation on which an organization builds its rationale for making decisions. Probably the most critical decisions an organization makes are hiring choices. Values inform whom the “right” people are: what excites them, what effort they bring to the cause and how they conduct themselves while at work.

These values remain the same through changes in the organization management, personnel, politics, technology, etc. They are at the core of the organization and they underlie the way an organization operates.

These “core values” also articulate what the organization stands for, explaining why they do business the way they do. They guide other decisions such as how to orient or teach new hires, what constitutes outstanding effort and performance, and when to fire.

IAPP’s core values and savvy management have helped fuel and guide its rapid growth. They are catchy, as you’ll see below. And, they are supported by an explanation so there is no confusion about what they mean.

When visitors enter the IAPP office, they cannot help but notice IAPP’s values. Poster sized pictures of employees exemplifying each highlighted value, make it impossible to ignore what IAPP thinks is important. IAPP’s core values are:

Smart, Fun, Get-Stuff-Done – We are curious, we grow personally and professionally, we like diverse and interesting employees. Fun matters, so we take time for it. We pitch in beyond our roles; adaptability matters.

Whole People – We are whole people and balance in our lives makes the IAPP better. We give and expect flexibility. We deliver excellence at the end of the day.

Nice Matters – We communicate a ton. We try to demonstrate humility. We expect friction and use trust and respect to move forward.

Okay is Not Okay – We do the big stuff exceedingly well, then exceed expectations on the details. We listen to our members and customers. We test and learn. We expect, and learn from, mistakes.

No Margin, No Mission – We are a “nice hybrid”: a non-profit with a strong entrepreneurial/start-up attitude. Growth is vital to our success. We do more and better each year. We expect and drive change.

When taken seriously, core values provide a foundation for making decisions and, over time, become the bedrock of an organization’s culture. A culture based on strong values is a competitive advantage and is the only sustainable competitive advantage an organization can hope to achieve. Everything else can be relatively easily copied.

There is one other interesting aspect of IAPP’s culture that is allowed by their core values. They are extremely dog friendly. When you visit their facilities it’s common to see several dogs in the offices. We believe this is a subtle selection mechanism. People who appreciate dogs are attached to the organization whereas folks who don’t like canines self-select out.

In October of 2012 IAPP was recognized as the “Coolest Mid-Sized Company for Young Professionals” by Business NH Magazine. In accepting the award, Mr. Hughes said, “We are smart, fun and we get stuff done. That’s our phrase (and a core value) and we really mean it. We hire people in that image.”

IAPP is poised for continued growth as privacy issues become ever more important in a world dominated by electronic communications. With their firm foundation of core values, we are convinced they will continue to attract employees, partners and clients who buy into their values.

This is a copy of the article appearing in the New Hampshire Business Review 11/16/2012 (see here):

© 2012 Brad Lebo — brad.lebo@vitalgrowthllc.com

Most business people know the meaning of the phrase, “two minds are better than one.” There is an implicit understanding among leaders in business that the idea sharing and challenging that occur in a well-run team beats anything that individuals working alone can achieve.

But most teams struggle to sustain the benefits of teamwork. They watch the few golden moments be overshadowed by complaining, back-stabbing, passive-aggressive behavior and other common ills of teams at work. Managers and organizational leaders put up with the dysfunction of their team because they think it is the price they have to pay for those intermittent golden moments.

What if team dysfunction could be eliminated or significantly reduced? Would that improve the productivity, creativity and success of your organization? At a medium-sized company we recently worked with, that’s exactly what happened.

At this company, the owner/CEO expected people to do their jobs and leave him alone to do his. He knew there was a great deal of resource sharing and problem solving that ideally would be take place among team members. For as long as possible, he would ignore the fact that key team members would stop talking to each other. Then he would explode emotionally and demand collaboration while watching every move. As is typical, the team was not working consistently as a team and needed a sledge hammer wielded by the boss to force cooperation—a tremendous waste of time and energy.

This was a dysfunctional and below-average team, judging by its performance. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say that there are three types of teams. Those that are dysfunctional and perform less work than they would if they never met as a team. These teams are below average and they have these characteristics: 1) team members spend a lot of time blaming others, usually outside the team meetings, for problems or failing to achieve goals. 2) There is little cooperation between team members and little, if any, joint problem solving. 3) Team meetings include reporting on progress but there is more empty talk about doing things than things actually happening. 4) And most team members accurately feel meetings are a waste of time and that they could get more done if they just were allowed to do their jobs alone.

Contrast this with a high-performing team characterized by: 1) Team members trust the efforts of everyone involved and “pick each other up” before there are missed deadlines and goals. 2) Problems are shared by the team and there is lots of collaboration, cooperation and joint problem solving. 3) Meetings involve reporting on progress. People are held accountable for their statements and given support by other team members to increase the probability of successfully reaching their goals. 4) And most team members look forward to meetings, appreciate the power of multiple minds in helping them meet challenges and appreciate the synergy of working together—producing outcomes that exceed their individual contributions.

An average team has most of the characteristics of a below-average team but sometimes functions as a high performing one. In other words, an average team muddles along and sometimes, every once in a while, flirts with functioning well. The trouble is, an average team cannot sustain itself at the high-performance level and does not know what actions it should take to keep itself functioning at a peak level.

Indeed, part of the problem with such a group is that there are no widely known and soundly researched remedies for team dysfunction. Like a chronic medical problem, it’s something organizations learn to live with.

The good news is: there is a soundly researched—albeit relatively little known—approach to remedying team dysfunction. Thanks to the work of Professor Vanessa Druskat, PhD and Steven Wolff, D.B.A., there is now a systematic way to assess the key attributes that make for peak team performance. This assessment identifies qualities that need improvement and provides a roadmap for improving team performance with specific steps.

Dr. Druskat, of the Whittemore School at the University of New Hampshire, and Dr. Wolff, a Principal of GEI Partners, have been studying team performance for over 20 years. They can be said to have extended the concepts of individual emotional intelligence to the team level. They also have conducted groundbreaking research into the emotional intelligence of teams and its meaning for team performance.

Their assessment tool, the Team Emotional Intelligence Survey, has been used to improve team performance around the world. Studies have consistently shown a relationship between improved team emotional intelligence and improved team performance: viewed both from the perspective of individual team members and from the perspective of individuals who are external to the team and benefit from that improved performance. Indeed, team emotional intelligence has been shown to account for 25 percent of the difference between average- and high-performing teams.

Back to our example company. Two of the key attributes measured by the Team Emotional Intelligence Survey are Interpersonal Understanding and Proactive Problem Solving. Through a series of interventions, we were able to improve both of these attributes and watch as the organization processed more orders (and the related work) than it ever had before or than the leaders thought possible. Admittedly, these were subjective reports of improved performance, but they were backed by new levels of both gross revenue and net income without an increase in the number of employees.

The other key attributes measured by the Team Emotional Intelligence Survey are: the ability to effectively address counterproductive (problematic) behavior; caring behavior toward members (one component of establishing trust among team members); the team being able to evaluate how it is doing, itself (“going to the balcony” to observe itself, as one of the co-authors describes it); developing the emotional resources to process difficult issues and the feelings attendant to them; the ability to create a sustained “can do” attitude; an understanding of the team’s role in the organization; and the ability to build relationships with external stakeholders that can aid or benefit from the team’s performance.

If you buy into the idea that two or more minds are better than one but you are frustrated by your team’s functioning level, there is a way forward. Use the Team Emotional Intelligence Survey to identify your team’s areas in need of improvement and take action to correct them. Like the example company, you will be glad you did.

This is a copy of the article appearing in the Portsmouth Herald 11/5/2012 (see here):

© 2012 Brad Lebo — brad.lebo@vitalgrowthllc.com

The first three installments of this series on leadership introduced the seven insights of great leaders and discussed the first through fifth insights at greater length: knowing how to quiet doubt and worry; knowing how to care for the interests of self; knowing how to care for the interests of others; knowing how to navigate competing interests; and knowing how to benefit from feedback from a partner or team.

These insights are for leaders who want to lead long-term. They are also for leaders who wish to be at the “philosopher king” end of the leadership range (that has tyrant at one extreme and philosopher king at the other).

The remaining two insights are: knowing how to hold self and others accountable; and having the courage to imagine and act on a vision.

Knowing how to hold self and others accountable is a major challenge for most. One trap to avoid is the hypocrisy of, “do as I say, not as I do.” Effective leaders do not ask others to do what they cannot do themselves.

Indeed, they take the lessons learned from the challenge of holding themselves accountable and teach others how they might apply the same skills. This improves the chances of others not needing much outside help with accountability.

A core capability for holding oneself accountable is discipline. There are many supporting characteristics like integrity and responsibility, but at the end of the day, someone who does what he says he will, has to exercise discipline. If it were not this way, everyone would meet their commitments and be accountable all the time. This is not the case, of course.

With discipline as the foundation, there are a couple of proven strategies for improving the chances that you will meet a commitment you make. These strategies include: announcing the commitment to others (making it public); writing the commitment down; and giving permission to someone else (a coach or assistant) to hold you accountable.

Another strategy for holding both oneself and others accountable is being very clear about what is expected. This includes “seeing below the surface” if the expectation is more like an iceberg than a mountain (icebergs have hidden complications and resource demands while mountains are seen for what they are). Many missed commitments happen because someone underestimated what meeting the commitment would take.

A key skill for holding others accountable is being able to confront people when they fall short of meeting their commitments. Great leaders are able to do this while preserving the motivation and self-worth of their followers.

This feat is accomplished by avoiding an attack, public or private, that belittles the person and makes them feel bad. Preserving someone’s feelings is not the goal but rather a secondary benefit of viewing someone’s failure to meet a commitment as a joint problem that requires joint problem solving. After all, there are only three possible reasons that commitments are not met: the leader misjudged the capacity of the person whom she made accountable, the leader was not clear enough in setting the expectations, or the leader and the follower together misjudged the resources required to meet the expectation. The leader shares primary or joint responsibility in all three of these reasons.

A final note before moving on: everyone has failed to meet at least one commitment in his or her life. Great leaders know this and do not pretend otherwise.

The courage to imagine and act on a vision is at the core of what leaders do. The stuff about taking into account the interests of others and being able to quiet doubt, for example, aren’t what most people think of when they think of a leader. For example, there is no disputing that Steve Jobs led people to great achievements. My educated guess is that most people would agree he was a leader. It is an open question, at least in my mind, as to whether or not he was a great leader.

Great leadership takes something more than getting others to do what you want them to do. It takes something more than having the authority of position or rank. Being great takes all the insights presented in this series. This includes the last insight: having the courage to imagine and act on a vision.

It is easier to see how it takes courage to act on a vision than how it takes courage to create it. Acting on a vision introduces the possibility of failure and it takes fortitude to look failure straight in the face. But creating a vision means standing up to the status quo. It means daring to think in a different way. Leaders do this—they imagine a different path and dare to think it might be better. That takes courage, too.

Please note: leaders do not have to be the originator of the idea or ideas that shape their vision. They do have to create a plan they can execute, however, and this plan becomes their vision.

Leaders do have to bring some level of passion to their vision. This passion can be quiet or boisterous but it must be present to help them overcome the inevitable challenges. This passion also helps motivate others and may be more important at recruiting followers than anything else mentioned.

In closing, this series is one more drop in the ocean of material on leaders and leadership. It is framed by the notion of insights or a deep understanding of the qualities that make for great leadership in any situation—at least, any long-term situation.

If you are looking to improve your skills as a leader, you would do well to develop the skill described in each of the seven insights. Work on all seven at once or one at a time. Remember that leaders exist at all levels of an organization and in society. Be a leader who acts on all the insights and not just the few that come easily to you.