Successful Blog

Love Closure or More Possibilities? How to Best Balance Your Ps and Js

by

Not Everyone Thinks the Same Way

insideout logo

It came about because I’d had time to read a book called Please Understand Me. Character and Temperament Types by David Kersey. The book discussed the personality differences that were described by the four pairs of preferences defined in the Myers-Briggs Personality type Indicator. The book led me to champion the idea that the whole editorial department might benefit from a Myers-Briggs workshop. Approval came. All 30 or so of us took the personality test and about a week later we met offsite with a trained administrator who had scored our results but hadn’t shared them.

By way of background, the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator identifies which are your preferences in four pairs of trait behaviors.

  • I or E:
    Introverts prefer to work out their solutions alone, thinking through their thoughts before speaking.
    Extroverts prefer to work out their solutions with others, talking through their thoughts to see what they’re thinking.
  • N or S:
    iNtutive people prefer to go with their “gut feeling,” the whole of the information — the rightness or wrongness of what they understand internally.
    Sensory people prefer to go with the empirical data, the facts of the sights, sounds, tastes, touch, and smell and what those facts reveal.
  • T or F
    Thinkers prefer to interact via information.
    Feelers prefer to interact via emotions.
  • J or P
    Judgers prefer decisions. They value closure.
    Perceivers prefer multiple options. They value the possibilities in every situation.

The documentation and studies make it clear that every person has all 8 traits. The test measures which in each pair is an individual’s preferred way of interacting with other people and information — sort of the default setting, the one we go to when we’re left to our own devices, in a crisis, or designing our own situation. I thought was that it might bring home the reality that …

we can’t assume others think the same way we do.

Plan a Vacation

The facilitator set up activities that used used each trait pair to underscore the differences in outcomes that occur when we approach a task with different preferred ways of thinking. We were unaware of which trait we had when the task was assigned. Some tasks had mixed preference groups. Some had a group that wa all of one preference. The most memorable task and lesson for me was when she asked two groups to plan a vacation.

She assigned us to two groups by name. We didn’t now at the time, but one group was the Ps — those who value possibilities — and the other was the Js — those who value closure. She gave us about 20 minutes for planning then asked us to report back. The reports from each group were something like this.

I suspect it was purposeful that she had the Js report first.

The J Vacation

The Js had decided that they would go to Europe for precisely 21 days. They knew which countries they would visit in which order and how many days they would be staying in which country. They also knew which sites were on the list to visit in each country. Assignments had been made. Every member of the group knew his or her role. Assignments included: transportation, lodging, tickets to venues and sites, special meals in each city, even collection of emergency documents and numbers.

The Ps started snickering as we listened to the Js report. The reason for our delight was evident when our turn came.

The P Vacation

In the same amount of time, the Ps had decide to meet up in Taos, New Mexico and hang there for a while doing whatever we liked from a whole list of possibilities. The list of possibilities was quite impressive. Then those who wanted to could go on to visit the Caribbean — one island or more, and those who wanted to stay in New Mexico could.

As you might notice, the two groups had significantly different reports. What you might not fully appreciate is that both groups were quite pleased with their results.

How to Balance Your Ps and Js

The task was so well chosen that whenever I tell the story people have no problem deciding which group defines their preference. More importantly, the way we frustrate each other becomes apparent. .

Imagine a project team with an equal number of Ps and Js. While Ps are trying desperately to leave all of the options open, the Js are pushing fervently to get to a decision. Both groups are so intent on their preferred way of thinking, it can be hard to see the value of the other. Yet a team of all Ps would get lost or get nowhere and a team of all Js would miss out on many options that could raise their game. Here are some ways to best balance the value of your Ps and Js.

  • Make a no closure rule during brainstorming. Brainstorming is where Ps excel. Give them the room to explore all of the options safely without the need to justify leaving the door open. Suggest Js brainstorm several starting points as a way to work to their strengths.
  • Separate the two groups when problem solving. Ask the Ps to limit their options to three actionable solutions. Ask the Js to get past their first solution to two more that would work as well as the first.
  • In project planning, use your Ps and Js in different roles. Invite Ps to conceptualize, ideate, and sketch out new ideas and processes. Ask Js to pinpoint how those ideas might take form and how those processes might work in action.

Let both groups know how the dynamic tension between their preferences supports and complements each other making the team stronger. After all, without the flexibility of a P it would be hard to respond to a disaster and without the structure of J wasted time could be a real problem.

Which are you and how do you value the other in your business?

–ME “Liz” Strauss
Work with Liz on your business!!

Influence: Do You Know the Value of a Single Dissenting Voice?

by

Group Influence Is Power

cooltext443794242_influence

It used to happen all of the time in publishing. I’d set up one-to-one meetings with key individuals to discuss product prototypes. They’d offer their candid feedback. I’d incorporate what I’d learned into the next iteration of the prototype and do it again, until I was certain I had all of their concerns ironed out and a strong version of the proposed product ready for review.

At the review meeting, the same people would gather to discuss the “final” version of the prototype. I’d begin by stating the history of how the prototype was developed, who had participated, and what sorts of input had been gathered. We’d walk through the features and benefits of the product and open the floor to discussion.

The guy with the most powerful voice would say something like, “I’m not sure that cover works for me,” though he’d loved the cover the last six times he’d seen it. The person next to him would tilt her head and say “It’s always bothered me, too.” And suddenly, the entire group was agreeing that the cover — which each of them had discussed and signed off on individually — was a disaster.

What happened?

Influence: Do You Know the Value of a Single Dissenting Voice?

Anyone who’s managed a focus group knows that they’re serious business and even with the most practiced moderator, the group can easily go off track – to offer up information that reflects something in the group dynamic rather than a true representation of how each individual thinks about a given question.

What happened in the meeting I described that made every person see the cover differently? How had the power of the group influenced their thinking? Did the individuals believe what they were saying? Had they forgotten their original opinion? Were not invested before or had they changed their minds?

What makes us not see what we see and know what we know when we’re alone become something different when we’re together?

I learned a little about this sort of influence a few years ago … from a psychologist who taught at Loyola University. “In the 1950s, Dr. Solomon Asch of Swarthmore College asked groups of students to participate in a “vision test.” All but one in each group were confederates in the experiment (the confederates knew what was going on). Asch was testing how likely individuals are to conform with a group opinion even when the group is obviously wrong.

The method of the Asch test:

  • The participants were all seated in a classroom.
  • The group — one real participant and the confederates — were asked questions about the lines on two cards. Possible question might include:
    • How long is line A?
    • How does the length of line A compare to the length of [everyday object]?
    • Which line is longer than line A?
    • Which line is the same length as line A?
  • The group announced their answers aloud.
  • The confederates were provided answers, always answered before the study participant, and always gave the same answer as the other confederates.
  • Confederates began by answering a few questions correctly. Later they offered unanimous incorrect answers.

The experiment tested number of confederates necessary to induce conformity. They studied the influence of voice to fifteen.
The experiment varied the degree unanimity of the confederates.

The control group, the hypothesis, and the results:

In a control group, designed without pressure to conform, only one subject out of 35 gave an incorrect answer.

Solomon Asch had hypothesized that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong; however, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants provided incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question. — Wikipedia

The results indicated that …

  • One confederate offering a wrong response has virtually no influence — people will give their own answer.
  • Two confederates have only a small influence.
  • Three or more confederates make the tendency to conform relatively stable.

Three or more people who see things differently comprise a powerful influence toward conforming.
Yet …

If out of a group, even only one confederate voices a different opinion, participants are far more likely to resist the urge to conform.

This finding illuminates the power that even a small dissenting minority can have. Interestingly, this finding holds whether or not the dissenting confederate gives the correct answer. As long as the dissenting confederate gives an answer that is different from the majority, participants are more likely to give the correct answer. — Wikipedia

What Does this All Mean?

Unconsciously we lean toward silence if our opinion differs from the accepted group belief. Silence, often interrupted as agreement, can be simply a lack of contribution. How can we manage against losing the honest voices that choose not to speak?

Often “teams players” are defined as like-minded thinkers — possibly because such a group is easier to manage. Yet leadership depends on free flowing solid information. If we define “team players” as having deep connection in maturity and values, we can reach for a range of world views and ways of thinking — inside the box, outside the box, bottom up, top down, intuitive, data driven, idealistic, realistic, risk taking and risk averse thinkers.

Valuing a dissenting voice can raise the participation of an entire team. Though the conversation might become more complicated, the result will be a stronger, more honest exchange of higher quality thinking. When differing points of view are respected trust grows naturally.

That single dissenting voice gives the entire group permission to see what they see and know what they know — the power of honesty.

Have you experienced the value of a single dissenting voice? Have you had to be one?

Be irresistible.
–ME “Liz” Strauss
Work with Liz on your business!!

Would You Rather Have a Guardian Angel or a Devil’s Advocate on Your Team?

by

We All Need A Check on Our Thinking

insideout logo

We’re in a meeting. A problem gets set on the table. We start to brainstorm solutions. Ideas are forming. You find one that seems to have potential. It looks to be simple, timely, and meaningful. Just as you’re sketching it out, someone who’s been listening jumps in before your thought’s even finished to say, “Let me play Devil’s Advocate … ”

Once upon a time — in the 16th Century — the role of Devil’s Advocate was an appointment with a specific purpose to test the argument of elevating a person’s life to sainthood.

Today, we flattened the idea, stretched the usage, and made it all but frivolous. As Tim Sanders so aptly describes …

Today, we’ve taken this to the extreme. When someone at work has a new idea about a product or a process, we take on the role of devil’s advocate before they’ve even expressed half the idea. We treat them like idiots, posing objections to them in a tone of voice that suggests, “have you even considered the obvious?” We do the same thing at home. Our kid has an idea for a business and we go into skeptic mode, shooting down her enthusiasm before the food hits the table. In every situation, we don’t improve the way the ideator thinks. Research suggests that only authentic dissent (You truly think it’s a bad idea) can provoke a better idea. When you argue for the sake of argument, you merely bolster the ideator’s conviction as well as her feelings that she’s all alone on this one.

I’m convinced that the Devil’s Advocate takes more value than he or she adds.

Why a Guardian Angel Adds More Value Than a Devil’s Advocate

When you pose your next idea, would you rather have a Guardian Angel or a Devil’s Advocate?

That might seem a clever turn of a phrase, but it’s more than that. The difference is striking. One works to win an argument. The works to contribute. Take a look at the two.

A Devil’s Advocate …

The position of Devil’s Advocate is inherently negative. The role is to find holes in the proposed idea. Arguing for the sake of arguing easily can degrade into arguing for inconsequential details or arguing to show how clever the person presenting the argument can be.

  • Psychologically sits on the opposite side of the table.
  • Argues against whatever has been proposed.
  • Asks questions to focus on risks and problems.
  • Bears no responsibility for finding answers to those questions.
  • Has a vested reason to ignore or discount valid counter-arguments.

The Devil’s Advocate breaks ideas. No value is added.

A Guardian Angel …

The position of Guardian Angel is inherently positive. The role is to find and fill holes in the proposed idea. Arguing for the possibility of what might work, while checking for risk, leads to dialogue that builds and molds ideas into useful realities.

  • Psychologically sits on the same side of the table.
  • Argues for the goal or outcome the idea proposes to meet.
  • Asks questions to focus on meaningful solutions with low risk.
  • Bears responsibility for finding answers to those questions as part of the team.
  • Has a vested reason to build on the idea or propose a better one.

The Guardian Angel strengthens ideas by adding value to them.

A Devil’s Advocate wants to save the business from harm. He or she deconstructs to identify anything that might go wrong. The quest is to stop a problem before something is lost.

A Guardian Angel wants to meet and exceed the dreams of the business and the customers. He or she deconstructs to find and fix the anything that might go wrong. It’s a quest to invent a new solution so that new ground can be won.

The Guardian Angel adds value. A Devil’s Advocate tries to ensure none is lost.
Which would you rather have on your team?

Be irresistible.

–ME “Liz” Strauss
Work with Liz on your business!!

Get Off the Bus and Head Toward True North With Burning Desire

by

Leaders Live Up to Their Own Standards

insideout logo

It’s a story of politics at work …

Blindedsided by a Romulan Warbird

It was a Friday afternoon in a past life, as they say. I was working late when Dina stopped by. Dina managed a new editor, Marilyn, who also worked on one of my projects. We often conferred on Marilyn’s progress. I thought Dina had come in to add something to our discussion.

As a social person, Dina was part of a catty little clique that had opinions on everything. I avoided both the group and their opinions when I could.

Dina smiled sweetly as she came into my office, sat herself down, and offered some minor pleasantries — always her style. Then she dropped her cloaking device and hit me head-on like a Romulan Warbird.

“We’ve been talking about you, and we’ve decided that we don’t like you talking about people when they’re not in the room, . . . in particular, we don’t like you talking about Marilyn.” She proceeded to use a good twenty minutes describing everything that was wrong with me as a person, which included a sidebar on why no person on the planet could possibly stand to work with me. I should have seen it coming when I heard that lovely phrase, “It’s probably none of our business, but . . .”

I lived the word stunned.

As I sat facing rapid fire, I literally had to restart my brain to process the information. My thinking kept looping around the same question in amazement. Did she hear what she had just said? It was a full-out admission that she had been doing exactly what she was shooting me for. In my neighborhood that wasn’t fair. Add to that the fact that she was the only one with whom I had discussed Marilyn.

My brain was misfiring. The opening narration from The Outer Limits was being read by Rod Serling as Salvadore Dali painted the scene in my office somewhere in the far reaches of my mind.

This female sitting across from me was an editor and a manager. What had she done with the facts? The only plausible answer was: she had no use for the facts. Dina had been passive-aggressive since I’d arrived at the company. She thought that my job should have been hers. So I don’t suppose that she was predisposed to caring about the facts. I let her say her piece. It was brutal. I went home.

My natural response is to fix things. I looked for ways to resolve this. Every solution that presented itself had me giving up ground. I didn’t want her friendship, but I didn’t need to be bullied again either. It was a miserable weekend. It took self-respect to go to work that Monday.

Had I been wiser then, I wouldn’t have wasted a weekend trying to fix the un-fixable. I know now that even if I’d saved Warbird’s life, I’d be that awful person who’d somehow done a good thing. That’s how those things work.

Every now and then I hear about Warbird and occasionally bump into her at conferences. I always stop to talk. She always seems nervous. I like to think that I’ve changed. Maybe she will too. Then again, maybe she won’t. She’s still at the old company — in the same job she got when I left.

Me? I’m long gone from there.

How did I get to be someone who worked with people like that?

I had changed myself to fit into the transportation that took me to the buildings where I worked in the jobs that I got because I mastered the right skill sets. Often I was bored and didn’t feel successful. I was managing not leading. I didn’t know it, but I was working for a paycheck or working just to work.

Some days I asked myself, “Am I good enough to be here?” and “What am I supposed to do next? Will I be on the bus that’s going from good to greatness?” I was on a path — the one laid out before me — but I had totally lost track of myself

Once I even said yes when the right answer was no.

Now I see that I’m not the only one who has done that…

Yet leaders don’t ride a bus to get from good to great. They walk their own path.

The more Ghandi, Oprah, Mandela, Catherine the Great, Bill Gates, Melissa Mayers, and Steve Jobs came to know themselves, the better leaders they became. They lived and lived up to their own standard of greatness.

True leaders do their own thinking; they know who they are and know that their true north comes from the inside. They own their values, skills, and experience. They are moved by a burning desire to build what they can’t build alone. That burning desire is what defines their path.

It’s not whether you’re an entrepreneur or working in a warehouse that makes you a leader. It’s whether we own our values and our path. Then we can contribute deeply and clearly to any business we choose to make part of our lives.

We become a leader the day we decide who we are, where we’re going, and how we’ll get ourselves there.
Who’d want to follow you if you haven’t done that?

What have you decided about yourself and your own true north?

Be irresistible.

–ME “Liz” Strauss
Work with Liz on your business!!

What Have You Done to Become a Leader?

by

Following or Finding a Path 1

insideout logo

Who are you? How do you make a difference? Sometimes it’s a natural talent. Sometimes it’s a skill. Sometimes it’s a core value or quality that speaks to our humanity. Always it’s a statement based in the strengths of uniqueness. Sharing that unique strength with purpose is what defines a leader’s path.

Are you an artist, great at details, exceptional math? Can you code like banshee or persuade others to do anything? Are you easier to work with or faster than almost anybody? Do you ever find yourself thinking that what you do well is something everyone can do?

Just because it’s easy for you, doesn’t mean that I can do it.

Leaders know their uniqueness and own it.

Sorting out and evaluating what we know about ourselves is a leadership task. As Warren Bennis said in his book, On Becoming a Leader … we become leaders the moment that we …

  • decide how we will be.
  • take blame and responsibility.
  • know that we can learn anything we want to learn.
  • reflect on our experience, because it is through reflection we understand what we’ve learned.

Becoming a leader is a decision and a strategy, not an accident.

Reflect a while on what Warren Bennis said ….

  • Have you decided how you will be? Have you defined what the best version of you is? Have you chosen those values are most important to you? Do you choose the people you work with and the people you call friends by the values they share? Do you know what behaviors are your deal breakers? A leader is impatient to be the best and the most human now, not sometime in the future.
  • Do you take responsibility for yourself? Have you figured out it’s not the bad things other folks do, but how we hold on or respond that makes the difference? Are you still blaming someone for something that happened when you were a kid? A leader takes responsibility for building a life in which such things are history.
  • Are you the learning you could be? It’s true that we can learn anything we want to, but we’ll always be more inclined toward what we’re genetically programmed to do well. We can learn to move our fears and use them to fuel our learning. We can learn to change our minds about what we like doing. We can learn to find the best in any situation. Leaders are hungry to learn from everything and everyone around us. That’s what propels us forward.
  • Do you reflect on what your experience? Most of us spend time thinking hard about the negatives. We debrief our failures until we know them intimately. What about our successes? Do you reflect on what gives you energy? Do you think about why people listen to you? Leaders take time to reflect on the things that move them and engage the people around them.

Leadership is first about leading our own lives.

Learning to lead ourselves is how we understand what makes a leader. People see that in our demeanor and we see it in other people. They recognize the unique value and strength that’s individual in each person. It’s natural to reach out as leaders to align our goals and build something that none of us can build alone.

What have you done to become a leader in your own life?

Be irresistible.

–ME “Liz” Strauss
Work with Liz on your business!!

Related articles:
The Only One

Does Your Business Embrace Technology Meaningfully?

by

A Guest Post by
Matt Krautstrunk

cooltext443809602_strategy

As bloggers we understand how important interacting with a community on social media is for exposure. We tend to refer to social as “new media,” however when you think about it, some of the ancient social media channels (Myspace, corporate blogs) have been around for over 7-10 years now. The progress that marketers have made on social media channels has almost pushed the medium to maturity, it’s time for corporate structure to follow!

Building Social Media Into Your Corporate Culture

Social media is being used by more and more people to accomplish almost everything from a job search to answering common questions. Just to reiterate how fast social media is growing. See below: According to Econsultancy

  • Tweets grew 250% since January 2010
  • LinkedIn Users grew 100%
  • Facebook grew from 350 million users to 640 million users in one year

But in the B2B marketing industry, social media should extend deeper than just having a LinkedIn. It should be controlled internally and leveraged within each employee. Your employees can be used as vehicles to spread messages about your company’s products and services. With this obviously comes inherent risk, but since social media such a transparent vertical there should be internal social media policies in conjunction with your marketing strategy.

Social Media Policy

Companies are still trying to find a balance whether they should encourage or hide employee social media use. Everything from, the decision to associate your businesses name with employees on social media to governing social media use, social media policies can be laid out to leverage your marketing strategy internally.

For instance, some companies have requested their employees create a separate Twitter account that is strictly professional. This has two key benefits, one is the fact that businesses are able to gain awareness and engagement from each employee’s Twitter, and the other is minimizing the risks associated with standing behind an employee who tweets inappropriate personal material. Businesses should design a clear policy framework for how social media can be used to create synergies not catastrophes.

Improving Workflow

Embracing social media within your company may have some risks, but empowering employees with social media embrace can help your cause. For example allowing employees to tweet during workdays can improve morale and communication efforts. Strategically integrating tools to work within your business can give meaning to each of your departments, according to Charlene Li, analyst at Execunet (http://insights.execunet.com/index.php/comments/creating_winning_social_media_strategies/best-practices/more) , “Anyone can be influential with these tools. Salesforce.com has a new Twitter-like product and calls the people in the company using it, the “Chatterati.” “This internal social group is the connective tissue in the organization,” Li noted. “There is real value being created as people use these tools to get the job done.” Social media is a core element of these innovative companies communication technology, making their employees better, more informed workers. There is an opportunity here for collaboration in the cloud; your employees will have the ability to express opinions and suggestions easier than ever before.

One of the biggest challenges to embracing social media internally is letting go of control. Executives should embrace this technology meaningfully instead of fearing the repercussions.

_____
Matt Krautstrunk is an expert writer on document management systems for Resource Nation an online resource that provides advice on purchasing and outsourcing decisions for small business owners and entrepreneurs. You can find him on Twitter as @mattkrautstrunk

Thanks Matt! Great case for taking social media seriously.

–ME “Liz” Strauss
Work with Liz on your business!!