The Coaching Association

Who’s the Boss?

Robert Wendover — Sun, 13 May 2012 18:14:41 +0000

Do you ever find yourself constantly being challenged by your young and exuberant staff members? A colleague of mine directs the conference services department for a mid-western college. While he is in his late 40’s, his staff of five consists of individuals in their late 20’s. These individuals are professional and hardworking, but they are forever challenging the decisions he makes. If they disagree with his approach on a particular issue, they will bring it up ad nauseam, attempting to change his mind. This has had quite an effect on his confidence as a manager and certainly absorbs a good deal of productive time. As a sandwich manager, what would you do if you were in his situation?

There are several factors to consider here. First, there is a difference between healthy debate and carping. He should begin by reflecting on how clearly he has explained his decisions about the issues in question. Yes, he is the ultimate decision-maker, but these days, younger workers expect managers to share the reasoning for the choices made.

That said, he should not discount the fact that there might be some gamesmanship being played here. After all, any time one has more than two people on staff then they outnumber the manager. In my mind, the best way for him to handle this is to make sure he’s gathered all the relevant facts and asked for their input on the issue. Then he should make a decision and clearly explain his reasoning. If one or more of them have a concern, they’re welcome to express it–but only once. He should not be hearing the same complaint several different times. If the carping continues, he is perfectly within his rights to demand that they stop. Besides, if they don’t like his style, maybe they should hire on somewhere else.

A manager has to have reasons for the rules that are in place. Take time to explain reasoning, but do not feel obligated to explain it over and over to their satisfaction. That only leads to gamesmanship and dilutes the manager’s authority.

Resume Your Resume

Joyce Richman — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:27:21 +0000

We haven’t had a heart to heart about resumes in a while and it’s high time that we did. What you’re sending out isn’t getting the response you deserve. Here are just a few of the reasons why that’s happening:

You may not know the difference between a resume and a promotional piece.
You’re using the dump and stir method (dump it all in, stir it around, and let the reader figure it out).
You’re providing information that only a mother could love.

What can you do? Let’s start with the basics.

What is the difference between a resume and a promotional piece?

A resume is a synopsis of your work history. It begins with right now and goes back in time; fifteen years is far enough. You don’t need to introduce it with a summary, it’s already a summary. You don’t need to include an objective unless you are changing career directions. If you include one, make it clear, concise, and to the point. If it sounds self promoting, leave it out.

Each work entry should be accompanied by a brief series of accomplishments that are described in measurable, quantifiable terms. Resumes are built on facts. That’s what separates them from puff pieces.

Grammatically speaking, write in the active voice, go heavy on action verbs, light on adjectives, and leave out articles and personal pronouns.

You probably know to keep your resumes brief and on point. You aren’t an exception to that rule, so please, comply.

Only you know which jobs most closely match what you do best. If you put every skill imaginable into your resume, you send a message that you don’t know. Prospective employers, search firms, and employment agencies have neither the time nor desire to figure that out for you.

If you’re not sure where you’re taking your career, get help. Get it before you write a resume. Get it before you network. Get it before you interview for a job.

We’ve reviewed several thousand resumes over the years. Many are attention getting for all the right reasons: they’re easily read, clear, succinct, forthright presentations of experience and accomplishments.

Others are attention getting for the wrong reasons: they’re overwritten, overloaded, and over the top. Put these under the category of “resumes only a mother could love”. Here are a few examples of please don’t:

Please don’t include the names of your children, partners, spouses, or pets, in any order.
Please don’t include more hobbies than the time it takes to do them, particularly if you intend to hold a job at the same time.
Please don’t list arcane activities, organizations, or societies. They don’t mean anything to the majority of those who read these things.
Please don’t include your social, political, or religious affiliations. Omit your age, the date of your high school graduation, and that glamour shot you love so much. You are providing more information than is appropriate to the workplace.

Here are a few please do’s.

Please (always) send a cover letter along with your resume. (Your cover letter gets to brag and your resume doesn’t dare).
Please have a human spell check your resume after technology has finished the job. (Humans understand syntax better than machines do).
Please stop procrastinating!

Many folks delay the inevitable when the assignment seems ambiguous, the outcome can’t be measured, and the product will be judged by strangers. It’s a wonder that anyone writes a resume.

Nevertheless, the time is now, the subject is you, and no one can say it better than you can. If you need more help than books or computer software can provide, call a career counselor.

* * * *

Yes! You may use this article by Executive and Career Coach, Joyce Richman, in your blog, article in your blog, newsletter or website as long as you include the following bio box:

Joyce Richman (www.richmanresources.com) has been specializing in executive and career coaching since she started her own practice in 1982. She works in a variety of environments including: higher education, manufacturing, sales, marketing, media, technology, pharmaceuticals, medicine, banking and finance, service, IT, and non-profit sectors. A member of the adjunct faculty at the Center for Creative Leadership, Joyce is certified to administer a number of feedback and psychological instruments. Joyce is a weekly guest on WFMY-TV and the career columnist for The Greensboro News & Record. She is the author of Roads, Routes and Ruts: A Guidebook to Career Success and co-author of Getting Your Kid Out of the House and Into a Job. A popular speaker, Richman conducts seminars and workshops throughout the United States, Canada and Europe. Her coaching profile can be found at TheCoachingAssociation.com.

Clock Jockey

Robert Wendover — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:10:21 +0000

For decades, I’ve been approached by managers who are frustrated with a particular conflict between colleagues at work. Convinced that their dilemma is solely due to a difference in generational perspectives, these professionals often seek a cut-and-dry resolution to a situation that may be more complicated than what they may have first perceived. Sure, age contributes greatly to the type lens in which people view the world and therefore shapes certain behavior. But lack of experience may have a stronger influence than age, and the two are often correlated. Factor in the time spent not only in a vocation but also within the same organization, and it makes it difficult to discern whether competency (or lack of) is more influenced by time spent within the organization and within a profession, or by life experience. Personality differences can play a large part in synergy among a team too, and was probably the contributing factor to a situation faced by a sandwich professional named Frances. Here’s her dilemma.

Frances works as a receptionist in a busy orthodontist’s office with two others at the front desk. While they’re supposed to close at 5:00 p.m., there are always a couple of people in the waiting room due to late appointments. This means one of them has to stick around and close things down. Their young colleague is always the first one out the door. At exactly 4:59, she’ll just get up and say, “Well, time to go. Bye.” While Frances and her co-workers have given this new employee dirty looks about this rush for the exit, their freshman associate seems oblivious. Either that or she doesn’t understand putting in a few extra minutes is good for the organization and for her job security. But if Frances or her co-worker says something, they’re afraid that their younger cohort will brood and that will make things unbearable. What should they do?

I don’t know that this about a difference in ages as much as it is about situational awareness and empathy for others. I suspect that this individual will continue to be the first one out the door until the other two have a conversation with her. Life is full of little conflicts, but this is bothering Frances more than it is bothering her new colleague, so it needs to be resolved. I would suggest Frances go to her with a proposed schedule to keep things fair. Her colleague should be willing to comply once Frances points out the inequity of the situation. If not, Frances might want to bring their supervisor into the conversation. I don’t know that this about a

difference in ages as much as it is about situational awareness and empathy for others.

Will her younger co-worker brood? Perhaps, but she’ll get over it after a couple of days. After all, the space is too small to hold grudges. Clear communication is always best. It can settle conflicts before they fester into something difficult to manage. Maybe she is truly unaware of her behavior and will be happy to work with Frances on a schedule. She may occasionally volunteer to stay later once she’s more cognizant of the situation.

A 360 Degree View

Joyce Richman — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:29:00 +0000

: Photo by iChaz

The trend toward 360 degree performance appraisals can be more of a jolt than the faint of heart can handle.

Back in the old days, which can be as recent as a few minutes ago, high ranking employees could stay in their jobs, earn substantial bucks, and be as good or as bad as they always had been. That was when an annual review came around as often as a bicentennial event.It’s not that employees haven’t wanted to know where they stand, and how long they were going to stand there. The problem was no one wanted to be the messenger, particularly if the news was bad. Few employers were providing any feedback that was timely, substantive, and constructive.

Enter the advent of 360 degree performance appraisals. Employers learned that they could deliver feedback from the perspective of many, instead of a few, and that leavened the dread of giving it. Because of that, increasing numbers of companies signed on to the concept. Employees, many for the first time, were finding out what their colleagues thought of them. The results were certainly revealing, sometimes surprising, and depending upon your perspective, pleasing, awful or something in between.

Helen, not from here but could be, was a physician who chose to leave private practice to join a large pharmaceutical company. She said she wanted to make a difference in more people’s lives than the relative few that she could minister to in her daily work. She believed that her choice had been a good one. She enjoyed her work, her company, and her colleagues. She just found out that they didn’t enjoy her. Her 360 degree feedback told her so. Helen’s feedback report came from her boss, several peers, and direct reports. The largely anonymous (she knew who her boss was) and aggregated information described her as an explosive bully. Her abrasive and arrogant behaviors caused her employees to feel inadequate and devalued.

Helen saw herself as a standard bearer in her field, a take charge person; gutsy and tenacious. She knew she was arrogant even if others hadn’t reminded her of that fact. She knew that she was impatient with those who didn’t get it (and very few did). But she cared about her work and the impact that it had. She thought that was enough. Helen’s career was running off the rails. Should she try to hang on or leave before they fired her? If she stayed, she would have to convince everyone that she was worth salvaging. She would have to make the changes that she needed, and make them stick. If she hesitated too long, the choice wouldn’t be hers to make. She knew she had to take quick action but couldn’t get past her anger and humiliation. She felt blind sided, primarily by her boss. ”I had asked him, more than a few times, what he thought of my performance. He gave no indication that he was displeased. In fact, the only negative he mentioned was that I should consider working harder on my people skills.”

John P. Kotter, author of Leading Change, (Harvard Business School Press) describes his view of the “Organization of the Future.” He envisions “a day when big egos and snakes are eliminated from promotion lists, no matter how smart, clever, hard working, or well educated they are. Such people kill teamwork. They create problems today, but in a more rapidly changing future world, the consequences of their actions might well become completely unacceptable.” Sometimes you have to confront snakes and big egos. Sometimes it’s incompetence or disorderly conduct. Whatever that nasty thing is, confront it. Do it quickly, specifically, directly,accurately, and fairly. Confront it while there’s still time to turn it around. If 360 degree performance appraisals can make that a more palatable process, climb aboard. If you combine ongoing personal feedback with collaborative and aggregated feedback, you can touch all the bases. Delivering the message is only the beginning. The true challenge comes in reasoning through what it means, and what the impact of ”doing it differently” can be.

* * * *

Yes! You may use this article by Executive and Career Coach, Joyce Richman, in your blog, article in your blog, newsletter or website as long as you include the following bio box:

Stand in Line and Do Your Time

Robert Wendover — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:08:58 +0000

I spent many years advising organizations how to recruit younger professionals into their ranks. With the steady influx of recent graduates entering the job market, the challenge for businesses now reach beyond just attracting Millennial employees, it’s in retaining them for the long-term. A company can spend their resources updating their website, producing video clips, and digitizing their application process in order to attract young new hires, yet may still experience difficulty in retaining the majority of these recruits for more than a few months. The reason that this often occurs is because the reality of the time required in the same job prior to advancement is not as glamorous as the fast-track promoted during the recruiting process. This is the dilemma recently experienced by Christena, a 40-something manager at a large insurance firm. The reality of the time required in the same job prior to advancement is not as glamorous as the fast-track promoted during the recruiting process.

A number of Christena’s older insurance processors have retired in the past couple of years and she’s replaced them with lots of people in their early twenties. But in spite of the prehire conversations she’s had about having out-sized expectations, most seem to believe that they’ll be able to move up within the year. Organizationally, this is simply not possible. How does she manage this without a mass exodus? Christena might begin by reflecting the type of applicants that she targets during the recruiting process. Hiring driven performers into a somewhat repetitive position, such as claims processing, is sure to foster impatience. This not to say that she should not maintain her standards in hiring. She should just reflect on how she can portray the position more accurately in recruiting materials. Using terms such as “consistent,” “detail-oriented,” and “steady” will attract a different type of candidate than the terms “successful,” “productive,” and “achievement-oriented.” Christena should also consider what is actually being said during her pre-hire conversations. What she says and what the applicants hear may be two different things. While Christena can chalk that up to their youthful enthusiasm, it is probably better to dissuade someone from taking the job than having them come on board with the wrong impression and leave after twelve months. She should be more direct in her explanation. As for those already on board, Christena should reinforce with them that there can be a lengthy horizon for advancement within the firm. While she doesn’t want to discourage them, she may also want to be careful about painting a hopeful picture. It might help to show them an organizational chart and explain how typical succession takes place. Sometimes young people accept positions that they know are not the best match for their aspirations. Then they hope against hope that they will be the one exception to the rule. When it becomes apparent that this is not in the cards, they may start looking. No matter what she does to keep this from happening, she’ll need to be prepared for the exit of one or more of these people. Hiring is not an exact science.

Millennial Maelstrom

Robert Wendover — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:21:48 +0000

When the words “diversity” and “inclusion” are mentioned, people often first think in terms of ethnicity, race, or culture. But as we know, diversity is much broader. Significant age differences among employees can have a profound impact on motivation, success, performance, and interaction with those at work. This often occurs when veteran workers are met with younger newcomers in a work situation where the veterans have worked with each other for some time. It is similar to the turbulence that occurred when a manager recruited a significantly younger and very bold engineer to join his team. He recently described the situation to me this way:

“A couple of months ago, we hired a brilliant mechanical engineer fresh out of graduate school. He’s hardworking, full of ideas, and someone who has contributed to the firm’s bottom line already. On the hand, he’s a bull in a China shop. He publicly disparages ideas

he does not think are worthy and is the first to push his ideas at any meeting. This has generated some dismay and also some resentment among the veteran engineers. As his supervisor, what would you suggest I do to ease his transition into the group?”

The focus here should be on the outcome, rather than how the task gets done, unless, of course, the way the task gets done is an

integral part of the outcome.

With time and experience comes wisdom and diplomacy. While this individual may be a brilliant contributor, others may thwart his efforts over time because of his behavior and comments. When you find an appropriate time, I would probably take him for coffee

and ask about he feels about the job and his colleagues. Then get quiet and listen to what he says. He may say something like, “I like the job, but some of these people have such old-fashioned ideas.” He may stay strictly to the projects at hand without mentioning his

colleagues at all. He may express some bewilderment about why people seem resistant to his ideas.

In any of these cases, it is best to draw him out rather than responding immediately. You might say something like, “Tell me what you mean.” From what you describe, it sounds like he recognizes that he’s bright and could have great opportunities ahead of him. Unfortunately, it also sounds like he has not learned that diplomacy and collaboration get a lot more accomplished than being simply brilliant, regardless of the discipline. He may get suspicious that you have called him into this meeting in the first place and

question why he’s being singled out. In response, you might say, “I have heard some concern expressed about your comments and approach with others. We’re impressed with the work you do and the ideas you come up with, but we all have to work together as a team.” Then take time to see how he responds. If he appears open to feedback and ideas, take a few minutes to give him a few pointers on tact and diplomacy. If he takes offense, you’ll need to be more direct and specific about how he needs to change his behavior.

In having a conversation with someone who appears to be so proud, perhaps even arrogant, you run the risk that he will

quit rather than alter his ways. But you and your team need to work together and someone who behaves like this can create

all kinds of issues down the road. Of course in hiring others, you will want to take more time in assessing each candidate’s

compatibility with the team. While this individual may be a brilliant contributor, others may thwart his efforts over time because

of his behavior and comments.

The bottom line is this: If you are experience a maelstrom during the onboarding of anyone who is different from the rest of your team, dig deeper. He may be experiencing opposition due to the significant age difference. The friction may be due to cultural differences. Or, the challenges may originate from the individual’s caustic personality — something that would make it difficult for anyone to collaborate with this individual. In any case, the best approach is to choose specific situations or behaviors that are problematic and ask how this individual for suggestions on how the situation could improve. In doing so, you’ll uncover the real cause of the problem which could reach much deeper than what appears on the surface. You’ll find more resources that address the successful onboarding of new employees–younger or older–by visiting the Recruitment and Retention page of our website or in our webinar session Best Practices for Onboarding Millennial Employees.

Both Sides of the Same Coin

Joyce Richman — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:33:53 +0000

A recent reprint of an archived Ann Landers column from 2000 is just as relevant today as it was when it was first printed. It was practically on fire with letters from customers who were fed up with the attitude of retail clerks.

I was struck by the irony of what these letter writers were saying:

“If you don’t like people and consider them an interruption or a nuisance, go find another job.”

“Within driving distance of your store, there are five stores that carry the same items. If I am treated well, I’ll be back to see you. If you want me to come back, you will thank me for coming in and make me feel welcome.”

What’s the irony? The words they chose are almost identical to those I hear unhappy retail associates use to describe their bosses:

“If they don’t like to manage employees, and consider them an interruption or a nuisance, they shouldn’t be doing that job.”

“If they’d treat me well, if they made me feel welcome, and showed a little appreciation once in a while I’d want to work for them.”

And then there are the customers. Most are likeable and agreeable, just like most managers and associates, while others are ready to do battle over just about anything.

Some customers are somewhere in the middle. They just want to make a purchase and go home, unscathed from the experience.

Suit up, kids, we’re going shopping. Fly cover for me when I go into the department store and I’ll protect you on the ground at the toy store.

Yes, we know. People are stressed out and sleep deprived and that’s why they’re irritable. But is that reason enough to justify incivility or are they just excuses for uncivilized behavior?

Rude bosses, customers, and employees are so busy jabbing fingers at each other, someone’s bound to get stuck in the eye. Each group is competing for “most ugly” and it’s a toss up as to who’s going to win.

Before we rush to judgment, let’s put this into perspective. The Pareto Principle states that A small number of causes is responsible for a large percentage of the effect… usually a 20 percent to 80 percent ratio.

With that in mind, let’s address 20% of the managers who are creating 80% of this mess.

Managers: Some people are relationship managers, and others are not. It sounds like you’re part of the “not” population. You can learn how to do it right but it takes more than one training class and reading one book. It takes a commitment to doing the right thing for people, every day.

If you don’t have the energy or desire to manage with courtesy and consideration, please stand down.

Sales associates: Same song. Second verse. You’re in the relationship business, not the jewelry, men’s wear, or grocery selling business. If you take the time to understand your products and meet the needs of your customers, in a respectful manner that encourages them to return to do business with you and your company, you’ve done your job. If you don’t and you won’t, you’re in the wrong line of work. Your negative attitude shows and its generating much of the negative response you’re getting.

Customers: No matter the size of your purchasing power, that power alone does not justify your rude or arrogant behavior. No matter the rush you are in or your position in the community, the office, or your home, it doesn’t justify your push to the front or brusqueness from the rear.

Twenty percent. That’s all it takes to create chaos and hostility among the eighty percent on the receiving end of your bluster.

Eighty percent. Good for you. As managers, associates, and customers you do us proud. Keep it up and encourage the rest to step up or step out of line. All that shoving and poking is giving the rest of us a collective black eye.

* * * *

Yes! You may use this article by Executive and Career Coach, Joyce Richman, in your blog, article in your blog, newsletter or website as long as you include the following bio box:

World-Of-Warcraft vs. Work

Robert Wendover — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:15:09 +0000

Are you frustrated by the way that younger employees at your organization work? I received an email from a manager named Tiffany who is at her wit’s end trying to prevent her young charges from playing computer and other video games while at work. Her experience and sense tells her that the game-playing kills productivity, yet at the same time, if she prevents her employees from playing them altogether, it may have an adverse effect on morale and lower productivity in the long run. Here’s what she wrote:

“Try as I might, I can’t seem to keep the twenty-somethings on my staff from playing computer games every chance they get. When we forbid games on the computers, they bring in hand-held devices and continue to play. They say that this is their way of combating ‘Big Brother.’ It almost feels like they’re laughing at us. With a shortage of good technical people, I don’t want to say too much for fear that I’ll have an insurrection. I’ve brought my concerns to their attention, but the collective response has been, ‘We’re getting the work done, aren’t we?’ What do I do?”

The key question to ask here is that despite the extra-curricular activities, are they getting the work done? Remember that those in their 20’s have grown up in a world where entertainment and media have become the pathways for learning. The focus here should be on the outcome, rather than how the task gets done, unless, of course, the way the task gets done is an integral part of the

outcome. Focus on the outcome rather than the task.

If they are not getting the work accomplished to organizational standards, that’s a different story. Many young people are used to working the system simply because it has worked for them in the past. Tiffany should set clear parameters and expectations that would help her provide clear evidence of how the use of computer games interferes with work. She should then go to them with that evidence. This does not, however, necessarily give her an excuse to ban all games.

The bottom line is this: If extra-curricular activities reduce the quality of employee tasks, give them a reasonable opportunity to improve their work. If this doesn’t happen, then that would provide solid ground to take more formal actions. For resources to better help you motivate and retain employees, please visit the Recruiting and Retaining page on our website.

How Attitudes Toward Change Affect Decision-Making

Executive Director — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:02:12 +0000

Thanks to the folks at Training who have given us permission to reprint this article,“How Attitudes Toward Change Affect Decision-Making”by Tracy C.F. Brown which specifically highlights making better philanthropy decisions.

###

The Change Style Indicator can identify factors that can impact a group or organization’s readiness to deal with and sustain change in times of rapid change.

Change style assessment creator Chris Musselwhite knows firsthand how personal change style preferences can not only make you more effective in times of crisis or change,they also can help you make better decisions on a daily basis.

“How people deal with change—creating it and responding to it—is a function of identifiable individual preferences,” says Musselwhite. “Depending on whether people see change as a danger,a challenge,or an opportunity,they have corresponding individual preferences that reflect their relationship and reaction to structure,rules,and authority when dealing and making decisions involving change.”

No one knows this better than consultant Stephanie Clohesy,of Clohesy Consulting. Before opening her own consulting firm,Clohesy made a career out of promoting positive change for the good of society,spending more than three decades working to improve the lives of others. Her work ranged from negotiating with governments on behalf of social scientists seeking to improve public policy to teaching democratic models of dialogue and problem-solving to women faced with rebuilding a civil society after war.

Now as a consultant,Clohesy has made it her job to help others in this important work. She does this through personal leadership and organizational development. In her work,she has utilized many tools and tactics to help her clients effectively facilitate positive change,but she readily admits that one tool stands out for its effectiveness:the Change Style Indicator®,an assessment tool she’s used consistently since first being introduced to it in the early ’90s during her work with AmeriCorps.

Developed by Musselwhite through his company, Discovery Learning,the Change Style Indicator (CSI) is an assessment instrument that identifies an individual’s preferred style and preferences when approaching change and dealing with situations involving change. Scores place individuals on a change style continuum,identifying them as being most like the incremental change-preferringConserver,or as more like the rapid change-seeking Originator. A third style,thePragmatist,occupies the middle range of the continuum,reflecting the fact that most people exhibit a blend of Conserver-Pragmatist or Originator-Pragmatist in their change style behaviors and preferences.

Musselwhite notes that when used in a group,the CSI can identify factors that can impact a group or organization’s readiness to deal with and sustain change in times of rapid change.

“Knowing one’s own change style preferences allows individuals to work better when part of a team,creating more effective work processes,making better decisions,and delivering more satisfactory results. Likewise,understanding the change styles of others provides valuable insight into how best to gain their support and collaboration,which,in turn,enables leaders to better influence and guide others more effectively,” says Musselwhite.

Clohesy agrees. “When I used Change Style Indicator in the leadership development assessment process of AmeriCorps members,it generated a lot of good conversation along with greater self-awareness of personal traits and recognition of important traits in others,” she says. “When done in a group,it also raises interesting insights about cultural and experiential differences,helping to instantly build a kind of tolerance and rapport among people who may previously have been focused only on each other’s differences.”

Helping Philanthropists Make Better Decisions

Today,in the effort to help people with financial resources use them to do the most good,Clohesy is using the Change Style Indicator in a specific and unique context:donor education. Clohesy uses the assessment with philanthropists who come to her for guidance on their giving portfolios.

She began using the assessment for donor education as a result of her work with the Women’s Funding Network (WFN),a global network of about 150 women’s foundations for whom she designs and facilitates annual retreats for major donors.

“The retreats are structured to mix personal and professional,as well as rational and intuitive,approaches to making decisions about investing in the social good,” says Clohesy. “Although the design of the retreat changes each time it is hosted,the underlying purpose and goals remain essentially the same:to help women learn to give more strategically—to move from ‘nice’ giving decisions to more high-impact and satisfying giving choices.”

The focus of the retreats developed out of years of analyzing the giving portfolios of women philanthropists,many of whom recognized that although their giving mission statements expressed a desire for contributing to bigger,larger-scale change,they continued to naturally default to funding ideas and organizations that emphasized small-scale personal change.

In her effort to help her clients understand and get past this disconnect between stated preferences and actual giving,it dawned on Clohesy that a crucial piece of the puzzle is the deeply personal preference we all have about how we like change to happen—our change style.With this realization,Clohesy added the Change Style Indicator to the assessment process at the retreat five years ago,and has been using it to help donors ever since.

“During the retreat,participants learn about social change theory and methodologies,take a quiz to understand their own instinctive problem-solving preferences,and then analyze their giving portfolio,” says Clohesy. “After all that,they take the Change Style Indicator to find out more about their personal change style and see how it may be affecting their giving decisions. By looking at all the pieces of the puzzle—social change methodologies,personal giving preferences,and personal change style—many women experience ‘aha’ moments as they realize that both personal preferences and rational strategic approaches are necessary to give effectively and with a sense of personal joy and satisfaction. “

For example,according to Clohesy,if a woman discovers her change style is that of the incremental-change-loving Conserver but finds herself funding mostly systems change or high- engagement-style projects,she is likely to understand why she has been feeling dissatisfied or “out of place” with her own giving. Conversely,if she is more of an Originator and finds herself with a portfolio of projects and organizations helping individual people make incremental lifestyle changes,she gains insight about why she may feel impatient or disappointed with her giving decisions.

“My clients always tell me that that taking the Change Style Indicator pulls out some truths about how they function,and they are amazed at the useful personal insights gained from this simple assessment,” says Clohesy. “They come to realize that while creativity and innovation are inherent in all of the change styles,understanding your own change style and then intentionally deciding to flow with it or diverge from it,really does lead to better,more satisfying decision-making.”

Clohesy is interested in talking with other consultants who use the Change Style Indicator with wealth,philanthropy,and social change advisors. “I would enjoy talking to others who have used it successfully in specific contexts,especially in the social good context such as board,staff,and leadership development,says Clohesy,who can be reached at Stephanie@clohesyconsulting.com.

“From my own experience,I think the real value comes from using the Change Style Indicator in specific situations rather than in a random or open-ended way. One’s change preferences seem to mean more when put in context—such as in making critical decisions—and even more when individuals learn something about themselves first,and then share it with a group. In addition to creating self-awareness,this shared learning experience builds knowledge,wisdom,tolerance,and creativity among all the participants,and those are key ingredients for a successful group or individual effort,no matter what your goal.”

Tracy C. F. Brown is a freelancer who has written about leadership and organizational development since 1999. She can be reached at tracycfbrown@gmail.com. Originally published June 22,2011 and reprinted with permission of www.trainingmag.com.

Outside the Box Isn’t Easy

Joyce Richman — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:42:21 +0000

Would all the do-ers, please, please, sit down?

Stop fixing. Stop lifting. Stop starting. We’re tired of watching you do our work for us. And we let you get away with it, because you insist that it has to be done your way. Where’s the creativity in that?

You thought we were lazy, procrastinatin’, good-fer-nuthin’s. No, we’re smart, somewhat lazy (unless really inspired, then we’ll drill through steel to get what we want), procrastinating on select tasks, and good for plenty.

We frustrate you, don’t we?

You frustrate us, too.

You’re always coloring inside the lines, checking your watches, micromanaging us like gnats on nits. Don’t you know that we’d get the job done better, faster, more creatively, without your ever so helpful corrections, additions, deletions, and finalizations on everything that we do?

Want to know how to make us more productive?

Say it once.

Tell us when you want it.

The more room you give us, the more space we’ll take, so be very clear about your expectations.

And get out of the way.

By the way, we’ve noticed that you’re pretty stingy with compliments. It helps to let us know that you value our contributions without always adding a zinger to it: “Tom, you did a great job on the XYZ project. Now if you’d do that all the time, you’d be a great employee!” Now, that hurts, boss. That hurts.

Since we’re on a roll here, let’s talk about how you ask us questions. You don’t. You make statements that end with question marks. Those don’t count. For example: “You’re going to complete that by Friday, aren’t you?”

Is there a question there? I don’t think so.

And you say this one a lot: “You agree with me, don’t you?”

No, I don’t. But I don’t have the energy to argue about it every time.

Boss, we like open-ended questions. They’re the kind that don’t have a black or white answers. We like to ramble for awhile, and look at the possibilities without having to take a stand. We can’t help but notice that makes you a little uncomfortable.

We’re not like you. We thought that was why you hired us. In fact, here’s what you said at the interview: “We’re looking for folks who can think out of the box. We want employees who can find optional ways to solve problems. We need some spontaneity around here because we tend to get stuck in our own rut.”

That’s what you said, and that’s what you got. Now you’re trying to change us into you. And that’s not going to happen.

But we can make this work if we bring what we do best to the table:

When you’re in a rush to take action, you’re not apt to think through the consequences. We can help you with that.

We tend to go back and forth when it comes to making decisions because we’re looking at all the options. You can help us clarify the issues that will move us along.

You tend to see people and things as either good or bad, right or wrong. We do a better job in the gray zone, and can see the value they all bring to the table.

We tend to overdo what we do well and procrastinate when we’re uncomfortable. You can help us define our priorities based upon what others need from us rather than solely on what we expect of ourselves.

You’re comfortable with rules and boundaries and do your best work within them. We prefer level playing fields with space and opportunity, to design and create what’s possible.

When we work toward the same goal and want the same outcome, we can work side by side, without limitation or hindrance. The only time we can get in trouble is when one of us believes that we have the one answer and the other one doesn’t. We’re too smart to let that happen.

* * * *

Yes! You may use this article by Executive and Career Coach, Joyce Richman, in your blog, article in your blog, newsletter or website as long as you include the following bio box: