Interesting discussion I had recently in a Behavioral Leadership seminar:  does poor performance indicate bad behavior?

Is a person with bad behavior always a poor performer?  Does a poor performer always have bad behavior?

What constitutes ‘bad behavior’?  Is it questioning the status quo?  Is it bringing up things that may add time or money to a current project?  Is it consistently being late for meetings?  Is it not working as quickly as others?

Is a poor performer destined to be a poor performer in every position they hold?  Or could it be an instance of having that person in the wrong job?

I am a very outgoing, animated person [check out my videos on my website or on youtube to see].  One of my boss’ decided the best job for me in the company was to have my office at the very end of a hall, facing a storage room that was rarely used, and to do data entry work.  Needless to say, I was not performing at my best.  My boss would probably consider me a poor performer.  I was not very happy doing this job … so he would also consider some of my behavior ‘bad’.

One of the signs of a true leader is to understand what motivates your team, and what strengths they possess.  Three entities benefit when you use the talents and the passions of your team members: your team member because that shows you trust and value them and you are allowing them to grow … you because you are letting go of control and you are improving your own leadership skills …. the company because you both are doing what you are getting paid to do, and increasing the bottom line.

I challenge you .. if you see ‘bad behavior’ or ‘poor performance’, look past the person and seek other aspects of their life that could be contributing to what you see.

It’s not what they said, it’s what you think you heard.

We know that men and women think differently.  A recent study by Northwestern University in Chicago reports:

the best bosses are inspirational mentors who encourage their subordinates to develop their abilities and creatively change their organisations. This is referred to as a ‘transformational’ style of leadership – similar to the way in which good teachers manage their students and something that women do naturally. In contrast, men adopt a ‘transactional’ management style which is more likely to see them dole out punishments for poor performance and reward good behaviour.

The article goes on to say:

In fact, according to both studies, women are faced with a dichotomy: on one hand, if they act like a leader, using typically men characteristics and abandoning their typically female personality profile, they are perceived as being hard, but if they act like a woman, they are perceived as being inefficient, since typically male personality traits are considered more effective leadership characteristics.

Indeed there is a difference in leadership styles — women are not being paranoid when they think they are being called “bitches” or “wimps”.  Why is it we cannot look past the gender or appearance of our leaders and assess their effectiveness on what they have [or have not] accomplished?

Emotional intelligence transcends genders …. any person can and should exhibit good ‘people skills’ … understanding what your team members are experiencing — emotionally, mentally and physically — and acting accordingly, can raise their performance and productivity levels.

Could it be …. It isn’t what they said, it’s what we think we heard?

Check out this video

Close Friends: Elephant and Dog

Even those that can be considered “odd couples” can get along and benefit each other.

Your challenge: reach out to someone that you think you have nothing in common with.  See what connections you can make.

It’s not what you said, it’s what they think they heard.

I’m reading a great book about blame.  Blame is a big part of team dysfunctions and conflict.  Blame is part of the no-win situation, for blame has no constructive value.  Blame will simply fuel the conflict fire.  It is so easy to get wrapped up in this blame-game and finger-pointing, and the longer it continues, the greater the chance of saying something you regret — the amygdala hijack.

Back to the book … it talks about our patterns of behavior.  We know the definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing again and again and hoping for a different result”.  That can be applied to our reactions when we feel a conflict rising.  We revert back to those thoughts and actions we have previously used.  And we get sucked into those patterns.

When we identify patterns of our own behavior that give us unwanted results, we can then put ourselves back in control of our emotions and our actions.  That can stop us from trying to control the other person — wishing and wanting them to act differently.  They probably want the same from us.

So ….. what patterns put you in the midst of a heated conflict?

It’s not what you said, it’s what they think they heard.

My membership for a particular organization was due to expire.  I thanked them for their friendly reminder email, telling them I was not sure of the exact date that my membership would be up.  Their response was:

Our records show that a hard copy of a letter was sent to you on January 5, 2010  to inform you that you were to expire in 90 days.  It was never returned to us.

This immediately threw me back to my grade school days when I, in vain, tried to explain to the nuns why I could not understand the chapters in the textbook well enough to complete the homework assignment.  You know, the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach that tells you indeed you are going to fail and to fail miserably, and getting chastised in front of the entire class.  Afterwards, the class would tease me mercilessly ….

Fast forward to today … if I read between the lines, did they [also] call me a liar?  Are they telling me that I did indeed receive their hardcopy letter?  Much like the nun telling me that I didn’t even try to understand the importance of some minor battle in the Civil War.

This is a great example of how email messages can be misconstrued, taken out of context and begin feelings of irritation and resentment.

Rationally I don’t believe the writer intended for her words to come across as harsh as they did.   I felt her index finger jab my chest.  I felt my defenses rise — I felt my credibility and my reputation being attacked.  My caveman brain wanted to take over and fight for my own self-esteem.  Luckily I took a deep breath and my rational mind took over.

It wasn’t what she wrote, it was what I thought I read.

Even when we think we know what we are saying, our words can still be ambiguous.  For instance:

When you yourself says the word ‘always’, what percentage of time does that event occur? Does ‘always’ occur 100% of the time?  Or does ‘always’ occur under 90% of the time?

When you yourself says the word ‘never’, what percentage of time does that event occur? Does ‘never’ occur 0% of the time?

I ask these questions, along with about a dozen other words, when I give my Behavioral Leadership or Communications seminars.  My survey shows that the average percentage of time ‘always’ occurs is 82% …. And the average percentage of time ‘never’ occurs is 18%!

Could this be a contributing factor to mis-communications?

It’s not what you said, it’s what they think they heard

Why don’t we tell others how to manage or communicate with ourselves? This seems like a very simple concept, doesn’t it? Think about how much easier, or simpler, our lives would be if we were forthright with this information.

Aahh Behold the Ultimate Truth! We are! We tell others what we value, what is important to us. We just don’t always pay attention to the signals that we are sent.

When I changed financial planners, my new one felt it was important to review with me, year by year, my contributions and my disbursements. After listening to this for only a few minutes [believe me it felt like forever] I moved her finger down to the last disbursement. I wanted to know what year my money would run out. The outcome, the result, the bottom line, was important to me. Not the details. From that point forward she knew not to bog me down with details … simply give me the end result.

Do you have someone in your life that talks about their family, friends, colleagues or other people? To build rapport with them, ask them about these people. Smile and nod when they relate their latest adventures. Then you can get to the point. Otherwise they may hear that you do not like them or are not interested in them.

Do you have someone in your life that keeps their personal life private? They are focused on business, tasks, things and achievements. If so, minimize the small non-business talk and get directly to the point. Give them the result first. Otherwise they may hear that you are flighty and a time-waster.

An emotionally intelligent person senses the communication needs of the other person — or they are confident enough to ask.

Remember, it isn’t what you said, it’s what they think they heard.

It seems no matter what the economy is doing, keeping good employees is the #1 concern of executives.  The #1 reason those good employees leave is still bad managers, according to a recent article in the Atlanta Business Journal.

“Unhappiness with management” ranked far and above “not enough opportunities for advancement” and “no recognition”.  Far below these was ”salary dissatisfaction”.

Let me ask you … how much effort does it take to focus more on what your employees are dealing with, or what they need or want?  Can you afford to take some time to listen, really listen, to them?  How much does it cost you to give them accolades or specifically thank them?

The higher the level of emotional intelligence, the more likely staff members and employees will stay.  Knowing how your employees [and colleagues] see your handling of stressful and/or uncomfortable situations affects their interactions with you.  If you chastise and berate others, they are less likely to go out on a limb for you.

It’s not what you said, it’s what your staff thinks they heard

According to the History Channel’s program “The Universe – Light Speed” ….

Laura Danly, Griffith Park Observatory Curator in LA:

Because it takes time to travel, we’re able to look back in time, the further out we look in distance, the further back in time we look.  We would have no idea what our cosmic history was if the speed of light travelled instantaneously.

What a concept!  To look in the sky and see the stars, knowing that what we see is not what exists at this moment!

if you did not know that it takes years and years for what happens in the sky to be visible to us, and if you did not know that you did not know that, you would think you are watching the comet racing through the sky in real-time.  It’s your perception.  And your perception is your reality.

It’s not what you saw, it’s what you think you saw.

BC&A reports that the “Top Ten Threats Cited in EMS ASRA [NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System] Reports:

Mission Preparation/Operational Pressure                    93%

Excessive Workload                                                      84%

Communication Difficulties                                            75%

. . .

Distractions                                                                  28%

Pilot                                                                              17%

Assume that EMS personnel are trained and are accustomed to working under stress.  75% of the time they consider communication difficulties a threat?  What does that mean for the rest of us that do not generally work under stress …. our stress experiences has peaks and valleys.

How many times in a typical day do we ‘visit’ the fight/flight/freeze arena?  And how long do we remain that prisoner?   When we sense that our unconscious reactions will overtake our conscious actions, we need to focus on the outcome we want, not escaping from the current situation.

How difficult is it for us to communicate clearly the first time?  And what are our consequences if we don’t.  And how do we know if our meaning and intention are clearly stated?  We can take cues from the other person/people, we can restate our communications several times in several different ways, we can ask them to repeat [not regurgitate] what you said … and you can ask for feedback.

It’s not what you said … it’s what they think they heard.