ona76

Feedback Flower (Photo credit: jonathanpberger)

One of the main ways to improve your “self” is to ask for feedback from friends, family and work colleagues. In theory, inviting feedback on your performance should help you understand what your strengths and weaknesses are. It’s also a way of clarifying your perceptions and ideas about your own performance. The Harvard Business Review Management Tips 4, 7 and 8 expand on this ideology.

For instance, there is a suggestion about meeting with former co-workers each month to keep in touch and well-informed about industry changes. And that you could use this session to invite feedback on your contributions to your industry’s space. Another tip suggests that you reflect on your annual work performance review to find ways of turning any highlighted weaknesses into strengths. Furthermore, you are encouraged to ask people who you are in continual contact with (such as direct reports, peers and customers) to critique your ideas and approaches.

But can we deal with this level of constant feedback? How much can one’s ego take? Is it possible that we could just develop a hard exterior shell to deflect so-called constructive criticism? Will our defensive mechanisms deep within our sub-conscious rise up to protect us? No doubt asking for feedback on our performance is a necessary activity from time-to-time, but could it end up being an exhaustive pursuit distracting us from actually getting things done?

The personal improvement industry is a very Americanised one. I sometimes wonder how well ideas developed by North American gurus translate in Europe or even the UK. Our cultural worldviews have been honed by differing socio-economic paradigms, language, and historical contexts. For example, Europe, including the UK, too a large extent has socialistic, liberal and secular leanings. The US in comparison seems to have a more individualistic culture emphasising personal autonomy and responsibility.

McCabe (2011) in his article Opening Pandora’s Box touches on these considerations in his analysis of the effectiveness of Stephen Covey’s ideas in a UK context.  He believes Covey’s ideas are entrenched in the American dream of freedom and self-determination (p186) and are therefore context-specific. McCabe’s main argument is that ideas are hard to implement as intended because interpretation, context and organisational make-up can markedly influence the end result.

I remember a time early in my career when 360-feedback was introduced as part of the annual performance review. It was a disaster. Senior members of staff, whom you would have liked feedback from, did not have time to respond to your requests, and personal agendas from colleagues surfaced in the feedback/criticism.

Maybe this situation occurred because it was an HR/senior staff implementation failure or because new American owners wanted to take charge. But I don’t think it was much of a coincidence that a quarter of the department left by the end of the year. I suspect that many people were not keen on the new working environment! Extensive organisational change I think can trigger unanticipated behaviour. After all, people make up organisations!

I am more of a fan of feedback with specific evidence. For example, “that was good/bad because of doing X and Y”.  It anchors people to unambiguous action. Daniel Pink’s book discusses how children respond to direct feedback and not generalities. Pink suggests praising effort and strategy as children are more likely to take on more difficult tasks that stretch and develop them.

Pink also implies that adults need meaningful achievement too. He believes that Type 1 behaviour (intrinsic satisfaction derived from a task) such as displayed by Warren Buffet or Mozart is made from circumstance, experience and context.  It stems from a human desire to improve and master something that matters to others. So maybe we can all become more effective as long as we are willing.

References:

Pink, D. H. (2009), “Drive: The Surprising Truth about what Motivates us”, Cannogate Press, Edinburgh, pp178-79.

McCabe, D. (2011). Opening Pandora’s Box: The Unintended Consequences of Stephen Covey’s Effectiveness Movement Management Learning, 42 (2), 183-197

Although I’m working on my last OUBS assignment ”What makes a Good Manager?”, I have been distracted by a handy little Harvard Management Tips book I picked up in WH Smith recently. The book is a compilation of the Harvard Business Review‘s Management Tip of the Day and suggests “useful”personal development, team and business advice. It has given me an idea. I fancy blogging my way through the advice and sharing my experience of it here. A sort of Julie and Julia approach (the American girl who blogged her way through a 1950s cookbook but I’d be doing it on management.).

The first tip is to Create a New Leadership Vision. I need to articulate my values and re-examine my goals for the future. I will then need to draft a statement illustrating what I hope to have achieved by 2025! I’m not sure I can even think that far ahead. It is already making me feel older than I am already. And what does it mean by leadership and major contributions? I assume it is about how I plan on leading myself to something big. But will I drink (you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink!) by the time I get there?  What if I change my mind? And what if my goals are not to win a Nobel Prize but rather more mundane?

Well, I suppose some of the things that might make my personal development list this week are: potential Ph.D study and my imput as a Professional Advisor to the OUBS’ Alumni Advisory Board. Although I didn’t make it to a seat on the board, I have been offered an expertise role, which is very exciting. I will hopefully find out more in the coming weeks.  My research into Ph.D. programmes continues too. At the moment, my research ideas are about blogging and reflection, the limitations of reflection, and entrepreneurship. All the research ideas are works-in-progress. Hopefully, I’ll have some further inspiration once I press “submit” on my last MBA assignment.

Networking is definitely a broad-church term encompassing online/offline; internal/external; work colleagues/friends; and acquaintances/family. But how do we grow our networks without looking narcissistic and shallow?

Ibarra and Hunter (2007) say that networking is about “creating a fabric of personal contacts that will provide support, feedback, insight, resources, and information”. But many managers, from their study of 30 managers, find networking insincere or manipulative and fail to utilise their contacts effectively. Being time-poor is also an issue.

Singleton and Tarnowska (2010) answer to this is that you should learn to cultivate your relationships whether they be from work, school, college, home or clubs. Probe, ask questions, be interested and share information. Keep in touch, and offer relevant information such as thought-provoking articles, and tips, as and when appropriate. There is no point just collecting more and more business cards and LinkedIn contacts if you are not willing to make an effort to build on your relationships.

There is also the issue of working out how to manage your networks. Ibarra and Hunter (2007) suggest that there are three main types of networking: operational, personal and strategic. Operational networking is about good working relationships both internal, such as peers and superiors, and external, such as suppliers and customers, to the organisation. These connections are relatively straight-forward in the sense that everyone is connected to the organisational network so there are obvious synergies in working with one another even if the relationships are not always easy.

Personal networking encompasses connections made through professional associations, clubs, personal interest groups and alumni. These connections are made out of choice. Ibarra and Hunter (2007) state that this group provides important referrals, information and development support. It can also create a good basis for strategic networking. The issues with personal networking are that you are most likely surrounded by like-minded people who you share personal interests with. Therefore it becomes difficult to work out how valuable this type of network is. It can also reinforce mind-sets.

Strategic networking, however, is about creating inside-outside links for future business and functional purposes. These types of connections can be political, but if you are not in touch with the “bigger picture” and aspire to leadership roles, you can often lose out to someone who is. Strategic networking also requires a lot of time and dedication. It is often one of the reasons given for why women rarely reach a board-level position in an organisation. Balancing the demands of family-life with organisational development is no easy task for anyone.

For the novice networker, Ibarra and Hunter (2007) suggest finding a networking role model and watch and learn. Maybe find an outside interest, say the cinema, and find ways of encouraging it within the organisation and with clients in order to find time to interact with them. Re-allocate your time and workload effectively to find time to network and connect. Nurture your connections. The benefits of networking take time and need constant gardening. In time, it will bloom.

References:

Ibarra H, & Hunter M (2007). How leaders create and use networks. Harvard business review, 85 (1) PMID: 17286073

Singleton, T., & Tarnowska, I. (2010). Take Networking to the Next Level Strategic Finance (February), 19-20

How can you improve your career prospects whilst developing your own learning? Peter Drucker (1999) in his Harvard Business Review article Managing Oneself advocates a lengthy period of reflection on your actions and the resulting outcomes of it. Drucker suggests that through personal Feedback Analysis we can all understand where our strengths lie and work on improving them. We can also see what skill and knowledge gaps need to be improved on and take action to correct them. Overcoming our intellectual arrogance is a priority as it prevents learning from others and thinking more flexibly.

Drucker argues that it is increasingly important that knowledge workers learn to develop themselves so they can be more effective. Work on remedying your bad habits and develop good inter-personal skills to gain the cooperation of your work colleagues. Also, as Pareto’s Principle states, only work on what matters. Direct the 80% of your action towards the 20% that matters to your learning and development. There is no point wasting time on assignments and tasks that will only result in mediocrity and not star performance.

Another area to focus on is how you perform. How do you learn and work in your job? Are you a reader or listener or writer? Personally speaking, I see myself as a writer and talker. I make notes on paper and on my text books. Any book that I read I have to annotate with my own marks and diagrams. I find I remember more by writing things down and then discussing the ideas with others for alternative viewpoints. It is also important to work out whether you work best with others or alone; as a leader or deputy; or better in a large or small organisation. Knowing where you belong is extremely important.

Furthermore understanding your personal values system can help you perform much more effectively. Your personal values need to be compatible with those of the organisation you work for otherwise you will only become frustrated. Drucker believes that successful careers develop when people are prepared for opportunities because they know their strengths, their method of work, and their values. Only then can a person make a difference to themselves and the organisation they belong to.

In making a difference, the results need to be SMART and meaningful. The results should also be visible and measurable. From this standpoint, a course of action will develop. Another important consideration is the impact others may have on your objectives. Knowing your co-workers and their strengths and weaknesses can help you work more effectively with them. It is also important to communicate well. Tell people what you are doing and what you are hoping to achieve. Organisations are made up of people; it’s your responsibility and duty to gain the cooperation and trust of your co-workers through developing good working relationships.

Overall, I found Drucker’s advice actionable and I intend to audit my strengths and embark on more feedback analysis both on a personal level and with others. I also think it is important that I explore my value system so that I can understand where I fit into the world following the completion of my Masters. However, Drucker’s advice is based on anecdotal evidence in this article and not backed-up by hard statistical “facts”. This is slightly worrying for me as acting on someone’s own anecdotal evidence may not be appropriate for my needs or situation.

Obviously I accept that Drucker had an illustrious academic career, but most of what he says seems like common sense rather than “proved” by research. On one hand I believe that as individuals we have choices and responsibilities, but depending on your “professional” career, some people have more choice than others. For instance, I’m fortunate to be able to study full-time and spend time writing my blog and reflecting on my learning. Many people don’t have the luxury of being able to undertake postgraduate study, nor have enough autonomy in their role to direct what assignments they will take on.

I remember an interview situation with a prospective employer where I was asked for an example of a situation in which I turned something negative into a positive result through personal leadership. After I ran through my own anecdotal situation, I was then told that organisations can’t have too many leaders insinuating that too much personal autonomy would not work at that organisation! If Drucker is right that knowledge workers have to manage themselves and behave like their own Chief Executive Officer, personal goals are likely to conflict with the goals of the organisation and other work colleagues. How one balances this dichotomy is no doubt an art rather than a science in my view.

References:
Drucker, F. P. (1999). Managing Oneself Harvard Business Review (March)