Justin Walker, the youngest son, is a former drug addict and Iraq war vet and has just started medical school. He has begun his first class in basic anatomy. The scene opens with the anatomy professor assigning students a lab partner. He tells them that they will sink or swim depending on how well they work with that person. Justin’s lab partner is a precocious 16 year-old who already knows every tendon and muscle. To say the least, he is a know-it-all.

The anatomy professor tells the students, “There will be coworkers you don’t like. You have to learn to work with them.” It was at this point that my ears perked up. That very situation, the inability to work with coworkers, is at the heart of what I call a Jangle Tangle^TM. A Jangle Tangle occurs when people with different preferences and styles irritate rather than complement each other.

As an organizational consultant and executive development expert, assisting leaders in strengthening their interpersonal skills and their emotional intelligence is just part of my stock and trade.  I often work with teams of smart, talented, ambitious leaders. Inevitably, there are a few on the team who don’t get along with others. Jangle Tangles abound in corporate life.

I use a variety of assessment tools to help leaders first understand themselves, then others. I like and have successfully used the Myers Brigg Type Indicator, the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument, the Emotional Intelligence Indicator, the DiSC, as well as a variety of others. When I work with a team, I choose the assessment that makes the most sense for that particular group and organization. Once executive leaders understand their own preferences, they become more astute about the nuances of other styles, and begin to make adaptations in their own behavior that reduces relationship tension.

What is common to all of these assessments, besides a 4- grid quadrant, is that they provide a framework for discussing interpersonal styles in a neutral way. We move from discussing individuals to a language that describes human behavior. We each have unique strengths and gifts. Many of us have multiple talents. Yet, none of us alone is enough to accomplish complex tasks. Like the anatomy professor said, we do have to learn to work together, whether we like others or not. And, it is the social niceties, being able to find a comfortable ease with others that paves the way for smoother working relationships.

In the Brothers and Sisters episode, it turns out that the precocious student almost faints when it is time to make that fist cut into a cadaver. Justin is not as book smart, but he has been a medic. He doesn’t flinch and takes the knife.  The young med student looks like he is ready to throw up, and is ready to bold out of the room. Justin talks to him in a way that engenders confidence and trust. The young med student, they call Doogie Hawser, stays. What was obvious to me as a third party observer is that both Justin and Doogie each brought unique strengths to the situation. Neither could succeed without the other. On television, a Jangle Tangle was averted.

To what extent is your organization rife with Jangle Tangles? How are they impacting your productivity? If you would like to ensure that your leadership teams have the interpersonal skills to effectively accomplish your objectives, please contact me at info@rubenconsuting.com for a complimentary consultation.

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

What follows are the three surefire steps:

1. When Someone Makes a Mistake, Put them in the Penalty Box

As an executive consultant, I have seen this phenomenon again and again, particularly in companies with highly educated and professional knowledge workers. When standards are high, the bar is raised. More often than not, this ensures outstanding work products and unimagined results. However, human beings are fallible and in the pursuit of excellence, mistakes are made. I once heard George Zimmer, CEO of Men’s Wearhouse give a talk. He explained that he encouraged his employees to make mistakes, and even rewarded them for mistakes. He saw mistakes as a learning opportunity. Unfortunately, some leaders punish those who have one misstep. These leaders take a negative snapshot which is difficult to change. They never view that individual in a different light.

1. If Someone Brings up a Taboo Topic, Demote them. Better yet, fire them.

I have worked within companies where employees confide that they have been socialized not to raise taboo topics. Taboo topics often involve pay, promotions, favoritism, or unethical behavior. Employees easily cite company lore about individuals who challenged a boss, or brought up a taboo topic. These actions were deemed career limiting because the person in question either was demoted, or in some cases fired. Employees learn what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior by watching what happens to others. It is the rare leader who actively seeks the “elephants in the room.”

1. When an Employee Brings you Bad News, Chastise Them

Many employees easily learn that they will be chastised or worse for bringing their boss bad news. I have witnessed employees spending hours polishing and spinning messages before they are escalated. Much of the spinning and polishing is aimed at ensuring that the blame falls elsewhere. Dr. David A. Bella has put together a fascinating theory about the systemic distortion of information. This happens when well intentioned individuals learn that it is not okay to tell the truth. Information gets polished as it goes up the leadership chain. By the time it reaches top management, the information is stripped of any bad news. The problem is that senior leaders don’t always have the full spectrum of data that they need to make strategic course corrections.

These are very tough economic times. When I visit client sites, leaders and employees alike are worried. However, fear and worry can shut down critical lines of communication. Now, more than ever, it is incumbent upon leaders to ensure that there is a free flow of information.

If you would like to assess your organization and ensure that you have not built a culture of fear, please contact me at info@rubenconsuting.com for a complimentary consultation.

©Copyright Marcia Ruben, Ph.D. Ruben Consulting Group All rights reserved.

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

I once had a boss who used to tell our national sales force, “The speed of the leader is the speed of the gang.” In my work as an executive consultant, coach, and “detangler,” I have met some incredibly brilliant and talented leaders. All of them were exceptional in some way, and all had areas in need of development. I would amend my ex-boss’s statement to, “the shadow of the leader is the shadow of the gang.”

There is irrefutable research evidence that the most important determinant of leadership success is knowing both our strengths and our weaknesses. All of us are good at a handful of things. If we are lucky, we become aware of those strengths early in our careers. All of us also have areas of weakness, whether it is keeping up with details, thinking strategically, or emotional intelligence. Learning our weaknesses, or shadow side, early in our career is also a gift. When we fully know and grasp our shadow side, we can take active steps to ensure that our organizations are not crippled by our own shortcomings.

For instance, I worked with an executive many years ago who was perceived as unethical and lacking in integrity. When he received that feedback, he was flabbergasted. He had no idea that others saw him that way. Further, he found ways to discredit the data. Because of his shadow behaviors, his subordinates were afraid to share information with him. They also began to distrust each other. The group, which was responsible for ensuring that his company conformed to strict federal regulations, became completely dysfunctional.

The best time to learn strengths and weaknesses is early in one’s career. Being open to feedback, whether it is positive or negative, requires strong ego-strength and confidence. I often encounter executives who welcome both positive and constructive feedback. They see it as a way to continuously improve and grow.

As a professional detangler, I have seen firsthand how leaders who are not aware of their shadows inadvertently create leadership tangles. Lines of communication become crossed, and open and honest dialogue evades the organization. Leaders carry exceptional positional power. Employees who are two or more levels below in the organization do not question leadership requests, even if they don’t make sense.

What are you doing to avoid tangles? For a complimentary consultation, please contact me at info@rubenconsulting.com.

©Copyright Marcia Ruben, Ph.D. Ruben Consulting Group All rights reserved.

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

Most professionals are educated and trained in their subject area, for example, engineering, law, marketing, finance, manufacturing, etc. Once they move into management, their primary education is less important. Unless professionals are lucky enough to have mentors and bosses who are gifted and effective role models, or they seek education to learn basic management principles, they learn by following the behavior modeled by bosses.  Sometimes they get lucky.  Often they do not. In reality, the ability to effectively manage performance and provide specific positive and constructive feedback is a strong management tool. It goes a long way in ensuring top performance, high morale, retention, and ongoing workforce growth and development.

Based on my experience as an organizational consultant and leadership coach, I have uncovered five key reasons why it is so hard for most of us to give hard feedback They include our hardwiring, level of emotional intelligence, thinking and personality style, gender, and an the individual’s  level of management skill development.

1. Evolutionary psychology tells us that even though human beings have developed technology that allows us to live well beyond the means of our cave-dwelling forebears, we still have Stone Age brains. Our cave dwelling ancestors had to rely on their emotions and instincts for survival. When faced with danger, they had to make an instant decision – either fight or flee. Even when balanced with positive messages, human beings hear the negative ones the loudest. This is one reason it is so hard to give negative feedback. On some level, we may all know that we could trigger a fight or fight response. I have had clients rationally tell me that they are afraid of hurting the other person’s feelings and that it is easier to avoid the situation. However, that usually exacerbates the situation. The prospect of giving someone tough feedback may also be perceived as a threat to the prospective feedback giver. That thought in and of itself may trigger a fight or flight response.

2.Giving tough feedback in a way that gets heard requires a high level of emotional intelligence. A manager must be aware of and monitor his or her emotions. He/she must also be able to demonstrate empathy and be aware when the person receiving feedback is in a fight or flight mode. The manager must then be able to demonstrate high proficiency in managing the relationship in a way that both parties walk away feeling heard, understood, and in alignment.

3. How individuals think and how they take in and process information can also influence the degree of difficulty in providing effective performance feedback in a way that does not raise defenses and is heard. The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) is highly validated and measures thinking styles. Based on Hermann’s model, those who prefer left-brain or logical, analytical thinking over right-brain or feeling, emotional, and interpersonal thinking are likely to have a tougher time demonstrating sensitivity in giving performance feedback. Those with an analytical, logical bent could miss the nuances of feeling and rely excessively on facts and logic in approaching a potentially emotion-laden conversation.

There is also a great deal of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®, an instrument based on the work of Carl Jung. This instrument assesses preferences for how individuals perceive information (sensing or intuiting) and how they process that information (thinking or feeling). Those who prefer the thinking style make decisions based on logic and analysis. The problem is considered first, then the people. Their process is more rational and impartial. Individuals who prefer the thinking style are very good at pointing out flaws. Those who prefer the feeling style consider the people first, then the problem. They are more likely to compliment others than offer them a critique. They also take into account how the decision will impact others. If those who prefer the thinking side come from the head, those with a feeling preference come from the heart. This does not mean that those who prefer thinking cannot feel, or that those who prefer feeling cannot think.  What this does mean is that those who prefer feeling could over-empathize with the feedback receiver. Likewise, those who prefer thinking could miss emotional clues, leaving the feedback receiver in a world of hurt.

4. Differences in gender also influence the degree of difficulty in giving performance feedback. More women have entered the management ranks in the last thirty years, perhaps changing the emotional landscape of the workplace. Recent brain research helps us understand and explain gender differences. Dr. Louann Brizendine claims that even though 99% of male and female genes are the same, our brains are strikingly different. This one percent difference suggests that we are hardwired differently. Men and women process and read emotions differently with women able to read emotions on the faces of others more quickly than men. This may give women an advantage in anticipating and responding the concerns of others when having a difficult performance discussion. On the other hand, Dr. Marianne Legato claims that men are often pressed by society to remain unemotional even during difficult and harrowing tasks.  Because men internalize much of their conflict, this could add to challenges of already stressful work environments. Men can learn emotional intelligence and to read emotions. It may not as easy because of how our brains naturally function.

5. The ability to set and manage performance expectations is a skill. It requires an understanding of the entire process of performance management — setting goals, giving constructive feedback, employee development, and evaluating performance. The ability to effectively get work done through others requires the ability to delegate, direct others, and manage and measure work. These skills are relatively easy to develop. They can be learned through courses in basic management skills and from a professional business coach.

The ability to confront others requires courage and the ability to effectively manage conflict. These skills are harder to develop, and are best learned through mentoring, professional coaching, and ongoing development practices.

While a brief performance conversation may seem like a simple task, in actuality, it is quite complex. Leaders need to consider their own biases, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as those of the person for whom the feedback is intended. Not developing an organizational capacity to effectively provide performance feedback results in organizational tangles that are difficult to unravel.

If you would like to sharpen your organization’s skills in giving tough feedback during these challenging times, please contact me at info@rubenconsuting.com for a complimentary consultation.

©Copyright Marcia Ruben, Ph.D. Ruben Consulting Group All rights reserved.

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

I often work with leaders who are tangled up in unproductive patterns of thinking. Some leaders have self-defeating thinking patterns. As we work together, it becomes clear that they are stuck in moving forward because deep down inside they assume that they cannot. Based on what I have heard and read about Michael Jackson’s life, it appears that he was haunted by demons that impacted his personal life. When organizational leaders, like Jackson, are tangled up in themselves, it reverberates and impacts others.

Sometimes, leaders on their way up the corporate ladder are so stuck in self-defeating thinking, others have a difficult time seeing their full magnificence. Recent stories about Jackson lauded his musical talents, while at the same time hinting at the challenges his internal demons posed to himself and his later  career. I have worked with a number of very talented leaders who limited their own career growth by not getting out of their own way.

Leaders, plagued by internal tangles, like Michael Jackson, also don’t reach their full potential. As a leadership coach who visualizes the potential of all my clients, this is particularly sad. Who knows what Michael Jackson could have become in his later life. Perhaps he could have been more of a mentor to younger singers. Perhaps he would have broken throughyet unseen barriers in music and dance.

Finally, leaders who do not have the opportunity to learn and understand both their strengths and areas of development early in their career are often blindsided later on by what some of my clients call flat spots. Like a ball that cannot roll without a smooth curve, leaders who are not given the opportunity to create compensating strategies early on also don’t reach their potential. Deepak Chopra writes that Michael Jackson maintained an innocent childlike quality, and along with a quality of woundedness, was reluctant to grow up. Of course Michael Jackson became world famous at 5, and was thrust into the spotlight. Having a normal childhood is difficult under any circumstances. Michael didn’t have a chance at that opportunity. Still, had he had the mentoring and development early on, his star might have shone even brighter.

So bottom line, what can leaders learn from Michael Jackson? Get an honest assessment of your leadership strengths and area of development early on. Work on mazimizing your strengths and compensating for weaknesses. And finally, if you are stuck, seek the help of a highly trained, experienced, executive coach. It is nearly impossible for us to see our own internal tangles. Until leaders unravel their own internal tangles, their potential and star power are limited.

Please contact info@rubenconsulting.com for a complimentary consultation.

Copyright Marcia Ruben, Ph.D. Ruben Consulting Group  All rights reserved.

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

For the past ten days, I have been glued to the media and social networking sites, especially Twitter. I am not alone.  I have been awed by the level of interest, caring, and actions taken by so many after the June 12 election. As I sat in my office, watching my computer screen, I felt empowered to take a small step, to lend my voice of support to a situation unfolding half-way around the globe. I followed #Iran election, with thousands joining the conversation every millisecond. I retweeted (RT) messages that provided helpful information, and posted my own thoughts. I watched as Facebook friends joined in the discussion and became a fan of sites allegedly providing credible information. I didn’t know if I was making any difference at all, but felt I was a part of something historical, important, and much bigger than me.  

I began making connections between my work with organizational leaders and as a researcher, and my concept of tangles. I am fascinated by how people make sense of complexity. I believe that we are all interconnected in a web of relationships. According to complexity theorists, organizational systems self-organize in new structures and patterns as individuals within the system interact with each other. It just takes a few simple rules to create order in a chaotic system. With twitter, one just needs to create a post with 140 characters, retweet posts by acknowledging the source with @Name of Follower, and use the hash mark (#) to create or be part of a trending conversation.

That certainly is what was happening moment by moment as the cascade of tweets grew on Twitter. And slowly, I sensed a pattern of tremendous support, caring, and then danger and fear. It was clear that those within Iran posting video footage and eyewitness reports were in danger.  While social media opened a window to events we could never have witnesses, it also poses threats.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal featured two articles on how governments are intervening to monitor the flow of communication both within their countries and to the outside world. Christopher Rhoads and Loretta Chao reported that the Iranian government has the ability to control and censor information on the internet. In what seems like a scene out of the Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU) on the television show 24, the Iranian government can trace the sources of information and locate those sending messages. One strand of tweets encouraged everyone to change their location and timezone to Iran’s. Another encouraged all of us to not share the “handles” of those sending messages from Iran.

In an opinion piece in the same edition of the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz writes that beginning July 1, 2009, the Chinese government may have even greater powers in censoring sites that citizens visit, blocking content sent via email, and locating and punishing those who express their opinions online.  While the promise of technology is to empower everyone, those in power have the ability to disempower their citizens.

How is this related to organizational tangles? And what can leaders learn from all of this? Gratefully, we have freedom of speech here in the United States. However, I have witnessed cultural norms in various companies that discourage speaking truth to power or speaking up. My research found that true collaboration and higher productivity and profits more likely emerge in conditions when corporate employees feel they have power and are competent. When they are able to freely speak up about emerging trends that could cause problems or processes and practices that are snarling the system, order emerges. The system is not fragmented, but works together as a whole.

I have facilitated scores of offsites within a myriad of companies. I am often surprised when I hear employees complain that speaking up is a career limiting move. By the same token, the leadership team claims to encourage a free flow of information. What is going on here?  What I have observed is that those who encourage and open up communication seem to have what Mike Lombardo and Bob Eichinger describe as the approachability competency. They put others at ease and are nonjudgmental listeners. Just as I can feel powerful and competent when posting a tweet, leaders who facilitate open environments create conditions in which others can own their power and competence.

Are you a leader who encourages competence and personal power? Contact info@rubenconsulting.com if you would like a complimentary 15 minute consultation. Follow me on Twitter: @TangleDoctor.

©Marcia Ruben, Ph.D., Ruben Consulting Group

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

In last Sunday’s New York Times opinion section, Sandy B. Lewis and William D. Cohan wrote an op-ed piece with 72 font headers. Its title, “The Economy Is Still at the Brink” grabbed me.

Lewis is an organic farmer who was convicted of stock manipulation and later pardoned. Cohan, formerly a Wall Street banker, has written extensively about the financial crisis. Bottom-line, they make a very strong and persuasive argument that all efforts to “fix” the economy are in reality papering over real and structural problems.

Their proposed solution is to tear down the current system and build a new one that really works. We need more transparency and to fundamentally change our consumption habits. Restoring our confidence, they write, will not be enough to restore a broken financial system.

Lewis and Cohan raise some important and probing questions. Again, their opinion piece, interspersed with gigantic font, is surely a wake-up call. Will any of us listen?

What I know from my own experience and research is that we ignore clear warning signs at our own peril. It would be all too easy for all of us to expect a return to how things were before September 15, 2008. Lewis and Cohan’s points are unsettling and my first reaction was discomfort. It was a truth that I didn’t want to hear. However, burying my head in the sand is not an option. None of us can afford to do that.

We are all enmeshed in this potential Cascade Tangle. I plan to write letters to the editor and my state Senators. Will you all join me and do the same?

©Marcia Ruben, Ph.D., Ruben Consulting Group

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

Tina Turner made a singing comeback in 1984 with her hit song, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” My husband, a family law specialist in San Francisco has recently worked with some male clients, who I call alpha males, struggling through their respective divorces. Tina Turner claims that “love is a second-hand emotion.” However, from what I am hearing, anger, blame, and transference are first-hand emotions and reactions. Going through a divorce at any time is a trying and emotionally draining experience. However, the stress and tension is now exacerbated by the economic decline. Individuals who have enjoyed unfettered economic success, and the ability to buy and demand whatever they desired, are  now finding their world crumbling beneath them.

After hearing my normally calm and collected husband recount stories of client blow-ups and tantrums, I wondered how other executives, faced with reversing fortunes, are behaving as heads of their companies. Are they blowing up, excessively blaming others, and acting out? Or, are they keeping their composure, remaining calm, and being accountable?

I know from my executive coaching work that as stress piles on, some executives rise to the occasion. Others turn into monsters. So what does divorce got to do with organizational tangles, the area of my expertise? Nothing really, except as a metaphor to remind us that when our worlds change, we can choose our reactions. There is a whole genre of family tangles, however.

Many years ago, I researched and taught courses in stress management. I remember reading a research study many years ago about people who had lost everything in a fire. Some pulled through and turned their lives around. Others fell apart and never recovered. What was the difference between the two? According to the researches, it was locus of control. Those who pulled through had an internal locus of control. They knew and believed that they could manage and control their reactions to external situations, and that they were the masters of their fates. Those with an external locus of control believed that they were the victim of circumstances, and were at their effect.

In her hit song, Tina turner sings, “I’ve been thinking of a new direction, but I have to say, I’ve been thinking about my own protection, it scares me to feel this way.” Perhaps at the root of heightened emotional reactions is our old friend fear. I can’t help but think that my husband’s clients are overreacting in an effort to protect themselves because they are scared.

In many ways, we are scared. How we react is what separates us. In times like these, leaders have to not only think of a new direction. They need to actively devise a strategy and plan and lead their organizations into more promising futures.

©Marcia Ruben, Ph.D., Ruben Consulting Group

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

Click here to view the embedded video.

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

Wall Street Journal reporter Kara Swisher interviewed Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, at the recent All Things Digital Conference. I was struck by Bartz’s assertions that organizational structure has limited Yahoo’s ability to innovate. Bartz’s comments validated findings from my own research. I was interested in uncovering the organizational enablers that contribute to the unwinding of organizational tangles. I define tangles as those interpersonal, political, and human dynamics messes that tie organizations up in knots. What I found in my research is that an organizational structure that ensures clear levels of authority and accountability creates clear channels of communication, and removes the fuzziness that stalls forward progress.

When Jerry Yang first approached Carol Bartz about the CEO position, she was not receptive. She met with him anyway, and once into the conversation, asked him to draw the organization chart. What became apparent to Bartz was that there was a fuzziness, or lack of clarity, about who made the important decisions. She likened the structure that existed under Yang to a Dilbert cartoon.

Bartz told Swisher that organizations get in their own way when lines of responsibility are not clear, or in her words, “. . . if people are all bound up, and if they don’t know if they get to make the decision or somebody else, and if they do, what happens to them, and so on and so forth.”  In my own work, I often encounter individuals and teams that are stumbling because they don’t know who makes the final decision, or who has ownership of a particular process.  Once that is clarified, I find that roadblocks melt away and productivity increases.

Besides a lack of clarity about decision making, I also encounter turf wars between departmental or divisional silos. Bartz comments that at Yahoo “we have bigger silos inside the company than outside. The homepage people didn’t want to drive traffic to the finance page because they wanted to keep them on the home page.”  Making a change in the structure and ownership often unwinds tangles.

What I find fascinating in my work is that organizations create structures and make them work, even if there are workarounds, challenges, and inevitable tangles. Often, what looks like a personality challenge, may be in fact due to a systemic or structural issue. Lines of communication can and do get gnarled when it is not clear who has ownership, authority, and accountability. Organizational structure is one of many factors that I, as a Tangle Doctor, investigate when called in to strengthen organizational performance.

©Ruben Consulting Group

Click here to read the whole interview

Tweet This Post Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post