Successful Blog

No Time this Week to Do It Right? Stop! Right There!

by

Why Those Four Day Weeks Seem Even Longer

insideout logo

I’m not sure who make the sure that most holidays would be celebrated on Mondays, but I’d like to to talk to … ahem … brilliant person who first had that backward idea.

The way I see it play out in reality often looks something like this …

  • The Sunday night “impending doom” of the new work week that usually sets in some time Sunday afternoon still shows up sometime Sunday afternoon as we forget that we have Monday off. For just a few moment, thoughts of work intrude on what is supposed to be a “free day,” before we brush them off.

  • The usual Monday buffer that eases us into the rituals of the work week     becomes another Sunday with that “impending doom.” We enjoy the off time, but feel it going, going, and then gone — knowing, knowing and then well aware that we’re facing a week with 20% less time.
  • Tues must rise to the challenge of handling the Monday rituals

    • while carrying the weight of the regularly scheduled Tuesday catch up meetings.

  • And Wednesday through Friday – we fret the time we lost, while reminding each other quite often which day it is because our weekly calendars are screwed up.

Certainly, a better way would have been to choose to offer Fridays as the recurring holiday – Then we’d get our work in order and be able to enjoy the day off without guilt or confusion that the Monday holiday causes. Just a thought.

Of course until that happens, we really ought to give our responses to recurring short weeks a little more thought.

No Time this Week to Do It Right? Stop! Right There!

Rather than “hit the ground,” might I suggest that we stop there, reflect on what actually needs doing and then slow down to thoughtful walk.

Early in my career I heard this saying …

We never have time to do it right, but always have time to do it over.

Short weeks seem to bring out more of that “never have time to do it right thinking” than ever. Part of what gets the momentum of a over-stressed, “no time to do it right” short week going is that we buy into having the same amount to do in less time. We think of ourselves as “time poor.” Time poor thinking is running into a situation because we start out sure that we don’t have enough time to walk. That leads us to

  • shallow planning
  • half-attention
  • inefficient participation
  • false engagement as we “multi-task”
  • unfriendly, hurried responses – that make the work more important than the people we work with
  • hyper-responses to small interruptions
  • an air of contagious agitation

all of which can be alleviated by walking with a “time rich” approach to the the week.
“Time rich” is being generous with the time we have and realizing that we have all of the time we need for important things. We’re more aware of what it means to connect for others who need help. In a short week, that would bring …

  • setting realistic priorities
  • listening and participating fully in important events and conversations
  • focusing and engaging in what can move things forward most efficiently
  • knowing that taking care of the people will often make it so they can take care of the work they do.
  • a welcome response to news and a easy way of making a later date for less urgent to dos
  • an atmosphere of breathing easy and control

I’ve found it’s a truth in my life that
Every time my brain needs to run faster — that’s a time that I need to slow to walk. So I remind myself that …

If we plan it and do it right the first time, we won’t have to do it over at all.

How do you get to “time rich” thinking to do right, when everyone is thinking “time poor”?

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

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!!

Be Irresistible: THE 7 Key Steps to Becoming Your Own Boss

by

insideout logo

I woke early Sunday morning. I beat the sun again. I started the coffee; turned on the computer; and while they fired up, I cleaned up and fired up myself. After I poured that first cup of coffee, I sat down to see what was happening on Twitter and one interesting Tweet from @WamdaME timed at 03:49a.m. was waiting for me.

After another tweet or two, we established that WamdaME was asking about “starting your own company,” so I sent the following stream of tweets to her under the hashtag #owningit and favorited them too.

It seemed a good idea to share them here too.

THE 7 Key Steps to Becoming Your Own Boss

The seven steps I tweeted might seem to have come easily at 4:00 a.m. that morning. But every success is build on our skill set and talents — what we’re good at — and experience. Strategy and strategic thinking come naturally to me. However, I learned this strategic process by testing it constantly and doing it wrong until I found the way to “right.” After the experience of building a conference business from a blog post and a consulting business from that, I can tell you this is what works.

  1. Look over your successes to find what they have in common.
  2. Recognize the skill sets and experience that you’ve already acquired.
  3. Name the values that define you.
  4. Know how to recognize the people who believe in those same values.
  5. Get to know the people who share your values and understand their goals, dreams, and problems better than your own.
  6. Identify a problem that you enjoy solving at the crossroads of your success skill set and your values.
  7. Build a strategy to serve the people who share your values and the problem you solve for them.
    • Make it your mission to be mission critical to the mission of the people you serve.
    • Understand your position – how your size, skills, visibility, competitive place, and relationships offer opportunity.
    • Leverage conditions – find the opportunity inside every trend, cycle, shift, change in power, etc.
    • Make command decisions – commit to where you’re going, persuade the right people to help, focus on the things that move you forward.
    • Build Networks and Systems – Connect the people who help you thrive. Have an ever simpler process for serving them.

    And the most critical …

  8. Be in with your head, heart, hands, and both feet.

Offer those ideal customers (the people who share your values) the solution to the problem (something that makes their life easier, simpler, or more meaningful) and make that offer everywhere they gather in ways that are easy for them to say yes. And keep listening to their responses , tweaking your offers, and practicing your craft to give the people who love what you do more of what they love, less of what they don’t like, and something uniquely surprising and valuable that only you can bring.

Success in establishing a business grows from what has always has always made us successful — those talents and gifts that define us expressed in the ways that only we can bring them to the world — and such a deep seated commitment to an idea, a quest, a goal that we’re willing to focus all we are to make it real.

It takes commitment to become your own boss — a commitment to yourself, to the people you serve, and to the value of what you offer.

That commitment has been in every success you’ve won.
Make the commitment and you’ll become an irresistible force.

Ever had an experience like that?

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

Is Internal Competition Giving Your External Competition the Win?

by

A Guest Post by
Natasha

cooltext443809602_strategy

Taking care of the internal competition to compete better with external competition

Think of an organization, having different departments competing with each other, to the extent that they wouldn’t mind sabotaging each other’s work, or bringing a project to a total halt, just for the sake of jeopardizing another department’s reputation, without even thinking of the loss that the company has to suffer.

Sounds quite absurd? However, this seemingly absurd contention exists in more businesses than what you can imagine (and the chances are that it exists in your own company as well).

Many resources get wasted, brilliant ideas never get implemented, and the businesses fail to take off, just because different departments fail to collaborate with each other. And it’s not limited to large businesses, when the business is too small to have different departments, this tussle might exist between individuals.

So, how to make sure that the company’s resources are not getting wasted, just because some workers are focusing more on getting the better of each other instead of trying to outperform the real competitors.

Organizational Culture:

If probed, nine times out of ten, you will find that the organizational culture is the root cause of the problem, so the blame should be placed on the higher-ups who are responsible for influencing the culture of the company. At times, lack of collaboration between different departments can be a direct result of the higher up trying to use “divide and rule” policy, and encouraging people from different departments to come and share negligence or slip-up reports of other departments or fellow workers. When the managers’ start taking interest in such stories, the employees will try to make some on their own, and instead of focusing on their core duties, they’ll be trying to find some “material” to feed the higher-ups with more and more negativity about other departments.

Needless to say, if you are looking for better synchronization, you must not encourage, or approve of any such immature behavior.

Emphasis on common goals:

It is the leadership’s responsibility to get across this message to each and every department, that no matter how significant or non-significant the job seems to be, each and every department is in it together. So, when someone tries to disrupt or interfere with another department’s work, it will eventually hurt the organization benefits, and when the organizational benefits get hurt, the damage will ultimately come back to hurt each and every department, pretty much like a circle … together you rise and together you fall.

Rewards and Appraisals:

If not handled carefully, rewards and appraisal system often ends up adding fuel to fire, especially when different departments have goals or targets that coincide with each other. In such scenarios, departments will naturally try to take the credit for each and every accomplishment; this “credit war” is quite the same as the “turf war” (and we know the consequences of turf wars). Not only they’ll try to take the credit, the departments will go to the extent of hiding their successful strategies or techniques from other departments.

Enhance collaboration:

There are many ways to enhance collaboration, for example you can conduct joint meetings, training sessions, or recreational activities, where manager and employees from different departments can mingle with each other. But more importantly, at these joint sessions, meetings, or trainings, you can discern some tension going between two specific departments, you can call them up in person later on, and resolve the issues ASAP.

—-
Author’s Bio:
Natasha is an internet marketing expert by profession. When she’s not working, she likes to work out, read, and even draw (though she shares her paintings with very few people who are good at containing their laughter). Currently, she’s working for Loft conversions London that provides the services like Loft conversions in Hertfordshire .

Thanks! Natasha!

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

Successful-Blog is a proud affiliate of

third-tribe-marketing