T.A. Wilson & Associates

Last week a great number of people were caught up in what was considered a national event. Who would LeBron James sign with? It became a major media event where a number of people were watching. I’m safe in saying that when he said he was taking his talents to South Beach, there were cheers of joy in Miami and shouts anger in Cleveland. No doubt the fans of the Miami Heat basketball team have visions of championships along with a possible dynasty in the making with the talents that James, Bosh, and Wade all playing with each other.  These three (LeBron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade) certainly have the talent but it remains to be seen if they can truly work and win as a team.

Each a star in their own right, the coaching staff is going to have to figure out how to best meld their talents together with the rest of team. While Wade, Bosh and James are going to have to determine how they’re going to handle their egos. The rest of the team is left with determining where they fit in, considering they have three superstar players in their midst. While some would consider having these three talented players a corner stone for the development of a super team, others would see it as a nightmare that won’t go away.

The fans in Miami see this as the beginning of a powerful dynasty – and it could be – management sees it as an expensive investment that must show an immediate return. The coaching staff as a challenging talent management issue that will call for some out-of-the box thinking when it comes to managing this level of talent. For those of us who are students of organizational development and dynamics this is a real life laboratory in which we can see how all the components of organizational theory, team development, group dynamics and goal setting theory work for real.

Initially I thought the announcement of where LeBron James would end up was of little interest to me, but after further consideration I’m beginning to see it in a completely different light. So when they play the Celtics I’m going to watch these games from the viewpoint of what I can learn from a consultant’s perspective. Well at least that’s what I’m going to tell my wife.

© Timothy A. Wilson 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Like so many others I’ve been watching events unfold around the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s by far the worst ecological disaster we’ve faced. The Exxon Valdez that everyone is using as a bench mark palls in comparison. But as expected those who dislike this president couldn’t wait to make the Katarina comparison. One has to wonder, are they so angry at losing the election that any misstep Obama takes is the justification for all the vitriol hurled his way? To be balanced, some of his supporters have no claim to impartiality, a number of them have climbed on the bandwagon of criticism.

What has transpired over the last 44 days is indeed dreadful. I understand that the people of Louisiana are worried, and angry. It seems they have been the victims of one catastrophic event after another that would drain the life fiber from even the stoutest of people. So their anger is understandable, and it’s also reasonable they feel the president should be taking the lead in dealing with this problem. Wanting the president to show more emotion, to express anger would no doubt make them feel good. People feel that if their leader demonstrates some level of emotion it’s indicative of his caring, his understanding about their problem it would make him seem less “Spock” like.

But to read the papers or watch the talking heads opine about the president’s lack of emotion, or failing to understand the “optics” of the situation, you wonder if what people want is for him to enact his version of the Klingon death howl. Now that would be a sight and we would see it in an endless loop on all the cable news shows with the crawl moving across the screen saying the president loses his cool. People want him to drop his Spock like approach and embrace the Kirk personality and like Kirk call on Scotty to find some solution that will plug the leak.

There-in-lies the paradox show some emotion but the solution to the problem has to be logical and make everyone whole. One problem, logic and emotion don’t always work well together. One has to be suborned to the other. Emotion clouds judgment.

Leadership and management place you in the decision making arena. Many of the decisions you make will significantly impact people who report to you. Leaders who allow their emotions to surface can place themselves in difficult situations. They could say or do something that exacerbates the situation instead of providing a solution.

Then there is the possibility of being seen as weak because emotions are not associated with people of power or those who are in charge. It’s not to say that one shouldn’t show anger or rage, but it has to be justified anger or rage, it can’t just be done for show. And here lies the problem with the president. He doesn’t want to do things just for show, for the thirty-second sound bite. His approach is to collect the as much data as possible, look at the totality of the situation, and present the best possible solution that invokes the greatest good for all not just the one, clearly a Spock like approach to dealing with a problem.

In his new book The Promise, Jonathan Alter explains how the president seems to have clearly demonstrated his management skills, an area many thought he would have a problem with because of his lack of actual management experience and ace the communication area. But for some reason he’s having a problem communicating effectively with the country. He’s too Spock like for them. Too Spock like, why that is a problem is unclear to me, this situation clearly calls for level thinking, unemotional thinking, anger – while justified – will not get the well plugged. People want him to emote, but who are these people?

The people who want him show more emotion, are the pundits and his opponents. Those calling for him to be less Spock like – remember Bones and his insults – is either looking for a story or something else to attack him on. Could the president be more empathic, many believe he can and will. I for one am ok with they way he is, I have no problem understanding him, but that’s because I remember the episode when Spock became emotional, and it was a pretty site.

Maybe people should be careful what they ask for.

© Timothy A. Wilson All Rights Reserved

Recently I wrote about the doorman strike in New York. In a recently published Op-Ed piece in the New York Times James Collins pointed out: “they provide an extra layer of face-to-face social connection that is not strictly “necessary,” but is tremendously gratifying nonetheless.” These comments reminded me of statements I’ve heard about top managers and company leaders.

Similar to tenants who depend on their doormen for that “face-to-face social connection” a growing number of senior managers have defaulted to their staffs looking to them to provide that level of connection with employees, becoming overly dependant on carefully scrubbed management reports, or on surveys results that rarely are enacted.

While the size of the company can be a factor that prevents senior management from getting to know all their employees, it doesn’t prevent them from gaining an understanding about what their employees have to deal with while working at for their company perhaps taking a hint from the CBS program Undercover Boss would provide some guidance and assistance in that area.  

This show provides a great example of CEO’s of well known companies going out into the field – undercover – to find out what it’s like for the people who work for them. No filtering of information they are getting it straight the real deal as one would say.

If you’re a leader in your company getting to know what you’re people have to deal with on a daily basis just to meet the demands you put forth to help make the company profitable is extremely valuable. Having that information filter through doorman like managers is a luxury that you should skip because there is nothing like getting it directly trust me, you’ll be much better leader and manager.

© Timothy A. Wilson All Rights Reserved.

Peter Drucker coined the term “knowledge workers” long before it became fashionable in today’s business lexicon.  In The Daily Drucker 366 Days of Insight and Motivation for Getting The Right Things Done, he points out that “knowledge workers will have to manage themselves, they will have to place themselves where they can make the greatest contribution.”  Anyone who considers himself or herself a knowledge worker needs to understand who they are, what their strengths are, what are their values, how they can work to achieve results, where do they belong, and where don’t they belong.  As important as these aspects are toward becoming a knowledge worker, the most important aspect is having good and consistent feedback so you as a knowledge worker can work to improve and get better.  This means, getting clear and specific communication on what you need to improve upon.

For most people who work in the corporate arena this feedback is supposed to come from your direct supervisor or manager.  However, the ability to give meaningful and constructive feedback to a subordinate is something that many supervisors and managers find very difficult.  Too often, when supervisors or managers attempt to provide constructive feedback, the message is vague, mixed, unsubstantiated, or so convoluted the receiver requires Solomon like wisdom to understand the message.  This doesn’t work for a knowledge worker.   The knowledge worker needs feedback that is clear and concise, so they can initiate appropriate action. 

If you are a supervisor or manager who have knowledge workers working for you, you need to hold yourself accountable for making sure you deliver feedback that is clear and concise, and not subject to misinterpretation.  As a knowledge worker, you are also accountable for letting your supervisor or manager know how to provide you with useful feedback.  By insuring you’re, getting feedback you can use allows you to analyze the information, so you can make appropriate decisions on the projects you and your team are working and you can place yourself where you can make the greatest contribution.

This allows the knowledge worker, supervisor, and manager to ACT R.I.G.H.T™ in your respective organizations.

 © Timothy A. Wilson 2010. All Rights Reserved.