Coaching by Stillwater Blog

Universal Conspiracy

I had a recent conversation with Karen Kodzik of Cultivating Careers ( www.cultivatingcareers.com) about what makes the difference between people who tentatively and indecisively try to make a move to a new  career versus those who just leap into the unknown.

Those who are tentative often stumble on their caution. Great things seem to happen for those who jump in with both feet.

No wings, no parachute, just jump

Granted, I am not exactly your great wilderness explorer. I have to admit that I’ve stepped tentatively into roles and really floundered. However, I notice a difference when I really step into my “calling” with full commitment. Things always turn out well.

When I left my last employer in 2006, I stepped out into the unknown. There was no family income, tuition bills for my daughters were coming in along with start-up expenses for the business. Even so, I never looked back with regret nor did I questioned if this was the right move.

Things have turned out better than I would have dreamed. I am doing what I believe and where I am going almost seems laid out ahead of me. 

As I look back at my jump, I see a pattern in my life.

Commit, jump, discover

I had been a teacher and decided to go to graduate school. So, I stopped working. Mary and I moved to Phoenix and things worked out.

After graduate school, I worked for a manufacturer as international marketing manager. We had just bought our first house and my job was our only source of income. I felt it was time to leave, even though both the president and the CFO of the company asked me to stay, I quit.

No wings, no parachute, just a jump.

As I look back, there was never the “next job.” The pattern has always been “commit, jump and discover.”

Feet planted squarely in indecision

There have been times when I wasn't so committed.

When Karen and I first met several years ago, I was a “job transition” client. I thought I was committed to two things; start consulting and look for a new full time position with another company.

I remember talking with people about a job then suggesting they could hire me as a consultant if that would work better. Other times, I’d try to slip in my interest in working full time while talking with a potential consulting client.

It was an incredibly confused and inconsistent. The other person would get a quizzical look on their face and conversations led nowhere. There was no traction.

Decide

At the core of this process, I found the need to "decide." My indecision was a disservice to my partners and customers.

I decided that I could not effectively look for a job and find consulting work at the same time. After I committed to focus only on consulting, things started to happen. Eventually, the biggest opportunity that opened up to me led me back into a company for the next four years, but it only came after I had committed to consulting.

When I commit; no wings, no parachute, just jump, something happens that provides the lift to help me achieve my goals.

I am reminded of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Once you make a decision, the universe conspires to make it happen.” I see someone else's hand in it.

Leading for Impact

There have been at least six conversations over the past week were I've heard of a misalignment between the leader and the person they are leading. In each of these conversations, the leader looks for ways to make the individual change their performance and to get the person to do a better job.

After asking a few questions, several cases demonstrate that the leader isn't leading with the approach that works for that individual they are leading.

"I pointed him in the direction I wanted him to go. He just isn't making it."

or

"I just don't get it. I was told she's been a star performer in the past but for some reason she's just shut down. Every time I ask how the project's going, she says 'fine.' I'm not sure it is. Then when I hold my weekly 1:1 with her, the communication just keeps getting more and more strained."

These are just two examples from leaders who have misaligned their approach with the person they are trying to lead.

In the first situation, the person had proven himself on previous projects. However, his current responsibilities are much more complex and demanding. It's more than he's used to. Based on where he's coming from, the leader needs to be more involved than just "pointing the direction." At least initially the leader's role is to engage supportively with the individual. The leader needs to encourage him. This doesn't mean the leader has to tell the person what to do. That person already knows that. All he needs is someone there to bounce ideas off, to check in with and a bit of encouragement.

The second case is an example of someone who is suffering from their boss's insecurity. The boss wants to know everything about what's going on and the indivdual has demonstrated time and time again they are a top performer. Having a boss checking in on a weekly basis may what the boss needs. But the person doing the work is feeling like there is a helicopter hovering overhead watching every move.

In so many situations, the person being coached for a performance issue isn't the sole source of the issue. No one works in isolation. The relationships between the individual and their boss, their peers and direct reports all influence performance. Many times leaders are quick to look at the person they are managing as the problem when in reality the problem may be somewhere else.

How do you align your leadership approach to the needs of your people? Which of your leadership styles shows up when someone isn't performing?