Welcome to Scott Kress’ Team and Leadership Blog

Tags: Scott Kress Frontier Team Building Summit Training Team Development Leadership Everest

“A picture is worth a thousand words. An experience is worth a thousand pictures.”
Stephen Covey

Give us a call for your next team experience!

Tags: adventure, experience, fun, learning, Motivation, Photo, stephen covey, team building, teamwork

Hundreds of thousands of people in Canada are members of Costco. I was fortunate be be interviewed for the November/December 2009 issue. See a link to the article here.
http://www.costcoconnection.ca/connectioncaeng/20091112/?folio=23

Tags: communication, Costco, Everest Blog, everest speaker, goal setting, high performance team, leadership, Motivation, Scott Kress Frontier Team Building Summit Training Team Development Leadership Everest, stretch goals, success, team development, teamwork

Many experts view Emotional Intelligence (EQ) as critical to success in leadership, as well as in other aspects of life. One of the 15 attributes that comprise Emotion Intelligence is assertiveness. Assertiveness, not surprisingly, is closely linked with self-confidence. It is an important quality for leaders but, as is often the case, too much of a good thing can be bad.

We’ve all seen managers who are literally off the scale when it comes to being “assertive”. These people probably believe it is their job to be the strong, decisive boss who will never back down or show a moment’s hesitation. In an effort to establish authority, they constantly exercise their brand of assertiveness through loud bravado, and by browbeating both subordinates and peers into submission. Their attacks are often personally directed and publicly delivered. The word, in fact, that best describes them is “bully.”

There are several reasons why a boss may become a bully. He may have an outdated view of what good leadership entails. Or, he could simply lack self-confidence. The journal “Psychological Science” recently published a paper entitled “When the Boss Feels Inadequate”. The researchers claim that leaders who feel in over their heads resort to browbeating to protect their egos. When people feel incompetent in a high powered position, actual aggression kicks in. (Anyone who experienced schoolyard bullies as a child will recognize the truth in this concept.)

There’s a big difference between people who can assert the ideas they believe in, and those who aggressively attack those who differ in opinion. In their book, “The EQ Edge”, Steven J. Stein and Howard E. Book describe the difference between assertiveness and aggression. Assertiveness is the ability to express your feelings and thoughts, and stand up for your beliefs and rights. It infers, however, that you are able to do so without being abusive (i.e., you respect the other person) and while remaining open to new ideas (i.e., you are able to change your mind or seek “win/win”).

If you find yourself reacting to those around you in an inflexible and aggressive manner, it may be a sign that you are trying to compensate for your own perceived shortcomings, or confusing healthy assertiveness with a need to appear infallible. Even good leaders can be wrong; great leaders can, first, accept their shortcomings and, second, enlist the support and talents of their team to compensate for their own weaknesses.

Whether you think you are on the giving or receiving end of aggressive behavior, Stein and Book offer some great insights and exercises in “The EQ Edge”. It’s definitely worth the read.

Tags: Add new tag, aggression, assertiveness, authority, bully boss, confidence, Emotional Intelligence, leadership, respect, team, win/win

To paraphrase an old adage, praise is cheap. It costs nothing to give (except a few moments of time) and can yield high pay-offs in job satisfaction and increased individual performance. But that doesn’t mean it should be applied indiscriminately and with a broad brush. In fact, research shows that indiscriminant praise actually lowers performance.

I’ve read a lot lately about such pitfalls of praise. Much of this writing relates to the newest generation to hit the workforce. Some of these workers are characterized as being fragile in the face of criticism and in need of constant praise, even when their work is mediocre. I’ve seen more than one writer lay blame at the feet of the child psychologists of the past few decades who convinced parents, teachers and coaches that everyone should get a ribbon just for showing up. In some writers’ minds, society has created a disconnection between hard work, success and reward. While they make a good point, I think there are at least two things to consider when it comes to praise.

Number one: We all need praise and recognition. Praise raises our self esteem. To bestow praise only on the highest performers is to de-motivate the rest of your workforce. And only motivated employees will ever reach their potential.

Number two: Praise should be based on desired behaviors as well as results. In other words, you don’t have to wait for a home run to cheer. Let’s face it, we’re not all equally gifted and we can’t all knock it out of the park. The good things an employee does en route to achieving results are important, are largely under their control and are praiseworthy.

Some tips for praising employees:
1. Praise often. Go ahead. Make their day or, at least, their week.
2. Avoid vague praise as a rule. Although it’s good to toss out a heartfelt “Great job!” when targets are achieved, if you consistently give vague praise for mediocre performance, you reinforce mediocrity. The person has no way of sorting the good behaviors from the bad, and no reason to seek improvement.
3. On the flip side, praise specific behaviors that you’d like to see repeated.
4. If you can’t find something specific to praise, maybe you need to get to know the person and their work better. Invest time. Help them set targets, coach them on good habits and help them lock those habits in through praise.

Praise is indeed cheap. But, we can still treat it as a valuable resource.

Tags: Add new tag, job satisfaction, motivated, performance, praise

I confess that I am something of a running junkie. I do it, I coach it, I read about it and I watch it when I can. Through some recent running-related reading, I stumbled onto the inspiring and insightful story of Billy Mills, an American runner who staged the greatest upset in Olympic history. Billy obviously did this through hard work … lots of it … but key to his success was something beyond mere physical preparation.

Billy Mills was a 26 year old U.S. Marine when he qualified for the 1964 US Olympic team by placing second at the US trials in the 10,000 metre race. Entering the Olympic final, absolutely no one, except for Billy Mills himself, had him in their radar as a contender. After all, Billy’s best times for the 10,000 meter distance were almost a minute slower than the best in that highly competitive field. The millions watching expected World record holder Ron Clarke of Australia and a handful of well known contenders to battle it out for the medals. It didn’t go that way.

Even as an overwhelming underdog, Billy Mills had the audacious goal of being Olympic champion. He prepared his body and he deliberately prepared his mind. In the years and months leading up to that final, he visualized, dozens of times per day, winning that race. His running diary was filled with positive self-talk. As the race approached, he knew who and what he was up against, yet he continued to believe in himself and his vision of success.

If you want to see the final two minutes of the race … it’s thrilling … search it on ‘you tube’. With about a lap to go, you’ll see a leading Billy Mills get elbowed out of the way by a surging Ron Clarke. As Billy stumbles, Tunisia’s Mohamed Gamoudi also pushes through the gap and rockets into the lead. Mills hangs on desperately in third but seems out of the race until, with 30 metres left, he rallies a final sprint to take the gold. En route, he sets an Olympic record and betters his personal record by almost 50 seconds. Disney could not create a more improbable ending.

In post-race interviews, Billy points out his diary entries that are peppered with references to his positive visualization, his belief in his dream and his commitment to his goal. He describes the power of that visualization when, in the last 150 metres of the race, his hearing and vision were cutting in and out, but his mind kept repeating the well-worn mantra, “I can win”. With 30 metres to go, while still in third place, his mind was already telling him, “I won! I won! I won!” And of course, three seconds later, he did.

Billy Mills became only the second Native American to win an Olympic Gold medal, and he is still the only American ever to win Olympic gold in the 10,000. He continues to be an amazing hero, humanitarian and fundraiser for global charities. His language and, I’m sure, his thoughts are peppered with positive talk and powerful visualization of the success he dreams of creating.
Like Billy Mills, we all create our end results, success or failure, in our minds first. While positive self-talk and visualization are never a substitute for hard work, they can be powerful levers when things get tough. I believe it is always worth asking, “Am I visualizing the results I really want to create for myself”?

Tags: audacious goal, commitment, goal setting, positive self-talk, success, Vision of Success, visualize

This just in: a bad mood, with appropriate timing, can be a good thing.

Psychology researchers at the University of New South Wales in Australia induced sadness or happiness in subjects and then measured their performances in a number of clinical tasks. While they found that a good mood … happiness, in other words … was a definite boost to creativity, a sad mood led to better abilities in judging truth. People in a sad mood were better at critical thinking, and could even recall events better. They were less prone to making snap decisions based on prejudice, and they were better at producing effective, persuasive messages.

Now, I don’t suggest that anyone go into the office next week on a deliberate mission to bring everyone down. I still believe that the most productivity occurs in a happy environment and, let’s face it, there’s enough bad news out there already. But as leaders, we need to be flexible and skilled enough to create environments where the appropriate thinking styles can come to the forefront at the proper times. That most often means fostering an upbeat, enjoyable and, at times, ‘fun’ environment that stimulates creativity and team bonding. But, research now indicates, when tough decisions must be made, something can be said for putting the toys and donuts away and evaluating the options with a somber mind.

So, be conscious of both your good moods and bad moods and how you use them. Just as you don’t want to kill a creative process with a scowl, you don’t want to lighten things up at the wrong time either. Reminding people of some somber realities as you are evaluating your options or making key decisions just may be the best approach.

Tags: creativity, critical thinking, evaluation, judging, performance

Some people may disagree with me, but I believe we are all potential leaders. Whether or not it is in the job description, sooner or later we all find ourselves in a situation where we can – and do – influence others, even though we may be unconscious of it at the moment it occurs. It is often in the informal sense of leadership that we might do the most damage or, conversely, choose to do the most good. The following is the true case of ‘Superman’ vs. ‘Toxicman’.

Early in my career I joined what turned out to be a highly dysfunctional team. It was a new experience for me, and it completely threw me off. The work itself was largely enjoyable, interesting and rewarding. The official team leader appeared approachable and open to input. The people were skilled and knowledgeable, some extremely so. Yet, I dreaded our weekly team meetings almost from the outset and, within a short time, I also learned to dread any and all encounters with most team members. This team had succumbed to the influence of one overwhelmingly negative and confrontational person … ‘Toxicman’.

You have likely met a person like ‘Toxicman’. He enters the room with his permanent scowl of doom, and the energy and conversation drain away like a two dollar pint at happy hour. He always has a complaint about the way he is being treated by the organization. His work load is too great, leadership is incompetent, colleagues are sub-standard and none of the plans will ever work. Even in his absence, conversations are drawn to his latest negative antics. Toxicman is a walking dose of lethal poison and he seems bent on destruction.

In our case, there had apparently been numerous futile complaints over the years and now it seemed most people had accepted that the official leader was powerless in the face of such a viral force. But I noticed that one person on our team of 10, I’ll call him ‘Superman’, continued to interact in a meaningful way with Toxicman. I occasionally saw them share a laugh in the hall. They even shared an office (I imagined that would be a special hell). Superman managed to maintain a positive attitude and a good relationship with a very difficult individual. I had to ask him what was going on, and he shared these insights:
• Toxicman was gifted in his area of expertise, but not so generously endowed with patience. This was aggravated by a medical condition which he struggled to control and sometimes resulted in outbursts over the slightest thing. Armed with this knowledge and empathy, Superman made it clear to Toxicman that he wouldn’t engage in the outbursts. He’d engage only while Toxicman had his demons under control.
• Toxicman rarely felt listened to or otherwise validated by the team. Superman practiced enquiry and active listening so Toxicman felt heard and validated. Superman in fact managed to tap into Toxicman’s desire to contribute.
• Superman knew he couldn’t fight Toxicman and win. He took it on as a personal challenge to manage the only thing he could control: his own attitude. And he was winning 90% of the time.
• Superman made it his rule not to engage in negative conversations about Toxicman. He refused to be ‘carrier’. At most, he would acknowledge the challenge, and then attempt to bring things back to the positive.

I learned a lot from Superman that day. I adopted his strategies and, perhaps not coincidentally, ended up sharing an office with Toxicman for several pretty enjoyable years. I learned a lot from Toxicman, too. He really was a gifted expert. I wish I could report that Superman and I made everything right with the team. We didn’t. But I do believe we made things much better than they might have been.

Tags: active listening, Add new tag, Dysfunctional team, empathy, enquiry, influence, leadership, positive attitude, validate

I am constantly reminded that wise leaders involve their teams in making decisions that affect them. There is tremendous value in this. Simply examining all sides of an issue with the input of a diverse and talented team helps the leader make a fully informed decision. And, when the team has reached consensus on an issue, a motivated, energetic and committed workforce heads out on a path they feel they have chosen themselves.

Leaders sometimes state their intent to gain consensus on key issues but feel discouraged when considerable time is invested and the results fall short of expectations. Sometimes this happens because the principles, and the term “consensus” itself, are poorly understood.

Case in point: I recall a meeting many years ago that involved about 30 people who were, to the extreme, dedicated to achieving complete agreement on important issues. The issue I describe appears now to be quite trivial but, I must emphasize, it did not seem trivial to the participants at the time. The issue (are you ready?): “Should a popular and valued staff member be allowed to have her dog at work when policy clearly forbade it?” By the way, this was not a “working dog” but an ordinary pet.

Now, there was a “history” that had led to the policy in the first place and I won’t go into that. Also, the dogs of several staff present at the meeting had effectively been banned from the premises. On the other side were good arguments why this particular dog and this valued person should be granted exceptional status. The discussion lasted well over three hours while the moderator tried to get complete agreement from 30 people among several options: the policy stays and the dog goes, or; the policy goes and the dog stays, or; the policy stays and an exception made. In the end, fatigue spoke louder than reason. Complete agreement was signaled by way of a 30-0 vote. The final decision: uphold the policy with no exceptions but henceforth recognize the dog in question as “a cat” (there being no policy banning cats). I don’t recall the dog’s reaction.

Few people would consider this a good decision, or even a good process, but I think there are two important lessons in this tale.

The first is that, no matter how trivial an issue appears, it is very likely quite important to more than one person. People discussed this, heatedly at times, for three hours! Your handling of it will send a clear message about how you regard the values of those involved. Dismiss it at your peril.

The second is that consensus does not mean complete agreement. While many people might consider complete agreement to be a noble target, it is rarely achieved and can lead to bizarre outcomes. Some would argue that complete agreement may be a sign that the team lacks the necessary diversity of opinions and perspectives (and in the current example, “connection to reality”) to be really effective. So what do we strive for?

How about true consensus? Consensus is not unanimous agreement. I prefer to think of it as a process that involves all the people who are affected by the decision, and leads to a decision that all people can support. In consensus, the decision may not be my first choice, and I never lose face by being coerced into saying that it is. I just agree that:
• I have said my piece and I feel “heard”.
• It is the best solution for the team and I can live with it.
• I’ll try and make it work, rather than sabotage it.

Consensus is not a majority vote or an autocratic decision. It shouldn’t be a bargaining process, and it needn’t be unanimous. To set that expectation is unrealistic and counterproductive. Rather, consensus is a way to increase respect, build commitment and build deep understanding of the issues, the business and the team members themselves.

Tags: Add new tag, agreement, business, commitment, committed, consensus, decision making, leader, motivated, respect

I had one of those conversations today. You may have had one like this. It started out when a potential client asked a simple question that I really connected with. Before I knew it, I was knee-deep in the topic and, I must say, I was becoming increasingly impressed with my ability to wade through the muddy waters toward the high ground of enlightenment. Fortunately, this was a face-to-face conversation, because at some point it dawned on me that I was alone by the time I approached the far shore. My partner in conversation appeared to be slipping out of consciousness. I had ignored some key rules of “engagement” and now we might both pay the price.

I know I’m not the only one who has done this. During the past few years, dozens of clients have expressed the desire to “engage” people; leaders want to engage their teams, sales managers want to engage potential customers, and governments wish to engage the public, stakeholders and partners. The reasons are many. While engaged, people absorb concepts, make connections and contribute ideas. The organization benefits from the increased brainpower itself, but also from increased connection and commitment toward the entity they are collectively building.

Engagement can be understood with some basic brain physiology. When you are conscious, your brain can be in one of two states, “alpha” or “beta”, depending on its energy levels. Conveniently, there is also a switch called the “reticular activating system”. When the woman in my story started to drift, her brain was slipping into alpha, just as your computer will do if you don’t touch the keys for a while. Now, alpha is fine for mundane tasks, but I was hoping to make an impact with my ideas, perhaps even make a sale. When I realized what was happening, I paused, used her name and asked her a question about her experience with the topic. This prompted the reticular activating system, which jolted her brain back into beta state. Her brain was now meeting the challenge of functioning at a higher level. She was re-engaged.

When you have a message to deliver or information to obtain, you can engage your communications partners by getting them into beta and keeping them there with some of the following activators:
1. Use their names.
2. Ask questions and get them speaking. (Research has shown that when a person has spoken once in a meeting, they are much more willing to speak subsequent times.)
3. Present problems for them to help solve.
4. Change your voice tone or volume.
5. Using eye-catching visuals and colours in presentations.
6. Move.
7. Change the environment or the pace (e.g., fresh air).

Every successful partnership, relationship or simple conversation depends on one key element: the complete intellectual and emotional engagement of all the parties concerned. Approach it deliberately and you can achieve high engagement with all of your communications partners.

Tags: commitment, connection, engagement, reticular activating system