Tag Archives: management training

Bad Listening Can Hurt Your Career

Almost every conversation involves 4 layers: Facts, Interpretations, Reactions and Ends. At Leadership IQ, we call this the FIRE model.

Each of these four elements of conversation feeds into the next. The process starts with the Facts, things that empirical evidence render objectively provable. And from the facts are born Interpretations, which bears emotional Reactions, which leads to a desired Ends. It’s an automatic process, and it’s the way the brain is wired to work. And in some situations, it’s not a bad system to have in place.

In workplace situations, however, it can damage your career and cause untold headaches. And here’s why:

Suppose you’re walking in a jungle where tigers are known to live, and suddenly you hear a rustling in the bushes. What do you do? Do you simply say, “Gee, I just heard a rustling in that bush over there,” as you continue blissfully skipping along? OR do you say something like, “Holy crap, there’s a tiger in the bushes; I’m outta here!” as you react without thinking and high-tail it out of the jungle?

If you’re like most people, you’d do the latter; you’d react without thinking and remove yourself from potential danger. And there’s a natural, evolutionary reason for that.

If you want to succeed in management, sales, customer service, patient interactions or anywhere that involves interacting with people, you need expert listening skills. In our new webinar, “The Psychological Secrets of Great Listening,” you will learn the groundbreaking science of truly effective listening techniques (including the kinds of listening techniques that clinical psychologists and behavioral investigators use). Click here to learn more.

You see, the center of your brain houses something called the limbic system, which controls your decision-making when high levels of fear or uncertainty are present. When you’re in high-pressure situations where you must make snap judgments, your limbic system acts as an interpretation machine that takes observable facts and instantly interprets them — often with very little knowledge or experience to go on — to dictate an appropriate reaction toward your desired end. (This is commonly called the “fight or flight” impulse. It has been observed in animals fleeing predators and even in investors selling stocks as markets crash.) But the jungle scenario is an example of the FIRE model working to the best of its design: You hear a rustle in the bushes; your brain interprets that it could be a tiger; so you react by running; and the end result is you make it home safe.

In the jungle, the limbic system part of your brain can save your life. In fact, our survival as a species has depended on this most irrational but necessary part of the primitive brain.

But in the day-to-day course of business, the “rustle in the bushes” — those observable, verifiable facts that grab the brain’s attention, thereby leading to interpretations, reactions and ends — typically aren’t life-threatening. Yet the primitive part of the brain (the limbic system that’s wired to produce IRE) doesn’t know that; it takes over the moment you hear trouble; it doesn’t bother to listen for more facts; it has all it needs to react. So what should you do to combat your natural fight-or-flight impulse when confronted with fear and uncertainty in the workplace?

To illustrate the answer, I’ll use a common office scenario. Let’s say one of your employees, Bob, shows up for work five minutes late. It’s an observable fact; you see Bob walk through the door just as the clock strikes 8:05 a.m. What you don’t know is why Bob was late (and we’ll get to that in a minute).

Next, let’s assume Bob has an important meeting to lead in just a few minutes at 8:15. On top of that, over the past few weeks, you’ve been dealing with several employees who are bending the rules a bit too far: long lunches, leaving early, that kind of stuff.

You’re normally a rational leader, but given the circumstances, Bob’s late arrival is the last straw; you immediately begin to interpret based on the little knowledge you have to go on (the same way your knowledge of tigers in the jungle made you instantly fear a tiger and not a squirrel). You might be thinking something like, “Look at Bob waltzing in here five minutes late on such an important day. I’m getting really tired of the lazy attitude around here. I bet Bob’s slacking off like the other folks, which certainly doesn’t say much about his commitment to the team.”

As goes the FIRE model, your interpretation leads to reaction; perhaps something along the lines of, “Bob sure has got a lot of nerve!” Now, with the emotional reaction out of the way, your next step is to crave a desired end; maybe something like, “From this point on, everybody must be here 10 minutes early.”

The problem with this scenario is that you didn’t have all the facts. Once your brain’s limbic system had taken over, facts became irrelevant; your brain had already launched into interpretation mode. Consequently, your interpretation was all wrong, and it led you to some reactions and ends that have no bearing on the actual situation and might actually make the situation worse.

But now, armed with the ability to recognize and thus self-correct the FIRE model, let’s take another look at this scenario: When you see Bob stroll in five minutes late, you instantly start to have negative interpretations. (Again, this is natural given your knowledge and recent experiences.) But just as your brain starts to leap from interpretation to reaction, you recognize you’re following the FIRE model, and you realize that the limbic system part of your brain (the irrational part) has taken over your decision-making. You take a step back to reassess the situation; it’s clear you need a few more facts before you interpret. So you ask Bob a few simple questions (for example: “Bob, why are you late?”). As a result, you learn that Bob was walking into the building at 7:50 a.m. when he ran into the Chairman of the Board. The Chairman pulled Bob aside for a little chat, and he was especially interested in hearing Bob’s feedback about you and the kind of job you’re doing. So Bob spent 15 minutes singing your praises and telling the Chairman about all the wonderful things you’ve been doing. Then Bob hurried into the building to make his important 8:15 meeting.

Once you can recognize the FIRE model, things sure look different, don’t they?

It’s true that your primitive brain is a valuable asset — when you’re walking in the jungle — but it’s almost always a detriment in the workplace. If you realize that the FIRE model has taken over, step back, take a deep breath, and listen for more facts before you proceed to interpret, react or determine a desired end. Instead of being the person who addresses problems with knee-jerk reactions (and usually gets poor results), you’ll be the leader people depend on when the stakes are high, because they know you will be calm under pressure and listen for all the facts before you react.

If you want to succeed in management, sales, customer service, patient interactions or anywhere that involves interacting with people, you need expert listening skills. In our new webinar, “The Psychological Secrets of Great Listening,” you will learn the groundbreaking science of truly effective listening techniques (including the kinds of listening techniques that clinical psychologists and behavioral investigators use). Click here to learn more.

Why Teams Often Hate Decision By Consensus

There are lots of different ways that teams can choose to make decisions. They can put issues to a vote, they can just listen to an outside expert, they can make the boss decide, and those options don’t even scratch the surface of all the available decision-making approaches out there.

But the most commonly attempted decision-making process is consensus. From the Latin consentire (which means to act together or share in the feeling), consensus in a team context basically means that everyone agrees. (Sounds great, right?) Sure, your team has been asked to recommend some very tough cost-cutting, and it’s politically charged, but at least your team has consensus and is 100% unified around the plan. Worries about back-biting or passive aggressiveness can make even seasoned team leaders weary. But true consensus makes those worries go away.

So it’s going to sound shocking when I tell you that as great as consensus is, there’s one very big reason why lots of team members absolutely hate it:

Every decision-making process involves a trade-off between the quality of the decision (i.e. the breadth and depth of the buy-in) and the time it takes to make the decision. Taking a simple vote, for example, is a fast way of making a decision (plus the rules are simple and widely understood). But it doesn’t have wide or deep buy-in because whoever loses the vote is likely to be bitter and feel disenfranchised.

For example, if you’re on a strict no-carb diet and your team votes to order pizza for lunch, you’re likely to feel like the team isn’t sensitive to your individual needs. And that’s a pretty simple example; imagine how bad it gets when jobs are at stake.

Consensus, by contrast, engenders very deep and wide buy-in. The problem becomes the time it takes to achieve consensus. (Think of a jury that deliberates for days or weeks but still can’t convince those couple of holdouts that the guy is guilty.)


Making tough decisions isn’t the only hard part of being a leader. You must also be able to motivate your employees to give 100% effort all day, every day. But how do you balance that with your desire to be liked personally? This begs the age-old question for leaders: Is it better to be loved or feared? Mark Murphy answers the questions in his FREE white paper, “The #1 Leader Everyone Wants to Work For.” Click here to download your copy now.

Trying to reverse deep-seated opinions and get people to adopt a new way of thinking takes time and an extraordinarily keen persuasive ability. And that’s the tricky part about consensus; you can’t just shove ideas down peoples’ throats or even try to buy their support (e.g. you vote with me on this issue and I’ll support you in the next budget cycle), because that’s not consensus.

The difficulty and time involved achieving true consensus can make involved parties start to hate it.

First, if you’re on the majority side trying to convince the remaining holdouts to think as you do, it can be both frustrating and fatiguing (you hear stories about juries that get into fights when stressful debates turn violent).

Second, if you’re on the minority side that everybody else is trying to convince, it can feel like you’re the victim of a gang mugging (an 8 on 1 debate is not fun, nor productive).

The third, and most counterproductive, problem with consensus is that true consensus is so elusive; the necessary debate often gets squashed, and important viewpoints never come to light. Imagine a curmudgeonly Senior Vice President watching a team debate and debate an issue and still not achieve true consensus. How many weeks, days or hours will he sit idly by before he gets frustrated and shouts, “Enough already! Since you people can’t decide, I’ll make the choice for you.” Team dynamics are damaged as soon as that happens because it violates the promise implicit within consensus, which is, “you folks on the team are totally empowered to make this decision, whatever it is.”

Too many leaders think you can start out attempting consensus and then if it gets too hard, just stop trying for consensus and do something else. Now, you can certainly try that, but it’s not called consensus. Because of the delicate nature of convincing and influencing people, true consensus is an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Consensus implies a promise of real empowerment and a willingness to invest the necessary time.

Overwhelmingly, our research has found that team members would rather not even attempt true consensus if there’s a chance the boss will end up making the final decision. Interestingly, however, employees are fine with the boss making decisions, and they’re even happy to offer input when asked, but the one thing that drives team members absolutely bonkers is being told the team couldn’t make a decision fast enough so “the grownups are taking over.” (Even when team members are angry and frustrated at a teammate for blocking true consensus, they’re typically more irritated, even down-right peeved, when they believe their boss has stepped in and effectively neutered the team’s authority.)

Consensus holds the potential for great rewards when it works well. But it also carries serious risks. So if you’re not prepared to go all-in, you should probably choose a different decision-making process for your team. And who knows, you might actually find one that’s better suited to maximize the unique talents of your team members.

Making tough decisions isn’t the only hard part of being a leader. You must also be able to motivate your employees to give 100% effort all day, every day. But how do you balance that with your desire to be liked personally? This begs the age-old question for leaders: Is it better to be loved or feared? Mark Murphy answers the questions in his FREE white paper, “The #1 Leader Everyone Wants to Work For.” Click here to download your copy now.

2 Dangerous Lessons Your High Performers Are Teaching Their Colleagues

Here’s a shocking finding: 67% of employees say they learn more about the dos and don’ts of their jobs from their fellow employees than from you, their boss.

And one group of employees that people really learn from are high performers. In an ideal world, that would be great (high performers are pretty fantastic, after all). But in the real world, high performers are actually teaching some of the most dangerous lessons.

But how could that be? Clearly, your high performers only want the best for you and your organization. What dangerous lessons could they possibly be teaching?

Here are the two most dangerous lessons we find high performers teaching your other employees:

Dangerous Lesson #1: Being a High Performer Stinks

Imagine it’s Friday afternoon at 4 p.m., and the board requests a major report due on Monday at 9 a.m. This report could derail your career if it’s not done right, and you’re going to need help getting it done. You and someone else are in for a rough weekend of hard work, but a deadline is a deadline.

Who are you going to turn to for help: the employee who gives 100% effort or the employee who gives 50% effort? Obviously, the Hundred Percenter (aka high performers).

What about when a similar situation happens the next week, who do you call on to make the painful sacrifice? Again, it’s your high performer. What about the next time, and the next, and the next? You’re always going to lean on your high-performing Hundred Percenter.

Now, answer this question: Who has the worst job in your department? Say it with me: the high performer. And what lesson are your other employees learning? They’re likely learning that being a high performer is hard and painful, a lesson that results in saying, “No thank you to that job!”

Learn how to effectively differentiate your high performers and leverage their talent as role models for their colleagues. Reserve your seat for our upcoming webinar, Managing and Motivating Your Superstar Employees. The first 100 attendees get an exclusive discount. Follow this link for a preview of what you’ll learn in the webinar.

Dangerous Lesson #2: The Boss Can’t Tell the Difference Between High Performers and Middle Performers

Imagine you’ve got two employees who just met a deadline for a very tough project. Chris is a high performer, and he did an incredible job (while giving 100%, of course). Pat is a middle performer who did a passable job (no glaring mistakes, but not nearly as good a job as Chris, your high performer). Now, they’re both standing in front of you waiting for your feedback. Here’s what the typical manager says, “Chris and Pat, thanks for getting this done on time, good work.”

What did they learn?

Pat learned that giving 50% and doing passable work is totally fine. He’s thinking, “Heck, giving 100% must be for chumps if we get the same feedback.”

Chris learned that giving 100% doesn’t get noticed. He’s thinking, “Why am I busting my hump to give 100% when the boss seems to think 50% is just as good?”

Why Are We Teaching These Terrible Lessons?

First, it’s easy to dump everything on your high performers because they’re, well, high performers. And for many managers, in the short-term, developing more high performers to spread the load seems like more work than abusing the few you’ve already got. Yes, the bill will come due when those superstars quit, but, as is often the case in the world of talent management, for many folks, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

Second, many managers do a lousy job of differentiating between high performers and everyone else. Of course, we’re not allowed to play favorites on the basis of race, age, religion, sex, sexual preference, health status, and all the rest (thank goodness, because they have little to do with performance). But we are allowed to differentiate on the basis of job-related performance.

In fact, not only are leaders allowed to differentiate superstar employees in a positive way, they’re required to do it.

Across our employee survey database, comprising hundreds of thousands of employee survey respondents, more than 70% of people consistently say “high performers should receive more rewards and recognition than others.” But fewer than 20% of employees say that’s what actually happens.

So here’s the deal: If any of this sounds familiar, it’s time you fundamentally rethink how you manage, motivate and retain your high performers. The first step is positively differentiating them with different motivators, different goals, different feedback and different coaching conversations, even different development plans and career maps.

If you do this, not only will you keep your superstars engaged and energetic, you will ALSO create a significantly more appealing model for attracting and developing a whole new pool of high-performing Hundred Percenters.

Learn how to effectively differentiate your high performers and make them set positive examples for their colleagues. Reserve your seat for our upcoming webinar, Managing and Motivating Your Superstar Employees. The first 100 attendees get an exclusive discount. Follow this link for a preview of what you’ll learn in the webinar.

Motivating Middle Performers

Most leaders assume that middle performers are already doing the best they can, and so dismiss taking any action to improve their performance. Middle performers, in turn, internalize this assumption and stop trying to be anything more than what they already are.

Employees need feedback, both good and bad, in order to succeed. Middle performers typically account for 70 percent of the workforce. This translates to two-thirds of your employee base that, if you are like most leaders, by the very merit of not being told whether they are doing “good” or “bad,” are being encouraged to tread water at only average performance levels.

While it is likely that a few of your middle performers simply do not have any more to give, most of them, for reasons we will explore, have substantial unrecognized potential. In other words, middle performers absolutely have the ability to tip the scales of success in your favor. As a leader, it is your job to uncover this hidden talent and motivate middle performers to reach towards higher performance.

It sends a powerful message when you tell a middle performer, “You’ve got what it takes. Go ahead and run with this. I trust you.” When you can say these words with conviction, and a middle performer suddenly realizes they can be more than what they currently are, it’s a powerful moment for them, for you as a leader, and for the organization as a whole. You may even find that when given a little time and attention, middle performers will rise considerably on the performance curve and become high performers.

Middle performers are not some amorphous group that can be lumped into a single category and uniformly addressed. There are five critical reasons why middle performers remain middle performers, and we’ve created a grouping for each. In the course of working day-to-day with these folks, you should be able to pick out the patterns and key elements that assign them to one of these five groups. If not, it’s time to get out there and get to know your middle performers. Most of them are eager to be noticed and heard, and with just a little prompting, they’ll probably tell you exactly what you need to know. Let’s take a look at these middle performer groups and explore what can be done to maximize their hidden potential.

Maxed Out
The first group consists of employees that are simply maxed out. These are the folks who are perfectly competent at doing what they’ve always done, but who are consistently unable to produce when given more challenging tasks. There may have been a time when those in the “maxed out” group had a desire to be high performers, but they’ve since reached a pinnacle of performance they’re unable to eclipse. Most leaders mistakenly assume that all middle performers belong to this group; however, only 10 to 15 percent of those in the middle are truly maxed out.

It’s a poor use of a leader’s time to try and develop those in the “maxed out” group. This is not to say this group of middle performers is incapable of bringing value to an organization. Not everyone can run a four-minute mile, but this does not mean that those who can’t should give up running. If this were the case, Mark, by his own admission, would never have started running, let alone plodded his way through a marathon! The “maxed out” are steady, reliable employees that meet expectations and tend to be generally happy where they are. They may not win the race, but they definitely know the way to the finish line. Investing time to develop “maxed out” employees may be unwise, but remember, these folks still have Shoves and Tugs that need to be recognized and acknowledged if you hope to retain them.

Don’t Know How
The employees that make up the second group are those that just don’t know how to reach high performer status. They seem to be going full steam ahead, but somehow always fall short of distinguished performance. The “don’t know how” middle performers are often stuck in this performance rut due to working for leaders that don’t take the time to clearly state high performance expectations—or any expectations at all. This is often a result of the afore mentioned misconception that middle performers have no more to give, hence the belief that it is a poor use of time to try and develop any of them. And so the cycle of middle performance begins.

As discussed in our other articles, a leader will never successfully create a high performance workplace if he or she does not clearly communicate expectations. Even a high performer is going to be at a loss for how to meet the mark if told, “Sales are just not good enough. I need to see improvement.” Without knowing how much improvement and by when, the “don’t know how” middle performer may give what he or she thinks is high performer effort, only to be met by dissatisfaction from the boss. Ongoing, this situation becomes a confusing hit or miss scenario where the employee is never sure whether or not they are on target. They start viewing their leaders as capricious, and making the effort to try and please them becomes obsolete.

No Confidence
Middle performers that lack confidence in their ability to achieve high performer status make up the third group. By and large, this situation exists due to an erroneous notion of what defines a high performer. When a leader’s time and attention is primarily focused on combating low performers and praising high performers, a very clear, although often inaccurate, message of “good” and “bad” is absorbed by those in the middle. By merit of the positive attention they receive; high performers can appear to be perched on a pedestal that seems impossible to reach. Even though many middle performers possess the skills and attitude of a high performer, they simply do not see themselves as having what it takes to make the climb to the top.
As a leader, there is much you can do to induce “no confidence” middle performers to make the climb to higher performance. If employees don’t get regular feedback from the boss, they are left to their own devices to figure out how they are doing with respect to performance. And if communicating displeasure over negative performance seems to come easier to you than giving positive feedback over a job well done (as is the case with many leaders), you are actually promoting negative reinforcement that will have an equally negative effect on getting middle performers to shoot higher.

Because middle performers tend to discount their own accomplishments, it is especially important to take the time to comment on the good work being done by this group of employees. Granted, their efforts may not be in the same realm as high performers, but their positive actions warrant your attention nonetheless. This is your opportunity to set the record straight that middle performers are of value to the company, and to start turning their confidence levels around.

Costs Are too High
A common misconception among some middle performers is that being a high performer goes hand-in-hand with being a chronic workaholic. The fourth group of middle performers refrains from giving their all as they foresee that the costs of being a high performer are just too high. It may be that they have been witness to a few high performers that compulsively feel the need to work, and who, in doing so, embrace long hours and weekends at the office. It may also be that this group of middle performers does not fully understand what the expectations of high performance are, and so imagine that the only way to move to the next level of performance is to trade personal life and outside interests for increased work time.

The “costs are too high” middle performers are blocked from becoming high performers by their apprehension over the Shoves they think accompany the role. It may be that these Shoves are only hypothetical, and that you can easily assuage these concerns by talking these middle performers through their incorrect assumptions. However, there is always the chance that these high performer Shoves are in fact quite real. Once again, employees can provide a clear view to organizational problems of which you may not be aware. It is worth your while to ask your high performers, during your monthly or quarterly Shoves and Tugs conversation, if any of these shove factors are factual. You may uncover valuable information by which you can instigate some changes that not only will help you motivate middle performers to a higher level of production, but will have the added bonus of working to retain high performers.

Benefits Are Too Low
The fifth group of middle performers is comprised of those employees that believe the benefits of being a high performer are just too low. These are the folks that have the skills and attitude of a high performer, and who would be happy to do what it takes to move up to the next level, if only they could see the tangible benefit of doing so. They question each possibility of advancement, and if they foresee no favorable return, suspecting instead that the “rewards” will be factors such as a minimal pay increase, added hassle, and little to no promise of promotion, they turn away from making high performer efforts.

Not unlike the “costs are too high” middle performers, those in the “benefits are too low” group may simply be reacting to hypothetical conditions. In this situation, middle performers will be demotived by what they perceive to be a lack of Tugs. Once again, this may be valuable information that should be investigated with your high performers during Shoves and Tugs conversations. If you find that the suspicions of the “benefits are too low” middle performers are not valid, you will need to reinforce the actual benefits of high performance. And if they are valid, you will need to address that factor.

Make sure that high performer benefits are things that will work to motivate all your employees. If some or all of your high performers concur that the benefits really are not all that great, it’s time to consider making some changes that will retain your current high performers and induce middle performers to make the jump.

Developing Passionate Followers

Recently, I was training a room full of leaders at Microsoft (you know, the company that makes the software you’re probably using to read this article). On this particular visit, I was teaching them about “Developing Passionate Followers.” Microsoft dominates in an industry populated by the hyper-analytical and numerically inclined. So why would Microsoft hire Leadership IQ to address an issue as “soft and fuzzy” as developing passionate followers?
Read More…