Print This Post

Many leaders are afraid of feedback.  Why?  That’s an answer that I’ve been looking into recently, an answer that has to do with one’s emotional intelligence and openness to growth.

Today it is routine for customer service representations I speak with on the telephone to ask if I am willing to give feedback on their performance.  For example, this morning I called Hertz to resolve an outstanding issue and after the representative cleared up the matter, she sent me directly to the option where I could evaluate her performance.

Although front line staff members receive feedback continuously, it is those higher up in an organization that are too often afraid of feedback.  For example, I was given an executive coaching assignment to work with a ‘two-strike’ leader a few years ago.  Twice the division manager had gone to the vice president of human resources to have the employee fired.  The third time she went, it was decided to try a coaching approach to change his behavior.

In my role as the leader’s executive coach, my first responsibility was to administer a 360° assessment that would provide feedback from my client’s circle of influence.  In this case, I used a standard 360 tool to gather performance input from the division manager, direct reports and colleagues in other departments with whom my client interacted with on a regular basis.  During other client engagements when I administered a 360, I included people from other companies—as well as family members and friends—in the pool of raters of a client’s performance.

Accepting Feedback Can Be a Challenge

“They’re wrong,” my client said wiping away tears when he saw the ‘blind spots’ others pointed out on the 360° assessment.  He had rated himself significantly more effective in all but two of 18 performance categories and was outraged that his colleagues did not do the same.  He was adamant that he couldn’t accept how others felt about his performance.  It wasn’t until I asked him, “What if they are right?” that he relaxed and began to learn how to improve his performance so that he could save his job.  We spent the next few months working together and with his direct reports, a process that led him to making a good impression on the division manager and successfully managing a major project for the company.

My client got a lesson in emotional intelligence, in learning how to better manage his feelings about situations and interact more professionally and responsibly.  Even though he was in his 50’s, he accepted change and was open to growing in new ways. 

But why the initial resistance?  Why was he afraid of facing the truth of how others perceived and experienced his performance?

“Fear of Feedback” is the title of a video in the Stanford Executive Briefing series.  Speakers Myra K. Strober, labor economist at Stanford University and a human resources consultant, and Jay M. Jackman, psychiatrist and human resources consultant, offer a great understanding of why people fear hearing an evaluation of their performance.  (Their article “Fear of Feedback” appeared in Harvard Business Review, April 2003.)

“People need feedback at work,” Strober emphasized, so that “relationships can be renewed and reworked.”  She also stated that “Lack of feedback is the root cause of conflict.”

“Criticism reminds us of uncomfortable times from the past,” the professor continued.  “People hate being criticized or blamed.” 

Both presenters talked about maladaptive behaviors—and how individuals act in respect to internal feelings.  Included in some of these maladaptive behaviors are:

Procrastination, being afraid to do anything about an issue, even if it is very important.

Denial, an unconscious response of being out of touch with what is really going on. 

Brooding, being morbidly preoccupied with issues and not seeing the big picture.

Jealousy, a behavior of feeling more than envy to the point that the behavior can impact performance and judgment.

Self-sabotage, comes from being angry or upset and feeling unable to manifest feelings; former President Bill Clinton was used as an example, but I see this in too many of my clients.

The key to facing feedback and learning to adapt, according to Jackman and Strober, is to create a road map for your journey.  Their suggestions are to recognize emotions and responses more accurately and get support.  Support can be as simple as inviting a couple of people to be involved in your change process to hiring an executive coach to guide you on your journey.

What everyone who is working to be a leader can undertake no matter if have a coach is to do a self-assessment.  That is, ask for performance feedback from one or two interested colleagues in your or another department.  Ask for specific answers to questions such as “You are most effective when you…”  “You can be more effective when you…”  When you get the feedback, remain emotionally neutral.  Accept your ‘blind spots,’ those areas where you think you are especially effective but others see you as not that effective.

Just so you know, I, too, am given feedback at the end of a coaching session or consulting project.  However, if one of my Leadership Training Room clients doesn’t find my coaching or consulting effective, they evaluate me mostly by no longer scheduling appointments with me.

In addition, I get regular feedback on my performance as an adjunct faculty member in the Management Department at the Zicklin School of Business.  At the end of the fall semester, 60 students were invited to fill out of the end-of-the-term evaluations of me and write subjective notes.  Numeric scores on my performance are posted on the Baruch website before the next semester starts and anonymous written comments are sent directly to me—which I find very helpful and informative.

On the day of my student evaluations, class members told me that some professors don’t give out the evaluation forms—which means that professor cannot be rated by students.  I guess it’s not just corporate America where there is fear of feedback.

Print This Post

“When my computer gets a virus, can I catch the same virus by just touching my keyboard?”  Sarah (not her real name) asked me this question during a training class I was conducting about twelve years ago at Merrill Lynch & Co.  A personal connection to technology and a blurring of the lines between the physical world and the online world has only been heightened in the intervening years.

The answer to Sarah’s question was obvious; however, I paused a moment before responding.  In that space, her classmates smirked and hollered out criticism for her naiveté.  I finally said, “No.  You may be able to catch a virus from your keyboard but it won’t be the same one infecting your computer.”

In the moment I paused, I was trying to figure out how a smart 27-year-old college educated woman could ask such a question.  How could she blur the boundary between the inanimate world of technology and the human world of biological functioning?

A logical answer to why Sarah raised the question is that our culture itself put fear into a susceptible brain.  All the talk about the infestation of hard drives caused by computer viruses in the Merrill computers somehow merged in Sarah’s mind with the headlines about deadly human viruses and movie themes of mass destruction from a terrorist’s test tube.

The reality is that Sarah’s question wasn’t logical.  It was an emotional one, a personal uncertainty, a spiritual dilemma about where she ends and her computer begins, a cultural confusion about the composition of a thing versus the composition of an individual.

Since Sarah’s fingertips touched the keyboard all day sending e-mail correspondence and using seven other programs, it was almost natural for Sarah to feel that her computer was alive, breathing as she did, exchanging nitrogen and oxygen for carbon dioxide.  Her PC was an intimate part of her world, an “other” to whom she related—no relied on—for her 9 to 5 existence.

My cell phone is turned off during each class.

Today in my management classrooms, there are numerous Sarahs—and Sams—who have blurred the line between the virtual world and the real world.

My philosophy of education is based around students being 100% present during my highly interactive classes.  That means there is no use of smart phones, laptops, and other personal technology during lectures, student presentations, or class discussions—unless there are valid reasons.  The course syllabus clearly states that technology is not to be used in class.  Yet, I need to remind my students at the beginning of each session to put all technology away and, if that doesn’t work, give ‘my technology talk’ which goes something like this:  Smart phones are to be turned off and placed out of sight.  If you feel that you need to be accessible to family members or colleagues at work in the space of an hour and fifteen minutes, you are to put your phone on vibrate and place it in a pocket or a purse and, if you need to respond to a call, please get up, leave the classroom, and return quickly.

The main reason for this classroom norm is to benefit the students—all of them, the ones who aren’t using a cellphone and those who are.  That is, the user of technology is not giving 100% to the class conversations.  They go into another world, placing their virtual communications ahead of the real ones that transpire during each session.  My classes are made up of some very smart students; I want them to contribute their thoughts to the discussions and not spend energy being engaged in other conversations—conversations that, for the most part, I’m certain can wait until the end of class. 

Another reason why I set up this norm is that I get distracted by how creative—and blatant—students are to access their smart phones.  One will hold up a piece of paper over the phone and pretend to be looking at a document; another places their phone in a purse just far enough down so I can’t see the phone but they can see the screen; or, the bold ones who have a phone on their front row desk while typing a message.  It’s pretty obvious that if someone’s head is down, arms extended and close together, and, at times express facial emotions that are not in sync with the topic being discussed, they are not looking at notes to prepare themselves to participate in class.

The bigger issue, for me anyway, is respect.  Primarily, my students don’t respect themselves and the process which they are undergoing.  My role and that of other professors is to transfer knowledge, information that is geared to, in my classes, preparing them to be effective and efficient managers.  They—plus maybe their parents, the college, etc.—have invested in education yet students seem to be disregarding the opportunities to earn a high return on their investments.  What they are saying by the documented inefficient process of multi-tasking (e.g. 81 percent of young people report ‘media multitasking’ at least some of the time during a typical week) and blocking out the process of being in a classroom, is that they don’t respect their classmates—or their instructor—and what we have to contribute to their education.

When my students graduate, start to climb the corporate ladder, and continue a new phase of working to be a leader, they will probably be telecommuting and dependent on technology to a greater degree even than we are now.  How will they manage underperforming employees who have their cells phones out and are sending e-mails to family most of the day instead of making sales calls; a medical clerk having a cell phone conversation with a friend instead of taking a patient’s fee; or texting kids instead of watching directional signs along a high speed rail track—a situation that sadly killed 25 passengers and the conductor.

Included in her written assignment on the future of the workplace, one student in my spring 2010 class predicted that in 2020, “people skills” are what managers will need the most.  Technology is easy to learn for the Gen Y generation I teach.  Yet, knowing how to interact with one another in person in a world dominated by technology is a challenge but it’s also necessary to be a successful manager and leader, to learn how to focus on employees and not be distracted by technology, etc.  However, the ‘technology virus’ is growing with each generation.

A recent issue of “AARP The Magazine” (November-December 2010), contained statistics that concerned me.  AARP is the acronym for the American Association of Retired Persons, an association targeted to people age 50 and over which provides information, advocacy, and service.  Reading a blurb on “Technology Overload,” I learned that 78 percent of 12- and 13-year-olds who own cell phones sleep with them.  The figures of sleep habits for those 14-years-old and older rises to 86 percent.  What about Facebook followers?  One survey found that, “21 percent of those 18 through 34 check Facebook in the middle of the night.”

If the truth be told, years ago in the moment that I paused before I answered Sarah’s question, I wondered myself, “Is it possible to catch a virus from a keyboard?”  Today, before I give my usual greeting to start a management class, I look out on my students’ faces (or the tops of their heads bowed over smart phones) and reflect on the moment when the borderline between technology and being human merged for Sarah.  It makes me wonder, “How many others are infected by the technology virus the same way?”  And, “What is the antidote to help cure the virus?”

Print This Post

I love to read.  And I love to read Fortune Magazine.  Why?  The voice, the tone, the integrity of its articles and the scope of business covered.

The September 6, 2010 issue is now torn apart.  Not out of frustration or anger.  It is torn apart because as I went through the issue, I tore out a single page of an opinion piece, seven pages of a profile, etc.  Right now, you may be asking yourself, “Why do you tear out articles?”

I inherited the gene from my mother.  I remember that she tore out and referenced articles from at least two if not three newspapers to share with her children or neighbors.  I continue this habit.  A habit that I know could be eased by going to the www.fortune.com website, reading the article online and sharing the article electronically.

I like paper.  I like that I can sort the articles into five “destinations” or folders:  1) MGT 3300—“A Management Approach to Organizational Behavior”—the undergraduate class I teach in the Management Department at the Zicklin School of Business within Baruch College, part of the City University of New York; 2) “Ideas” that can help my business; 3) “Writing” that inspires me to be a better writer; 4) “Investments” that can help my bottom line; and 5) “Other” which includes “Technology” articles to reread and then maybe discard.

For instance, this is the beginning of a new semester and I’ve filed the following in MGT 3300:

The cover story, “Trader Joe’s:  America’s hottest retailer is also notoriously hush-hush.  Fortune uncovers the secrets of its success” will be used to illustrate organizational culture.

“Why J&J’s Headache Won’t Go Away:  Once praised for setting the standard in management crisis, the health care giant is battling a stream of drug recalls.  Fortune investigates what went wrong—and why it isn’t getting any better.”  This can be of interest in the leadership, communications, or other sessions; my corporate communications majors will find this of interest.

“Chrysler’s Speed Merchant:  CEO Sergio Marchione is racing to fill a dry product pipeline; his unorthodox methods aren’t for everyone” by Alex Taylor III will be discussed in class tonight.  The assigned reading in the textbook for the session is “Foundations of Organizational Structure.”  The chapter starts with a picture of CEO Sergio Marchione (in the very same clothes he is wearing in the Fortune photo) and an overview of “Restructuring Chrysler.”  Good timing!

The next article will eventually go into “Writing,” a bulging folder that has more than one article by the excellent Wall St. author William D. Cohan.  His latest for Fortune is, “Dick Fuld in Exile:  Already lampooned and vilified, the former Lehman Brothers CEO now faces investigation and maybe a cash crunch.  Now wonder he’s working so hard.”  Fuld will be discussed during the chapter “Personality and Values” or “Emotions and Moods.”

There are too many technology articles that I’ve saved to mention.  Technology is defining our culture and determining our future.  I want to keep up-to-date and I also want to provide my students rational anticipation of how their “technical future” will evolve by 2020.  Actually, writing about the impact of technology on the future of business is going to be part of their term project.  And I’m ready to share with them the articles in my files that I tore out from Fortune!

Print This Post

“The Impact of Technology in the Workplace” is the topic of Written Assignment #3 for my summer students enrolled in “A Management Approach to Organizational Behavior” or AMAOB.  Why?  Because technology changes behaviors.  And not always for the good.  Leaders, managers, and staff need to be smart on the how they use technology and the systems that they put in place.

The textbook I use in AMAOB is hot off the press.  Yet, there is little if anything of significance in the chapters of this latest edition that addresses how technology programs and devices change workplace behaviors.  When I looked up “Technology” in the Index, the definition was “The way in which an organization transfers its inputs into outputs” and mentions three pages where the topic can be found in the text.  The purpose of AMAOB’s written assignment is to help my students understand and manage the uses and/or abuses of technology by employees.

On July 26, 2010, Fortune Magazine published an article on “Ten Smartest People in Tech.”  What goes into being the smartest people in technology?  Fortune states that it’s, “An alchemy of intellect, ambition, and that uncanny ability to peer around corners.”

Not used in AMAOB

When looking through the list of the smartest people in tech, I started thinking about a guideline I have in my classroom.  That is, I do not allow the use of laptops and request that all technical devices such as cell phones are turned off—or on vibrate—and placed out sight.  It has taken a few class sessions to get full compliance.

Mine is a classroom based on experiential learning.  I want my 30 ambitious students each evening to have their full attention on listening to me and their classmates, contributing their thoughts and experiences, and being respectful of the sanctity of the classroom.  The classroom is where seeds are planted, ideas are generated, knowledge transferred, and invitations to “peer around corners” delivered.  It’s an opportunity to learn and grow from one another.  It is also a chance to be intellectually challenged.

If I had one thing to say to the smartest people in technology, it’s this:  “Technology is important.  I couldn’t communicate the way I am doing now without the use of technology.  Yet, there are limits when people need to take center stage and interact with one another.  A classroom on the topic of management is a time to unplug students from technology and allow them to relate to what they will be doing in their careers:  developing interpersonal skills and understanding workplace behaviors.

Okay, it’s now time to answer the question: Who are the smartest people in technology according to Fortune Magazine?  Here’s the list:

Smartest CEO:  Steve Jobs, CEO, Apple
Smartest Analyst:  Mary Meeker, Analyst, Morgan Stanley
Smartest Founder:  Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook
Smartest Engineer:  Christophe Biscigila, Co-Founder, Cloudera
Smartest Designer:  Jonathan Ive, Senior VP of Industrial Design, Apple
Smartest Investor:  Jim Breyer, Accel Partners
Smartest Hybrid:  James Cameron, Director, Avatar
Smartest Scientist:  Robert Morris, VP, Services Research, IBM Research
Smartest Academic:  Danah Boyd, Social Media Researcher, Microsoft Research
Smartest Executive:  Todd Bradley, EVP, HP Personal Systems Group

And I am going to be the smartest person in class this evening.  Why?  I’m going to use technology to transfer knowledge contained in a PowerPoint presentation to my class while interacting each one of my students, all of whom will be giving me their total attention since they are not using technology.

Print This Post

Look at this picture.  What do you see?  Who do you see?  How do you see them?  Where do you see them?  Why do you see this picture?

Spring 2010---A Management Approach to Organizational Behavior

When I look at the picture, I see my spring 2010 class of “A Management Approach to Organizational Behavior”—a class that whether they liked it or not, moved out of their comfort zones to meet and excel at challenging course expectations.

When I look at the picture, I see a microcosm of Baruch College, the nation’s most ethnically diverse campus of over 15,500 students who speak 110 languages and come from 160 countries.

When I look at the picture, I see decision makers who will climb the corporate—or small business—ladders to achieve the success that they so much want to attain.

When I look at the picture, I see the future, a future that includes other students in classes like mine who will take what they have learned in college and use it to be effective and efficient managers and leaders.

When I look at this picture on my computer or now posted on my blog, I smile.  These “students” are part of today’s workforce.  While working to be a leader, they are making a difference in people’s lives as a manager, an intern, a small business owner, an executive at their parents’ company, a receptionist at a medical office, a technology lab assistant.  They are working to be managers and leaders, and in that process using directly or indirectly the knowledge that they gained in my class.

When I look at this picture, I see these and other individuals who in coming years will be making decisions about the future of America.  I like to think that the curriculum of the class that they took with me will help them make those decisions.  That required essays to examine their organizational behavior; identify and understand the bully or the procrastinator or the older worker in the workplace; acquire a realistic perspective on women in leadership from guest speakers and conference panelists; and compare a founding father with a technology pioneer helped to put innovation and risk-taking into a meaningful and historical context.

Part of my students’ final written assignment was to write about workplace 2020—what they will be doing, how they will be working, where they will be doing that work, etc.  Their essays included finding work-life balance and needing to be continuous learners.  One student, the only one in a class where everyone included technology as part of their future, mentioned that soft skills—interactions with others—will also be needed.

Relationships are part of the future.  My relationship with my students was a rewarding one, one where I could see the future develop during each and every class.  I salute my class of spring 2010 and wish them great achievement.

Print This Post

“Who was your model?” one of my students asked me after I had posed the same question to the class last week during “A Management Approach to Organizational Development” at the Zicklin School of Business.  We were discussing the topic of  “Motivation Concepts” and specifically “self-efficacy,” an individual’s belief that she is capable of performing a task.  One of the ways to develop self-efficacy is “vicarious modeling.”

 Vicarious modeling is a process during which you can gain self-confidence while watching others perform a task similar to the one you are doing.  Through observation, you can picture yourself performing that same way.

 “Prof. Ogletree,” was the answer I gave to my students.  Although I’ve had many good professional role models in my career, Charles J. Ogletree topped my list that evening.  Today, Ogletree is the Jesse Climenko Professor of Law and the Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School.  Former instructor of President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle when they attended Harvard, Prof. Ogletree is an esteemed and prolific writer and public speaker involved in sometimes controversial and embarrassing situations.  Yet, his style of conducting a college class has remained my model for almost twenty years.

 In 1990, I transitioned my master’s degree in early childhood education into a career as an Adjunct Faculty member in the City University System.  Sometime in the 1990’s, I watched a weekly program on PBS that featured Prof. Ogletree conducting a class of what were probably his law students.  I forget the name of the program but I can’t forget his “in the face” type of approach when educating his audience.  He sat down on a desk near his students, he called on everyone, and he relentlessly challenged the answers and the assumptions they offered.

 Watching Prof. Ogletree over a long time, I vicariously became him in not just college classrooms but corporate classrooms where I would teach employees how to use technology, manage workplace relationships, or engage in innovative exercises.

 During my “performance” each evening when I’m teaching students at Zicklin, I am “in their faces,” moving around the classroom to be physically close to individuals while challenging them to provide “stretch” answers that expand their horizons.  I call on every one of my almost 30 students in each session, requiring them to state their opinion on a topic, explain a concept, or come up with another idea on how to deal with a difficult employee.  I push them out of their comfort zones and they answer back with a willingness to be in-the-moment and to perform on the classroom stage.

 While watching Prof. Ogletree on TV, I incorporated his style into my training as an educator.  I felt capable of performing the role because I earned positive feedback from my students and on faculty evaluations.

 I love teaching and I thank Prof. Ogletree’s style of teaching during his shows on PBS for the vicarious modeling he provided.