The key to cultivating the next leaders of your organization is to work every day to help the candidates get what they need in order to make their next steps.  By “cultivation,” I mean gardening – not training, grooming or developing.  Cultivation takes time, sunshine, water and manure. You should require candidates to make the same investment of themselves.  Any potential leader who isn’t willing to do that should be removed from your list.

To read the rest of this article from Austin Business Journal, see: Cultivating tomorrow’s leaders should be a priority for execs http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2006/08/07/smallb4.html

Sometimes the next steps are easy – mastering and demonstrating specific skills.  The methods for learning may also be easy – training and practice.

More often, though, it’s not that easy.  The biggest challenge is mastering more difficult people skills – for example, making necessary adjustments of personal attitudes, learning how to lead different types of individuals.  You will have to weed out individuals who have poor attitudes – negative, defensive, arrogant, righteous, narcissistic, abusive bullies.

Many small business leaders concentrate on what they’ve been told they need to do in the workplace: develop vision and goals, bring in new clients, oversee daily details and monitor monthly earnings. Their meetings focus on tasks and tactics, on the urgent and daily business.

Since they don’t take time to cultivate their leadership team, they end up complaining that their candidates aren’t stepping up.  But cultivating the personal capabilities and people skills of the individuals they depend on is their most important task.

Managers of leadership candidates can play crucial roles without overburdening their schedules.

The key is offering yourself and your time – continuously, honestly and frankly.  Give up your excuses for not doing this personal, on-going mentoring, such as “too busy, don’t like emotion and personal interactions, I’m a big picture person, the worthy people will learn by themselves.”

If you keep putting off cultivating, you’ll continue being overwhelmed.  And you’ll wonder why your best people don’t develop – or why they quit.

Leaders set the tone for the whole workplace.  Like a deadly infection, your emotions and reactions are catching.  Generals who panic will create panicky troops.  It’s the same at work. No, you can’t be yourself if you overreact to sudden changes, crises, bad news or big mistakes.  Your team will also overreact and blow it if you act:

  • Agitated, panicky.
  • Discouraged, negative, hopeless, helpless.
  • Stubborn, stuck.
  • Defensive, harassed, victimized, paranoid, abused, explosive, bullying.
  • Thrilled by a desperate adrenaline rush.

To read the rest of this article from Business First of Columbus, see: Leaders who overreact can poison workplace, infect staff http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/10/16/smallb5.html

Over reactors always have excuses for why they must react the way they do.  But remember the fire drill that every public figure, including athletes and celebrities, must learn in order to be followed – keep your head, have fortitude, persevere.

Don’t get sucked into any situation as if it’s life-or-death, no matter how important you’re afraid it is.  Step back, put it in a long-term context that restores your spirit, and start thinking and strategizing.

Sometimes a walk around the block is enough; sometimes you have to talk it out in order to see the big picture; sometimes you simply have to give up fear and control, and just go for it.

The ultimate goal of all the methods is that you rally yourself so you can rally the troops, no matter how bad the situation appears.

An effective attitude begins with, “We can handle this. Here’s my plan.”  Or you first go to the appropriate leaders, develop the best plan you can and then spread it to the troops.

You need a plan, but you don’t need a perfect, 10-year plan.  Don’t become immobilized by over planning.

By the way, “all-staff” meetings carry an underlying message of overreaction – unless there’s been a public disaster and everyone needs to see the leader calmly, energetically and resolutely explaining the plan for dealing with the situation.

Otherwise, have the manager of each team champion the plan with determination.

Practice courage and strength by taking on challenges and risks.  Be capable of rallying yourself from setbacks and handling seemingly overwhelming crises, or let someone else lead in the face of adversity.

There is an upside; leaders can also set the tone for the good.  Like inherited immunity, calm, vigor and stamina are also catching.  When you’re spirited and resolute, you’re testing everyone else.  People who continue overreacting have to be weeded out before they infect your workplace.

Too many people are blindsided because they think that being right is enough.  It isn’t. And righteousness can make you blind to the unwanted consequences you’ll create.

So what should you do when you’re absolutely right about what’s wrong?

Three examples of blinding righteousness:

To read the rest of this article from the East Bay Business Times, see: Being righteous can blind you to unwanted consequences http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2006/11/27/smallb3.html

All three examples had the same underlying pattern: people who were sure they were right and confronted, harassed and bullied other people with their righteousness.  In each case also, the other people pushed back hard, and the righteous person suffered and felt blindsided by unwanted consequences.

Sally was surprised her boss was angry after the grapevine told him what she said behind his back.  After all, Sally knew she was right.  She was also surprised her boss thought she was negative, difficult to work with, didn’t want to plan with her and now had his eyes out for her replacement.

Jane was always surprised when people disliked her.  She couldn’t understand why.  She was only telling the truth.  She was also surprised when Barry’s boss wrote her up as abrasive, abusive, disruptive, bullying and not a team player.

Harry was released that day.  The owner said that although Harry had tremendous promise and had been the spark plug of the project, he wouldn’t allow any employee to take that hostile approach with senior staff.  They’d suffer without him but they’d manage.

Sally, Jane and Harry’s righteousness blinded them to fairly predictable reactions from the people around them and to the importance of acting strategically in making their points.

I’m not saying they should have overlooked what they saw and remained silent.  But being right isn’t enough.

Be strategic in how you go about trying to fix the problem. After you’ve judged what you see, step back and think about the most effective strategy to change the situation without going up in flames.

If you’ve decided that you’re being treated unfairly and the situation won’t be rectified, make your point with good grace and leave, if necessary, with a good referral.  Or choose to go up in flames and be happy with the consequences of your choices.

Good tactics and high standards protect everyone from unprofessional behavior.  You can learn to eliminate the high cost of low attitudes, behavior and performance.

All tactics are situational.  Expert coaching and consulting can help you create and implement a plan that fits you and your organization.

Good managers don’t clean up messes caused by their staffs.  They prevent messes from happening. Carl, head of a division, finally had to fix the problems in a department run by a senior manager, Brenda.  He transferred one supervisor and three high-ranking staff members to other departments.  He was satisfied: once again, he showed that he could be decisive and clean house.

But Carl had consistently ignored my advice that the head of that department was a problem.  Even with the housecleaning, he didn’t make the changes necessary to keep the problems from resurfacing later.

To read the rest of this article from the Jacksonville Business Journal, see: Managers must be decisive in handling problems http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2009/02/02/smallb5.html

I discovered a dark side behind Brenda’s behavior.  She was both conflict avoidant and passive-aggressive.

Carl’s permissiveness allowed Brenda to create a toxic culture of conflict-avoidance and passive-aggressiveness that diminished productivity throughout her department.  Abusive, harassing, bullying, unprofessional behavior included back-stabbing, innuendos, rumors, negativity and warring cliques; leading to widespread paranoia and over-reactions.

Carl and Benda ignored the widespread evidence that some people simply didn’t like each other and wouldn’t collaborate, and that for some people, personal agendas took precedence over company goals.  Also, some people behave decently only when they are actually held accountable by meaningful consequences.  Real-world bullies won’t behave, no matter what.

Carl and Brenda wouldn’t hold staff accountable in any consistent and meaningful way.

Learn what you can do to eliminate the high cost of conflict-avoidant, passive-aggressive low attitudes of managers and staff.

All tactics are situational.  Expert coaching and consulting can help you create and implement a plan that fits you and your organization.

Dana thought her new friend Tracy had a strong personality.  Tracy always knew what was right and knew how she deserved to be treated.  She could always justify why her standards were the right ones.  If anyone didn’t live up to Tracy’s rules and logic, she let them have it. She was even right when she told off Dana’s next door neighbor.  But Dana had to live with the consequences of Tracy’s tirade.

Do you know any quick-tongued people who are sure they’re right?  How do you deal with them?

Dana’s neighbor was having a pretty loud party the evening Tracy was visiting.  Dana would have let it go because the neighbor usually was quiet or she would have sweetly asked the neighbor to tone it down a little.  As part of their good relationship the neighbor would have apologized and made her guests quiet down.

But Tracy got livid at the noise and shifted into action.  She raced over to the neighbor with Dana following behind.  When the neighbor answered the door, Tracy lit into her.  The guests were looking on but that didn’t stop Tracy for a second.  She yelled that the neighbor was discourteous, arrogant, crude and trailer-trash.  When the neighbor reacted defensively and angrily, Tracy cut her off, called her a string of dirty names and said she was getting the police on her.

Tracy ran back to Dana’s house, called the police and complained loudly about the noise next door.  The police did come.

When Dana said that she thought that was overkill, Tracy got angry at her; no one was going to disrespect Tracy.  The neighbor was too loud and she had a lot of nerve to get angry when she was in the wrong.

When Tracy left, Dana was stuck.  She’d always had a nice relationship with the neighbor and she didn’t want to start a spite-fight with someone who lived next door.

So what would you do?

When Dana and I talked the next day, we began by separating the three people she had to deal with; the neighbor, Dana herself and Tracy.  We went through each one separately and then Dana took the action she’d decided upon.

That evening, she went to the neighbor’s house and apologized for Tracy.  The neighbor was furious and wouldn’t accept Dana’s apology.  She told Dana off and slammed the door in her face.

Dana waited and after about five minutes she knocked again.  The neighbor wouldn’t answer until Dana had knocked for what seemed like another five minutes.  Again Dana groveled.  She explained that she hadn’t known that Tracy had called the police, she would never have done that and she still wanted to be neighborly.  They’d always gotten along before and they could still talk to each other reasonably in the future.

Again the neighbor slammed the door.  But an hour later, the neighbor called and acknowledged that the party was a little loud.  She said she understood, but she never wanted to see Tracy again.  Dana was satisfied with that arrangement.  She and the neighbor actually got along better after that conversation and the neighbor didn’t have a loud party again.

The second person Dana had to look at was herself.  She was shocked and stunned when Tracy threw her fit.  Dana finally realized that she wasn’t a bad person for letting Tracy attack the neighbor; she didn’t have a character flaw.  She simply hadn’t trained herself.

When humans are surprised and shocked, we often revert to our childhood reactions or to one of the three primitive reactions we have – fight, flight or freeze.  Dana froze; she called it “brain freeze.”  Maybe Tracy reverted to “fight” mode.

Since Dana didn’t like brain freeze, all she had to do was to train herself to make a different response.  She had known that she’d wanted to stop Tracy.  Actually, she knew how Tracy was and that if she’d prepared herself, she wouldn’t have allowed Tracy to go to the neighbor’s house.  Or, she would have stopped Tracy in mid-tirade.

Now she had to make her boundaries clear and stand up to Tracy.

When Dana told Tracy how much trouble she’d caused with the neighbor, Tracy attacked Dana.  “I was right.  Your neighbor was way too loud.   I had a right to be angry.  Nobody’s going to bother me any more.  Someone needed to tell her off.”

When Dana told Tracy she didn’t want to deal angrily with a neighbor over one incident, especially when the woman had been a good neighbor for a long time, Tracy again attacked Dana.  “When I get angry I have to get it off my chest.  You’re trying to repress me and put me down.  I have a right to my feelings and I won’t be stifled.”

Dana she recognized that Tracy was bullying her.  Now, Dana was prepared.  She said, “You know, you seem to think that you’re entitled to throw a fit if you feel like it; if you feel righteous, right and justified.  Did you grow up getting your way when you threw fits?”

Tracy yelled that it was none of Dana’s business how she grew up.  “Anyway,” she spat out, “I feel better when I let people have it.  They deserve it.  And it helps me get what I want.  You’re just a coward if you don’t tell people off.  You’re asking them to take advantage of you.”

Dana repeated, “Usually, I don’t have the strong feelings you do.  And even when I do, I think of what will get me what I want, instead of just throwing a fit and spilling my guts.  I wanted to start off nice with the neighbor.  When I simply ask, she always takes care of things.”

Again, Dana challenged Tracy, “Is it more important for you to throw a fit than to get what you want?  I wanted to tone the party down and I wanted to keep a good relationship with my neighbor.  Whenever you feel right and righteous, do you beat people with your tongue or do you think of what else you might want?”

Tracy blew up again.  “I was right, your neighbor was wrong.  I can do whatever I feel like when people are treating me bad.  And if you don’t like it, I’m not your friend.”

After careful consideration, Dana decided that Tracy wasn’t interested in changing her reactions and that not being friends with her was a good idea.  She didn’t want to get drawn into fights because Tracy had the self-control of a child.  Rage, bullying and verbal abuse weren’t her usual style.

Coaching helped Dana clarify how she wanted to act and what she’d allow in her personal space.  Our talking and her learning from “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” helped Dana maintain her boundaries with the neighbor and her former friend Tracy.  They also helped Dana stand up for herself against other bullies in her personal life and at work.

I hope this case study and the techniques Dana used will alert you to areas in which you’re not taking charge of your personal ecology.