Is being grateful a matter of how we frame the situation?

As you know, we have five cats. One of our cats, Scout, was diagnosed earlier in the year with a very aggressive form of lymphoma. We decided that, as long as she wasn't in pain or suffering, we would pursue treatment. She has gone through chemotherapy and came through with flying colors (other than that she lost her whiskers, which are now growing back). The cancer is in remission. In all likelihood, however, it will come back. For now, she is on several daily medications. It's not difficult, but it can take about 10-15 minutes every morning. There are these wonderful little things called "Pill Pockets" where you insert the pill; Scout gobbles them up as they are like treats. The only downside to this amazing invention is that they are so tasty that she wakes up every morning asking for her treats. I should mention that Scout has amazing vocal range. She can meow softly, but apparently she has an amazingly short fuse and low patience. She quickly goes from softly requesting to the equivalent of shouting at the top of her lungs.

Last week, I was frustrated with her for her shouting at me every morning. After all, once in awhile I'd like to get up, have a cup of coffee and read for awhile. I was really feeling frustrated and discouraged at the work, the noise, and the disruption. Then, for whatever reason, it occurred to me that most likely in the not too distant future there will come a morning where there will be silence. Scout won't be there to demand her treats. I can barely even type those words, they make me so sad. In that instant, giving Scout her treats was no longer something that I had to do; it was something that I get to do. It is a gift as she is still here with us. Changing that one word from "had" to "get" took me from being resentful to being grateful.

Think about all the times throughout the day when you say that you "have to" do something. For each of those things, ask yourself how would you feel if you no longer could do those things?

Is it really a chore that we have to call our parents or grandparents or friends? Is it really a chore that we have to take our client to lunch? Is it really a chore that we have to find time to attend our child's soccer game or play? Aren't the responsibilities that we have simply indicators of those things and people that we most value?

Well, that's all for now. Scout has been sleeping on my lap and she is showing signs of waking up. It's almost her lunch time and she will wake up and demand lunch with her full voice! What a delightful sound. How lucky I am.

6 Leadership Styles

There's so much debate about which leadership style is best. Back in 2000, Daniel Goleman published an article in the Harvard Business Review (March-April), based upon his research. The following is a summary of that article.

Coercive:
What it is: This style is associated with the “Do what I tell you, now!” Coercive leaders expect and demand immediate compliance.
When is it effective: This style can be effective in times of crisis.
What are the associated pitfalls: This is the least overall effective leadership style. It has very negative implications in terms of innovation, commitment to the team and organization, and motivation. For high performing employees, this style is especially difficult to accept.
How to use it effectively: In times of crisis or turnarounds, this style may be the best choice. Use it judiciously and sparingly.


Authoritative:
What it is: This style is associated with the “Here’s where we’re going. Come with me.” These leaders are inspiring and motivating and they catalyze people towards a common goal. This is the most positive overall style.
When is it effective: This style is almost always effective. However, it is especially valuable when change in vision or new direction is needed.
What are the associated pitfalls: This style doesn’t work well when the leader is working with peers who are more experienced.
How to use it effectively: It’s difficult to overuse this style! However, to avoid being heavy-handed, mix in other positive styles (coaching, affiliative and democratic).


Affiliative:
What it is: This style is associated with putting people first. They care about people and they demonstrate that caring in all they do. They build relationships. They give positive and timely feedback. They are masters at creating a sense of belonging.
When is it effective: This style is generally effective. However, it is especially valuable when the leader is trying to build harmony, improve morale and communication, or repairing broken trust.
What are the associated pitfalls: If used in isolation, this style can lead to poor performance if the leader only focuses on praise.
How to use it effectively: This style is most effective paired with the authoritative style.

Democratic:
What it is: This style is inclusive and builds consensus through participation. These leaders get buy-in from various parties.
When is it effective: This style is especially useful for creating responsibility and flexibility (leading to innovation) among team members. It gives people a say in their future which increases their commitment. This style is very valuable for idea generation.
What are the associated pitfalls: ENDLESS meetings where ideas are discussed over and over again and nothing happens. It also falls short when employees are not competent or are lacking requisite experience.
How to use it effectively: Use this style in conjunction with other styles to balance idea input and clear direction.

Pacesetting:
What it is: This leader exemplifies very high personal performance standards; looks for ways to constantly improve; pinpoints poor performers; and demands high performance.
When is it effective: This style works well if the team is very motivated, highly competent and requires little to no direction.
What are the associated pitfalls: This style destroys climate. Employees feel overwhelmed and morale suffers. This leader usually gives either little or unclear direction; often jumping in to “do things right.” Their hallmark is “If I have to tell you the way to do things, you’re not right for the job.” Employees give up on doing their best; they resort to guessing what the leader wants.
How to use it effectively: Use this style sparingly.

Coaching Style:
What it is: These leaders help employees identify their strengths and weaknesses and tie them to the employee’s personal and career aspirations. They get agreements from employees on performance standards and learning plans. They develop people.
When is it effective: It is effective in a number of situations, however, it is most useful when the employee is open to it and wants to improve or when the employee is motivated to learn and develop.
What are the associated pitfalls: If the employee is not open to change, it can be a waste of time. Caution: if a leader isn’t skilled at coaching and giving feedback in ways that motivate and fuel development, they can unintentionally create fear and uncertainty.
How to use it effectively: It’s hard to overuse this style; however, don’t rely on it alone. Often, people need the clear direction that comes from the authoritative style in conjunction with the coaching style.

The bottom-line according to Goleman, is, “Leaders who have mastered four or more – especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative, and coaching styles – have the best climate and business performance.”

Anytime you make a unilateral statement, you invite dissent

People often ask, "How can we be more collaborative?" or "How can we have better teamwork?" While there are many things that affect our collaborative efforts, I think that one answer might be revealed if we look at how we communicate with each other.

For example, I was on a project team where one person always announced her opinion as though it were fact -- and the only conceivable answer. As I sat back and watched the interactions, I became aware of an emerging pattern, which I have since witnessed on other teams: when you make a unilateral statement, you invite dissent. As humans, we are programmed to mismatch statements like these. We like to be able to add value. If someone tells you the way it is, you are likely to resist because there is no value for you add. Unfortunately, on some teams, adding value comes in the form of pointing out where others are wrong. This leads to a very negative downward spiral where learning and action are stifled.

Try this: instead of announcing "This is the way it is," use a statement/question combination, such as "I'm sure there are many ways to approach this task. I wonder if xyz would work?" Then you are opening up the table for discussion. If your goal is open collaboration, it’s also important that you aren’t locked into your position but that you are open to exploring options. I have a principle that I use to guide myself in these interactions, which is: “High Commitment, Low Attachment.” My commitment to the success of the team is high, but my attachment to having my idea used is low. This allows me to hear what others have to say and to help the team build on the best of what we each have to contribute.

Likewise, if someone else throws out their idea, instead of pouncing on it to show why and how it is wrong, use a spirit of inquisitiveness to explore the idea. Your goal at this point should be to fully understand the idea. How many times have you seen someone begin judging and critiquing an idea long before they actually understand it?

Along the same lines, pay attention to whether your team or group is generally building upon each others ideas. The best teams that I have worked with actively build upon each others ideas: taking nuggets from each idea to come up with something creative that didn’t exist before.

Pay attention to whether your group or team is shutting ideas down or if they are helping ideas to grow through exploration, curiosity and expansion.