The number 3 has a mystical tradition in many cultures, including our own. It is a familiar component of the many structures, formulas and patterns that we follow daily. We often use the number 3 to organize our thinking and help our memory. Our stories typically follow a beginning, middle and end; often with three influential characters like three kings, three bears, and three ghosts. The rule of 3 is one of the oldest, dating back to Aristotle.

About five years ago, Jeffrey Phillips wrote an article titled “Smaller the Better”. In it he advocates for making teams and organizations as small as possible. He argues that it is easier to keep teams focused and cohesive when they are small. Larger teams can actually produce lower levels of commitment along with a lowering of standards on the part of managers. Given the power of 3, I believe he was on to something.

As leaders, consider forming teams of 3 whenever possible. Teams of 3 are more accountable to each other because each individual is more conspicuous, making it more difficult to hide. Teams of 3 are more flexible and agile. They can communicate more quickly and more effectively with each other. They have lower barriers to finding space and time to connect to help determine what’s working and not working more quickly. Consequently, the team of 3 is in a good position to make the adjustments necessary to support the team’s goals.

Interdependence is accentuated in small teams of 3. This creates an environment of urgency with more shared responsibility, including the responsibility for leading. Daniel Pink author of, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us“, talks about the growing need employees have for autonomy, mastery, and purpose rather than extrinsic rewards. Pink makes a strong case that the importance of those “three” concepts is quickly moving from a “nice to have” to a “must have” if we are to position our organizations for future success. The formation of teams of 3 promotes Pink’s current view of motivation. This is particularly relevant for the development and retention of Millenials within our workforces.

Teams of 3 are also easier for managers to support. More individual attention can be provided to those team members who need it. When the manager is out of the picture, the other members can also step up and help their teammate. And if an individual continues to fail on a particular team, it is easier to see that a change is needed and why.

Remember the metaphor of the three-legged stool. It represents balance. Just enough and not too much. This should be true for the size of our teams.

The good news is that successful, modern organizations are becoming more open and transparent. Continual technological advances provide many potentially useful methods of sharing information more widely and quickly than ever before. As the work becomes more decentralized, team-based, and often virtual, individuals can use valuable and timely information to make better decisions about how their work gets done. Smart, professional leaders practice openness and promote information sharing at all levels in their organizations. However, organizations need to avoid the peril of TMI (Too Much Information).

When it comes to managing information, leaders should recognize the importance of discretion, for a number of reasons. Two reasons in particular come to mind. First, practically everyone is wired, typically in more ways than one. The recurring problem is overload. To remain effective people need more than just e-mailed messages, forwarded documents and web-related links, despite the fact that they may be rich in useful content. Leaders should take more time to determine how and why the information may be useful to the recipients before hitting the send button.

Second, leaders need to be prudent with information that relates to change, like potential restructuring. Responding to change is always personal and usually involves some level of emotion. Some leaders, with positive intent, believe that sharing any and all information with employees will always result in more effectiveness. Although that may occur in some situations, the reality is that unfiltered information can actually create more anxiety, mental distractions and fear because of the different ways people react to change at a personal and emotional level. Leaders should consider timing, current events, and the current level of morale to determine how and what to share about what is known and what is unknown about changes that may affect their employees.

It’s clear that there is more information available, to more people, in more ways, with more speed than ever before. Organizations, beginning with senior leadership, can usually do a better job of managing it. By “manage”, I don’t mean “censor.” When managing information effective leaders are aware of both the content and the implications of what they are sharing and are clear about their purpose for sharing it – before they share it.

Some good questions to consider before communicating important information are:
• Is the information I have the most current?
• Why am I sharing this information?
• What are the benefits? What are the risks?
• What is the best method for communicating the message?
• Is this the best time to deliver this message?
• What questions may arise and do I have answers?
• How do I want people to feel after receiving the message?

Leaders can also set an example and encourage others in the company to work on managing the information around them. Using organizational tools like on-line, collaborative workspaces can help (see www.huddle.net). Leaders who manage communication effectively use good judgment and sensitivity as they try to be mindful and understand the context in which their message is being sent. This usually results in getting the desired response and outcomes from those receiving it.

We are products of an action-oriented culture. We like movie action heroes and we tend to value mantras like, “Just do it.” We typically reward and admire action, because that’s what we see. Results are what gets measured and what gets measured is what gets done. Given an uncertain and challenging economy with shrinking resources and financial stress, management’s primary focus is usually on taking action to address the urgency of the situation and get the desired results. Managers expect employees to “Start doing things this way.” “Stop doing things that way.” “Trust me, it will work.” Frustration occurs when employees don’t get with the program quick enough.

What’s true is that when dealing with human beings we can’t cut corners and ignore the psychology that drives us. For real, sustainable action to occur more quickly, managers should first focus on the groundwork that people typically need to have in place before they can begin changing the way they do things – to act differently. Laying this foundation involves two often neglected steps.

Step 1 is to be sure that the language and terminology is understood by those who are expected to act or behave differently. Peter Block, the noted author and consultant, has frequently written about the power of language and how change first occurs by changing the language. Semantic misunderstandings are often unknown, yet significant, obstacles to taking effective action. Managers should first be sure that everyone understands the terms being used in the way they are intended, before moving forward with any initiative.

Step 2 is to focus on the thinking. What ideas, assumptions, beliefs need to change in order for the desired action or behavior to take place? Managers need to help provide the answer to the basic motivation question, “What’s in it for me?” Many significant and potentially advantageous initiatives never get implemented effectively, or at all, because management assumes that the merits of a useful idea or solution itself will be instantly recognized and will result in immediate buy-in. Consequently, a lot of management time is spent addressing resistance to change, after the fact, instead of investing time upfront strategizing about ways to help change the thinking before new approaches, procedures, systems, etc. get implemented.

When people are clear about the specific language (i.e. what “merit-based performance” really means), and they have time to think and process anticipated impacts (i.e. what will be lost and what will be gained by acting or behaving in a different way), Step 3 which involves action, can happen in a manner that produces results much more quickly.

I believe that one reason more attention is not spent on addressing the language and thinking issues is because it involves planning, and planning is not sexy. Planning takes time and doesn’t involve any action you can see immediately, so it often gets minimal attention and is abbreviated. Sometimes we need to go slow to go fast. Some thinking regarding the benefits of planning needs to change if we really want effective action to occur more quickly in our organizations. Maybe what our culture needs is to have an action hero like Jason Statham star in “The Planner” and provide us with a good role model.

Leaders are always challenged to find ways to motivate their workforce. Motivational theorists support the fact that people motivate themselves. Leaders can only help by creating the conditions whereby people can be motivated. Monetary compensation only works for a short time before people start needing additional incentives to increase their commitment and effort. It’s not because people are inherently greedy or ungrateful, it’s just that we need more intangible motivators over the longer term. We may not even be conscious of these needs; we just know when something’s missing. Rewarding a form of positive competition may help.

When we are part of an organization, any organization, one of our basic human needs as social beings is to feel secure and accepted by those around us. If we feel vulnerable and don’t quite fit in, we can get distracted and eventually become demotivated, regardless of our pay package or how intrinsically interesting the work might be.

Each organization has a unique formula for creating these motivational conditions based on its mission, culture and the composition of its individual employees. Motivational leaders continually work to discover and apply that unique formula to engage and support their workforce to be more connected to the organization and its goals.

A good starting point is to maximize transparency. Share as much information with employees as possible about the economic situation, financial imperatives, competitive threats and progress toward achieving strategic goals without sending them into information overload.

Continue by streamlining ways to receive input and feedback from them about decisions that are being made. Regularly solicit ideas for what employees need to improve how they are working and what they are working on.

Lastly, don’t just simply create teams; create collective competition within the organization. Collective competition, like all competition, is goal-oriented which can result in greater focus and increased creativity and innovation. However, it’s different from the more traditional type of competition where success is defined strictly by a bottom line win or lose outcome. Traditional competition creates more losers than winners and often results in organizational dysfunction, despite positive intent by the leader. Success in collective competition is measured by real, tangible cooperation within and across units and divisions. Cooperation, along with level of effort, and demonstrated growth and learning is what gets rewarded in healthy, collective competition.

For organizational success what a “win” and “team” is may need to be redefined and reinforced until it becomes part of the cultural fabric. An organization should be viewed and treated as one team. The individual units should only claim and, most importantly, be rewarded for a win when the larger team also wins. This becomes more challenging for leaders in larger organizations. We are often more familiar with individual competition or smaller team vs. team competition that is focused on narrow sales or revenue targets. Although there may be short term benefits, over the longer term siloed thinking and unhealthy competitive behavior is typically a negative result. This is the main reason why emphasizing internal competition within organizations is often perceived to be counterproductive.

Team members taking part in healthy, positive, collective competition, by definition, are encouraged to be inclusive, to share information, and to help each other learn and develop skills. This type of internal competition can be positive for the overall organization and for the individuals working within it. Rather than pit one member against another, the conditions created by leaders that reward cooperation can increase the chances that individuals will find their own reasons to be motivated.

There are three primary areas where managers should focus their attention in order to impact how well the people in their units are working together. Many problems and issues that are found in the workplace can be attributed to one or more of these realms. Good supervision and oversight requires continually noticing what’s going on in each realm in order to make timely adjustments and changes when and where necessary.

The first is the technical realm which involves whether or not employees “can do” their jobs at the level required. Does each worker have the skills or competence necessary so that they can do their job? Would they benefit from additional training, direction or other developmental assistance?

The second area of importance is the realm of “will do”. Does each worker have the necessary motivation and attitude so that they will do their job and be a positive contributor? Are there obstacles in their way that are preventing them from being fully committed while they are at work such as personal issues, problems with co-workers, fear of change, coping with shrinking resources, or frustration with the current work process?

The root of all workplace problems does not always stem from employee issues directly. These people problems can sometimes be symptomatic, with the underlying cause traced to the third “how do” realm. The “how do” realm is defined by the business processes along with the reporting structure. Is the work organized so that people can work smart? Are all of the tasks necessary? Do the policies and procedures in place still make sense? Are more policies and procedures necessary to help achieve more consistent outcomes? Involving employees in examining work flow design and in making the right changes may result in helping individual workers better use their strengths and abilities. This can support increased motivation and commitment to the work as well as to customers and co-workers.

Keep in mind that workplace problems, like most problems we encounter, are often interrelated with no clear indication of where they originated. The best solutions can be in finding ways to prevent problems from occurring in the first place. This is particularly true when making the most important decisions a manager makes – who they should hire.

The hiring process is the time to determine the level of importance to be placed on the “can do” vs. the “will do” realms. Traditionally, employee selection practices have placed an over emphasis on technical experience and not enough on screening for interpersonal characteristics, motivation, and positive attitude. Yet the most common and difficult employee relations problems typically involve misconduct or misbehavior and not lack of job knowledge and skill. No one wants to hire an incompetent worker. However, is it easier to train an employee to do a particular job task or is it easier to train them how to take initiative and be flexible?

Good managers support their employees by paying attention and asking good questions. By understanding the interconnection between these realms, managers can develop and apply more targeted, timely and effective solutions in response. Step one is hiring the right people, for the right jobs, at the outset. When this happens managers also benefit as units and teams develop faster and are able to solve many of their own problems. This allows for more time to spend addressing the strategic issues that frequently get neglected.

I found some interesting concepts regarding change and the role of coaching in a book by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee called, The New Leaders: Transforming the Art of Leadership into the Science of Results, London: Little Brown. Their research suggests that personal change occurs more effectively and sustainably when we are focused on a Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA), rather than a Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA). Focusing on a PEA means building on our strengths which allows us to be more open to possibilities. Often we choose, or are led down, the path toward an NEA that pushes us to fix what’s wrong with us. By following that negative route we usually get “turned off” soon after we begin and positive change rarely occurs.

Typically, if we start on what we want to “fix” first, our fight or flight response is triggered and that leads us to behave defensively, or we quickly find excuses to avoid the effort. We get uncomfortable and we are less open to feedback, and soon lose commitment to making the change. Coaches can help the personal change process by helping to identify the positive reasons for making the change and building on personal strengths in order to achieve some small wins. Once those small wins are achieved, motivation can build, along with a desire to then address weaknesses.

Good leaders are good coaches. They create trust, not fear, and help those they lead find positive, personal reasons to move toward change. This approach is much more effective, particularly as an early change strategy, than demanding quick fixes to personal weaknesses. However, it also takes time and patience to achieve real results. The process starts with a leader’s recognizing and understanding the level of readiness of the individual being coached. By starting where they need and want to begin, the coaching effort can be much more productive for both parties.

For all of the potential benefits to good coaching, there can be an unforeseen challenge to incorporating it as a management practice in the workplace. That is, everyone may not view coaching as a positive. I was reminded of this recently while working with a client and discussing the topic of performance management and the supportive role of coaching. I asked about the word “coaching” and how it was viewed in their organization and I was told that the word has a negative connotation for some because it is associated with problem performance. We are shaped by our experience.

The idea of being coached can be viewed as a positive or negative based on influential experiences, some beginning at an early age. A close family member had a high school sports coach who would pull each and every player out of the game right after they made a mistake. They were then derided and made to sit on the bench and reflect on what they did wrong. Conversely, when they did something right, it was ignored and taken for granted by the coach. Consequently, whatever growth and improvement occurred for the various team members happened very slowly, if at all, because the level of fear and lack of trust that existed kept morale and motivation low. I can’t help but wonder how those individual players will view and respond to coaching by their managers when they eventually enter the workforce.

Leaders, even with positive intentions, may want to accept the fact that viewpoints can differ regarding coaching. The potential impact of the language and labels leaders use and take for granted, may not always be understood. Even a helpful word (to me) like “coaching” may trigger a negative response even before it begins.

As our world, and especially our workplaces, become increasingly automated it’s important to remember that people don’t operate like bits and bytes. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we are being trained and conditioned by the speed and capabilities of the technology around us. This includes the technology we control and the technology that controls us. Some of us spend more time actually interacting with a keyboard and an LCD than we do with a flesh and blood human being. An unintended consequence is that our expectations about how people should “operate” can be affected as we become programmed by the performance we get from our laptops or cell phones.

With a few exceptions, technology usually works as advertised. When it doesn’t, it might require an upgrade or replacement. We learn, often through trial and error, what keys to press and what commands to give to get the results we want. Each time I sit in front of my laptop and click the Word icon, it loads and I can create a document the same way I did yesterday or last week. Once I learn how to operate the “program” it may not work as intuitively as I would like, but it does respond consistently. There can be a downside. How often do interpersonal problems occur because we unconsciously expect that our co-worker, our boss, a friend, or family member will respond as consistently as the technology we use? When they don’t, we devalue them.

People are “buggy” software. Dealing with them is often unpredictable and even messy. One day they are in a positive mood, another day they are not. One hour they are incredibly productive, the next they are staring out the window. As skilled as some of us may be in operating and even programming our computers and cell phones, we ourselves are buggy. We have moods, with different abilities to communicate that other people have to respond and adapt to.

The lesson for leaders is to remember that managing people is not the same as managing an Outlook calendar. A lot more patience and flexibility is required to prevent constant frustration that will spill over to people around them. This frustration can contribute to dysfunction in the workplace. I am not suggesting that standards be lowered. I am suggesting that we recognize the benefits of each of the resources we work with, particularly the human variety. Focus on how to maximize all resources, as well as accept their limitations. Let’s remember that even when people meander, a big advantage they can have over technology is their problem solving ability, judgment and creativity. When people feel valued they can apply those abilities and deal with ambiguity, particularly during challenging and uncertain times like these. Computers can’t. At least not yet.

I received a degree from UC Berkeley in Social Science and I believe I benefited greatly from a well-rounded, liberal arts course of study. I learned a lot of theories about people and how we behave. I’m sure that I internalized many of those lessons and have applied them in my personal and professional life. However, I believe that the most useful early education I received was while working in the restaurant business as a host, waiter and especially as a bartender.

As a student, I learned a lot about myself, and about people, while working in a busy basement bar on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. With live music blaring, cocktail waitresses lined up with armloads of drink orders, friendly and aggressive customers leaning over the bar demanding a drink or conversation, and a hovering manager in the wings, there were lots of lessons learned. In time I found that this practical education outweighed my formal education up the street. I could see ways in which people were similar and different. I learned how important it was to stay organized and focused on what I was doing and what needed to be done next. I learned that it was always important to treat customers like individuals whenever you are dealing with them, however brief. I also learned from observing my co-workers that if you don’t really like people at a core level, working with them is not going to really change things.

It is easy to see that the hospitality business is openly about creating a positive experience for the customer and a positive association for the establishment. Isn’t that what we should be trying to do in most every business, including government service?

As the economy continues to improve there will be increased competition for smart, talented workers who are enthusiastic and positive, can handle stress, can organize their time and workload, can remember details, can work well with co-workers, can communicate clearly and are able to consistently treat customers so that they feel valued. Aren’t these the skills and qualities of a really good food server or bartender? Aren’t these also the skills and qualities you would like many of your employees to have?

Sometimes when we hire we get too conservative in our thinking and approach. We can get caught up in the “similar-to-me” effect and favor candidates that remind us of ourselves. Or we place a rigid emphasis on the completion of a specific degree, and make it a requirement to have actually performed the exact work, etc. Next time you review a resume or actively recruit new talent, particularly at the entry levels, be open and creative in how you consider and evaluate the relevancy of previous experience and transferable skills. Some innate skills and qualities are actually more critical to an employee’s success than the technical skills you can provide them through training. Pay attention and you may discover that you have an excellent candidate serving you lunch today.

Next week is my birthday. And as the day approaches I recall that an advisor recently told me that my life is likely half over. Since I’ll be 51, I am OK with that prospect.

There remains a lot to look forward to in the future. I’m still planning new business ventures, meeting new friends, planning and creating memories with my family and most of all continuing to learn. For me the learning is not just focused on acquiring professional knowledge. That never ends. There is always some new approach or concept about people and how we behave to read about, or some new situation or challenge in the workplace that catches my attention. However, some of the most universal learning for me comes from developing my skills in sailing and music, two pursuits that bring me a lot of joy and pleasure, along with pain sometimes.

As I am still rehabbing my “sailing elbow”, I’ll offer more thoughts about the impact of sailing in a future post. Focusing on music, I have always been a big fan of rock drums and have followed various drummers throughout their careers since my early teens. John Bonham and Steve Gadd were a couple of my icons, Regrettably, although I saw Gadd a few times, I never got to see Zeppelin play live. At rock concerts, I was one of those few in the crowd to jump up and applaud after a killer drum solo.

I learned a lesson when I was persuaded by a friend to take up playing the drums 2 ½ years ago. We were at a break at a Steely Dan concert talking about music and I was lamenting that I had never learned to play drums, even though I have been a huge fan of the instrument. His message was simple, “why not start now?” So I did. He plays bass guitar and as it turns out, he started playing bass around the middle of his life as well. A few drum lessons were followed by practice sessions in my garage, where we have since added some other players and now can proudly call ourselves a garage band.

Here’s the kicker, so to speak. The real lesson was that learning something new and fun remains a humbling experience. My ego is continually challenged when I can’t play a beat or a drum fill in the way I hear it on the recording. I had to accept the fact that I was incompetent and that I would fail a lot – until I didn’t. For a while it would have been easier to stop. I am improving (so my band mates tell me). Still, learning is not easy, despite the rewards. Professionally I am continually working to persuade people to learn new skills and develop new habits, and my journey to learn to play drums is a useful reminder of how demanding learning can be, especially for adults.

My bass player friend that inspired me to learn got me tapped into the joy and benefits I could receive by investing the practice time and applying real effort. Most importantly he was patient and realized that I had to start when I was ready and at my level of ability. Despite the perceived benefits, an attractive goal or objective can best be reached when we are willing to accept that fact that quick successes are not always realistic when the desired change is significant. As each of us marches (or plays) to our own drummer, if we can be patient and keep our ego from getting in our way, we have a much better chance of leveraging the learning.

I delivered a series of workshops this past week on resolving conflict. I tried to emphasize how to minimize and prevent conflict – when possible. Whenever I am discussing personal behavior change, I often hear that the real problem is “my boss” or “my co-worker” and that “they should be in the session.” Of course.

Although training and coaching can be effective when people are highly motivated, one of the most powerful and effective approaches to influencing others to change their behavior is to model it yourself. This works at an individual and organizational level. The adage is definitely true that actions speak louder than words. People respond (learn) at a more visceral level by what they observe.

Modeling is double-edged. It may also have an undesired affect if our actions are incongruent with what we say or claim to be important. This type of incongruency might be considered hypocrisy by others and can actually destroy what we are trying to accomplish. Being more self-aware would help dramatically.

Despite positive intent and the best ideas for ourselves and others, we fail as leaders, managers, supervisors, peers, friends, parents, spouses, partners, etc. when we are not careful in avoiding hypocritical behavior. Hypocrite may sound like a strong word, that we are reluctant to attach to ourselves or others, but it may be the appropriate word.

Hypocrisy is more than just annoying. When the stakes are high it impacts the degree to which we trust each other and our institutions. When a manager says it’s important that the team supports each other, and then that same manager bad mouths one member behind the back of another – that’s hypocrisy and that’s a problem.

Our good ideas are usually not enough to influence and lead others in the direction we want them to go. The best ideas and intent are meaningless when we as individuals or as organizations act hypocritically. The result can even be a setback in credibility and trust that can take a long time to recover from, if at all. Unfortunately there are daily and high profile, examples of hypocritical behavior from politicians, business leaders, sports figures, etc. Let’s use these examples as reminders of what not to do.

I believe that sometimes we focus too much on what we think, our positive intentions, and not enough on what we do, our contradictory behavior. How do we act like a hypocrite at work or at home? Are we not getting the results we want or the relationships we want because our behavior contradicts what we say is important?

Yes, modeling can be very powerful. Beware and be careful.