Lauren Thomas, program manager at Evans Incorporated, outlines various techniques teachers can use to nurture effective and meaningful learning.
By Emad Elias
So what is this Business Process Reengineering (BPR) stuff anyway?
By James Stakem
When I compare my Marine Corps and corporate experiences, one of the most striking differences is in the language used to describe individuals in the two environments. In the Marine Corps there is a lot of pride in being a Marine. To be a Marine is to be part of something special. In the corporate world, this level of connection to and pride in an organization is rare, maybe non-existent. To be fair, there are significant differences between the military and corporate world; however, there are lessons to be learned from the military about building a culture and team.
Many companies invest heavily in culture, but when leaders in these organizations refer to their employees as assets, resources, direct reports, and the like, they indicate a poor understanding of some of the basic tenets of building a positive team culture. What kind of culture is built when employees in an organization are referred to as resources? The first time I heard the term resource as a reference to an employee was in a job interview. It took me a few minutes to figure out that a “resource” was a human being. As a Marine, I can’t imagine an environment where someone says, “We need to get some ‘resources’ to charge that hill”; however, companies do the corporate equivalent all the time.
This is not to say that the only thing a company needs to do in order to build a culture is to come up with a slick name for the employees. There is a lot more to it than that, and in the case of the Marine Corps, the organization builds esprit de corps in a multitude of ways. That being said, when companies refer to their employees in an impersonal, transactional way, it’s hard to imagine they could build a strong team, regardless of other efforts.
Zappos is an example of an organization that gets it when it comes to culture. CEO, Tony Hsieh says in Your Culture is Your Brand:
“At Zappos, our belief is that if you get the culture right, most of the other stuff — like great customer service, or building a great long-term brand, or passionate employees and customers — will happen naturally on its own”
Unfortunately, some organizations believe that culture is a consequence of an organization’s outputs instead of the other way around. This approach leads organizations to focus on creating products and providing services, and culture becomes an afterthought to be developed in a ten-minute staff meeting exercise.
Other organizations, such as Google, have developed a culture around their people. Employees at Google are called “Googlers,” but building a culture goes much deeper than a simple name. The technology giant doesn’t have a Human Resources department – instead they have People Operations, and there is a reason for the difference. Google’s People Operations department states, “… we’re the champions of Google’s colorful culture.” Laszlo Bock, Google’s Senior Vice President of People Operations, says:
“Nurturing the people in your organization doesn’t require expensive perks or touchy-feely gimmicks. It’s about motivating, engaging and listening – and it can work for anybody”
How motivating and engaging is it when valuable employees are referred to as a resource or direct report? When thinking about joining a company which says, “Our employees are our greatest resource” listen closely to make sure the daily corporate interactions uphold this principle. If you are an organization that espouses to value employees, take some time to make sure your routine language matches the image you portray on the company website. Creating a culture in which employees routinely speak of each other in a way that emphasizes value, connection, and respect is a critical step in creating a positive corporate culture in your organization.
Please share your stories of corporate language in your organizations in the comment section below.
By Brit Nanna
Consider this scenario: You were asked to provide change management support for a sizeable international development effort for a foreign government. It entails implementing broad-sweeping reforms affecting multiple departments. You created a change management strategy and plan you believe will help your client realize its desired outcomes, taking into account every possible challenge you might confront. Like many client environments, you knew the local government was heavily siloed, lacking substantial cross-collaboration between departments. You consequently incorporated the use of cross-functional teams (CFTs) as a means of overcoming these organizational silos and leveraging team members’ diverse expertise as representatives of multiple governmental departments to improve organizational performance. Months pass and despite your efforts, you now find yourself in the implementation phase, and the CFTs are not delivering the expected benefits. Your change efforts seem to be languishing.
In this scenario, like many others, CFTs are not a panacea to the change management challenges of achieving targeted development outcomes in the public sector. Their successful implementation faces a variety of obstacles. The 2012 article by Niall Piercy, Wendy Phillips and Michael Lewis discusses a variety of these challenges, arguing that the successful implementation of a CFT can hinge on a variety of factors, including the support of organizational leadership, as well as organizational culture and structures conductive to cross-functional integration. Successful CFTs also depend on adequate funding support along with the ability to break the status quo and overcome resistance to change. These dependencies expose key challenges to effective CFT implementation discussed below.
When these challenges are addressed during the planning phase, CFTs can be integral to driving transformative and sustainable change necessary to realizing targeted development outcomes both at headquarters and in the field.
Stove-Piped Organizational Structures:
Many governments around the world, at all levels, have a stove-piped public sector, characterized by marked division of labor and tasks with minimal interaction across departments. When attempting change in these environments, it is often difficult to use CFTs successfully, but it is not impossible. In these organizational structures, it is imperative to overcome what may be overarching unwillingness toward CFTs due to potential differences in knowledge and views, which can lead to differing opinions. Furthermore, departments are often working at cross purposes. This goal incongruity is also likely in such siloed environments, resulting in variances in decision criteria and timelines.
Lack of Critical Buy-In from Leadership:
Command-and-control organizational structures and environments lead to a marked dependency on senior leadership for successful change. In these command-and-control environments, senior leadership often struggle to heed advice from the CFT and/or ensure the required structural processes are in place to support the CFT’s work. Senior leadership’s buy-in is critical and the motivation and performance of CFTs will likely suffer without a clear and inspirational vision and agenda from senior leadership. CFTs will also struggle to impact organizational performance and service delivery without sufficient team-building, training and recognition in these top-down organizational structures. CFT members often contend with balancing their day-to-day responsibilities with the additional CFT duties, requiring senior leadership to release staff from certain responsibilities in order to allow them to focus on successfully implementing change within the organization.
Cultural Resistance to Change
In both domestic and international settings, cultural resistance to change can be found among staff, management, and political resistance born out of frustration and pure opposition. For those lower-level employees often removed from the politics of the organization, it may be a challenge to identify the proper modes of motivation for members of the CFT (especially in situations where there are too many consultants, people, papers, reports etc.). Apathy and uncertainty also pose a challenge to motivating lower-level employees to participate in CFT’s as they might have seen too many attempts at change fail. Furthermore, in the public sector, one might encounter those employees that are so entrenched in their positions that it is difficult to remove those that are not on board as they are willing to wait it out and wait for the next change. For management, some senior leadership might perceive they have a lot to lose from the anticipated impacts which may influence their openness to change. Power, control and status concerns also dictate the senior leadership’s level of buy-in and investment in change. At both levels it is critical to identify for each member, “what is in it for me?”
Also in these command-and-control organizations, change is often implemented from the top down and it can be difficult to put forward different ways of thinking especially in terms of productivity that lack that grassroots buy-in. Piercy, Phillips and Lewis (2012) note that if change is not communicated effectively it may promote the traditional view that change is done to lower-level employees by the corporate center.
Conceptualizations of Change
The success of CFTs is also dependent on the conceptualization of change and how it is perceived in that particular environment. Like in various organizations across the United States, the idea of change in international settings can also be just as unsettling. Whether it is redefining change as “business readiness” or finding other angles from which to approach it, the concept of change and how it is communicated to CFTs or otherwise is another critical consideration. How the members of the CFT understand change will also dictate their level of investment and efficacy in their work to implement the change.
In sum, while the implementation of CFT’s and change efforts may be done with the best of intentions, there are a number of considerations to take into account when seeking to implement them successfully. This is not to detract from the value of the CFT’s as they stand to strongly benefit any change effort and there are opportunities for overcoming these challenges, which include:
- Ensuring there is a clearly articulated vision and agenda indicating the target future state of the agency or organization, and maintaining a laser focus on this state throughout the change effort
- Using what Piercy, Phillips, and Lewis (2012) term, a ‘hybrid model,’ in building your CFT in which members are not solely cherry-picked but also have the opportunity to volunteer, enhancing the credibility of the program through their bolstered sense of ownership
- Communicating to senior leadership how it benefits them as leaders to relinquish some control in order to empower CFTs in their change efforts
- Empowering CFT members as change agents by identifying and channeling their underlying motivations when communicating the value of change, and building their capacity for change
- Identifying new ways to promote participation in the CFT; such as offering training to help increase pay grades, providing learning opportunities, or framing it as an opportunity to strengthen one’s resume
- And perhaps most importantly, developing a change strategy at the onset that addresses the human factors as well as the right technical solution, expediting the adoption of new systems/ways of working and managing dips in productivity (For more information about Evans CAARMA methodology please select the following link).
When working to achieve key development outcomes it is important to understand that delivering the right technical solution is never enough as human factors also have to be considered. In doing so, cross-functional teams provide an opportunity to achieve transformative and sustainable change. What are your thoughts on establishing a successful cross-functional team?
By Margit Jochmann
Have you ever found yourself in a meeting where everyone present dives right into discussing the subject matter at hand, without introducing the new folks in the room? Or, have been part of a project team where some members are clearly experts in a field, but for others you are not quite sure how they relate to the mission at hand? Then you, or your team, may be missing out on some of the valuable knowledge available at your fingertips or may take longer to find the solution needed.
Teams are typically comprised of a diverse set of team members, with different expertise, skills and specialized domains. For example, a project team developing a new IT automation platform may include staff with project management background, various engineering disciplines, business representatives, user representatives, etc. – all together representing a wealth of knowledge available to the team to effectively design and deliver a solution. However, making use of this knowledge pool and its benefits requires knowing who knows what and who is good at what.
So, How Do You Tap Into Your Team’s Knowledge?
The underlying mechanism: In 1985, Wegner introduced a concept that is an important mechanism to understand in this context – “transactive memory.” He discovered that people in close relationships are much better and faster at remembering certain information and solving certain tasks than two people that do not know each other – due to a division of labor and specialization taking place over time. This happens because we are aware of our mental strengths and limits, and we are good at understanding the abilities of others. Hang around a workmate long enough and you begin to realize that while you are terrible at remembering your corporate meeting schedule, or how long a kilometer is relative to a mile, they are great at it. You begin to subconsciously delegate the task of remembering “that stuff” to them, treating them like a notepad or encyclopedia.
Shared remembering: In a transactive memory system, we share the work of remembering, which makes us collectively smarter and expands our ability to understand the world around us. Each person in a team doesn’t need to remember everything the team needs to know, remembering who knows what and how to access that information is what matters. Thus, a transactive memory system can provide teams with more and better knowledge than any individual could access on his or her own.
Teams Benefitting Most
- Requiring innovation
- Involving diverse sets of knowledge
- Requiring efficient coordination between team members
… all features typical for many project teams.
Transactive memory may not be helpful for all kinds of teams or work though, for example, when little specialization is required.
Developing a Strong Transactive Memory System
Communication and interaction. Team members learn about each other’s expertise through sharing knowledge and seeking information from others.
- How to share: Opportunities for “who did what” type conversations and getting to know each other can range from water cooler encounters to targeted team-building sessions. At a minimum, take a few minutes to introduce each other when new team members join.
- What to share: Consider different kinds of knowledge beneficial for sharing. This can include “hard” aspects such as education, certifications, specialized domains etc., as well as “softer” aspects such as personal strengths or preferences.
Joint training on the task supports the development of transactive memory. The interactions taking place during joint training allow for learning about team members’ skills or the lack of knowledge in certain areas and help to assess the accuracy and reliability of this information.
Sharing relevant documentation. While face-to-face interaction is most effective, transactive memory can also be fostered without interaction, for example, by sharing documentation on task-relevant information regarding team members’ knowledge, skills, and domains of expertise.
Contributing to Team Success
A strong transactive memory system within a team contributes to its success, both at a task and (inter)personal level, through providing:
- Quick access to large amounts of knowledge
- Increased specialization – division of responsibility on different kinds of knowledge allows team members to broaden their own knowledge in a specific area, thus allowing for more innovation
- Improved decision making processes
- Increased satisfaction and sense of identification within the team, for example, by better alignment between task assignments and qualifications
- Increased coordination and efficiency – the shared understanding regarding interpersonal relations and different expertise domains, enables members to better predict and anticipate how others would behave, leading to well-coordinated and efficient interactions
So, Are You Making the Most of Your Team’s Knowledge? Do You Know Who Your Knowledge Experts Are?
 Introduced by Wegner, Giuliano, and Hertel (1985) and Wegner (1986)
By Lauren Thomas
I am often asked whether coaching can really change a leader’s behavior, or transform the way they lead. Sometimes the question arises from people who are considering coaching. Others have a personal interest in discovering more about the coaching relationship. Sometimes the question stems from someone with a challenging relationship with a leader who may possess stronger strategic, operational or technical skills than interpersonal skills. Occasionally the people asking the question are very confident in their own abilities to lead, generally dismissive of the idea of coaching, and assert that they cannot see any benefit! Asking whether a coach can change someone’s behavior is a bit like asking how many psychologists it takes to change a light bulb. Of course, the answer is that the light bulb has to want to change – as does the leader being coached. Interestingly, I find that the reason why people ask about coaching in the first place can provide valuable insight into their motivation and willingness to change.
Someone who is already considering a coaching relationship may already have a degree of self-awareness, understand that there are areas where they could enhance their performance, and be motivated to discover more. This attitude is often found among those who understand that leadership is human-centered. Sustaining a vision, delivering a major change, or leading an investment program are all important leadership activities. Yet the very best leaders manage to achieve these accomplishments indirectly, through other people. These leaders often engage in self-reflection to gauge the extent to which they can fine-tune their performance. In such instances, coaching the leader is like coaching a sporting champion. The performance gains are likely to be incremental, but once a new technique is mastered, it can have a marked impact, not just on the leader, but on the people led. While the tweaks and adjustments may be small, when they are intentional and deliberate, consistent and visible, they can help refine a leader’s performance. In these cases, coaching is really about maximizing personal effectiveness and interpersonal influence.
Leadership for technical experts
For the second group of people, the gains from coaching can be more dramatic. We have all worked with challenging leaders – leaders who may lead in name, rather than by example, and who don’t seem to understand our perspective. So how do leaders who are not “people-people” get into leadership roles? Organizations often need to promote technical and operational specialists to management and leadership positions. Some experts welcome the progression, while others feel they have to take the role when it is offered, because not to take it would send the wrong message. Such progressions are not always supported with adequate and appropriate training and education. Even where development opportunities are provided, there may be little encouragement or incentive for a new leader to try new approaches. Many technical specialists who struggle with the human element of leadership do not see the value of people management until difficulties arise. For leaders who value competence highly, as most technical specialists do, coaching may have negative connotations. It may be viewed as remedial support or performance management, rather than as a positive intervention to help them become even more effective in their roles. In these situations, coaching can help leaders see themselves as others see them and develop their own strategies and style for dealing with the people issues that they find most challenging to handle.
For the third group of people, I wonder whether their direct reports share their confidence in their own ability to lead. Sometimes their self-confidence is more than justified, but sometimes it is not. How many of us would readily challenge someone who repeatedly told us they were a wonderful leader? Most people would be reluctant to directly respond, especially if that person was in a more senior role. Would we be more likely to smile, and say something positive about one of their strengths? Or possibly even change the subject and let them believe what they want to believe? There are many reasons why people may prefer to not provide their leaders with feedback:
- Respect for someone who is in a more senior position
- Concern about possible reaction from the leader
- Not wanting to be seen as someone who provides negative feedback
- Concern about repercussion on own career prospects and development opportunities
Even where a leader’s confidence in his or her people’s management abilities is accurate, it can sometimes be rooted in opinion rather than objective feedback. It can be challenging for senior leaders to obtain objective, honest feedback on their own leadership style. Much depends on being able to ask in an appropriate way, the nature of their relationships with direct reports and peers, and the organizational culture. This problem is compounded by the “Whispers” game that occurs in organizations, where people can be somewhat reluctant to pass negative information to senior management. We often filter what we say to our leaders, especially when that information relates to their interpersonal style. In these instances, coaching can serve as a mirror, allowing leaders to see where their confidence is justified, and where there may be a mismatch between their beliefs and what others see.
Seeing yourself as other see you
Whatever the motivation for asking about coaching, there can be few leaders who are not interested in what people really think about them. There are many tools a coach can use to support leaders. One instrument valuable for its focus on leadership competencies is the CPI260. This self-completion questionnaire provides a view of the leader as seen by others, in key competency areas of self-management, organizational capabilities, team building and teamwork, problem-solving and sustaining the vision. The CPI260’s design does this without needing to use 360° feedback from other people. The CPI260 can be used with established, high-performing leaders and with emerging leaders seeking promotion from more operational or technical roles. Its valuable insights into leadership style enable the CPI260 to win over leaders who are initially skeptical about the benefits that coaching can deliver. Coaches like the way it supports personal insights for clients. However, whether change really results from coaching, with or without the CPI260, depends on a number of factors. It depends on the reasons and motivations for seeking coaching, the nature of the coaching relationship, the skill of the coach, and ultimately, by how much the leader really wants to change.
By Bob Etris
Implementing something new that requires changes to multiple underlying systems is no simple task. The field of portfolio management and the various best practices associated with it have matured over time to address this issue. Simultaneous changes to multiple systems that aim to yield a singular outcome and achieve a common set of objectives require doing more in parallel. That parallel activity, unless properly integrated and coordinated, tends to increase the risk to the overall project and ultimately makes it more challenging to accomplish the task at hand.
The link below provides a reference to a presentation recently delivered by my colleague, Jack Moore and I at the 59th Annual Air Traffic Control Association Conference. While the points made in the presentation are focused on implementing capabilities within the National Airspace System (NAS), the themes with respect to reducing risk in any portfolio-based approach to change ring true in other domains beyond aviation. Here are a few of the key takeaways:
Implementing simultaneous changes to multiple systems requires a greater level of planning than for changes to one system. While planning and allocating the requirements to the other affected projects or programs is a necessary prerequisite, implementing complex change requires a different approach to detail, design, software development, deployment, and ongoing sustainment. At each point along the way, a change in any one area has a likelihood of impact in more than one person, organization, or stakeholder. In the broadest sense, one of the best ways to mitigate this risk is through the careful design of appropriate governance processes to manage and prioritize issues as they arise while ensuring decision making authority includes the appropriate stakeholder communities.
Ongoing maintenance of a new function or capability that spreads across multiple systems presents a potential philosophical challenge with respect to the (potentially different) maintenance approaches of the underlying technologies. For instance, if a user finds a problem with the capability and calls the help desk, that help desk call needs to be triaged by multiple teams with multiple sets of expertise looking at both the root causes in the source systems as well as the integration points across those systems and how they interact. As an organization takes on more and more of these capabilities with multiple integration points, the design of the organizational IT support structure must be aligned to serve the changing needs of its mission.
Integration has a cost, and that cost must be taken into account in the lifecycle planning and execution of this sort of work. This includes not just the integration costs associated with the software development activity, but costs associated with integrated outreach to users, coordination of test activities across multiple platforms and long-term sustainable occasions for maintenance and enhancement activities to both the underlying systems and the capabilities that span them.
At Evans Incorporated, we believe our human centered approach to understanding the organizational and business systems that govern these types of changes best positions our customers to reduce their risk and ultimately save money otherwise spent on escalating scope and schedule challenges.
By Omoefe Abugo
When Congress asks the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit a government agency or program, it generally investigates areas of fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement and areas thought to be in need of broad reform. When the GAO looked at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS) management of HealthCare.gov, it found several factors that contributed to its painful and delayed launch. The GAO found the CMS-led initiative to be a high-risk program for many reasons, among them being: unclear guidance, lack of quality assurance plans and inadequate accountability functions. Our experience with complex organizations has enabled us to help program offices avoid such issues and adopt effective program management and balance crucial program factors.
When faced with a large-scale initiative, there will always be complex challenges and unforeseen problems to solve. When CMS set out to design, develop and launch the complex environment and suite of components known as HealthCare.gov, various issues arose that impeded a successful launch. According to the GAO’s Report to Congressional Requesters, these issues led to major unaddressed performance gaps, millions of dollars in cost overruns and a seriously flawed rollout of the HealthCare.gov website on Oct. 1, 2013.
There were several problems that plagued CMS’ launch of the healthcare program, but the failure to adopt established program management (PM) best practices proved to be the weakest link of the HealthCare.gov initiative. The GAO report and testimony by GAO officials point to failure to adhere to effective planning and oversight practices, despite the challenges and level of risk required for effective oversight. These failures led to scope creep, over-obligation of funding to contracts, and a decision to launchwithout verification that the site met its performance requirements.
In managing a program as complex as Healthcare.gov, CMS leadership should have placed greater emphasis on the human element of program management across its many components and over 60 contracts to ensure that the workforce and stakeholders remained informed and aligned for the transformation ahead.
Certainly, for an initiative of this size, the program office must lead from a clearly defined and communicated set of objectives. Evans’ Game-Changing Program Management approach uses these implemented objectives to drive day-to-day efforts in ensuring program effectiveness:
- Clear organizational goals for program management
- PM standards that are aligned with the organization’s process maturity
- Improved organizational effectiveness and efficiency
- Increased stakeholder and customer satisfaction
- An audit-ready program office
- A value-added and balanced quality assurance function
- Metrics that realistically track program performance
The Project Management Triangle (PMT), also known as the Triple Constraint, tells program managers that every project is balanced on three supporting beams: schedule, cost and quality. Basically, if you want something done well and fast, the price will rise.
If a program manager wants something done well and for a low price, it will take longer to achieve favorable results. The main point: you can only pick two of the three sides of the PMT. For a program to achieve the objectives mentioned above, one must define which constraints it will operate around. Otherwise, less favorable tradeoffs will be made. Unfortunately for CMS, the quality of the project failed and cost accountability evaporated. The deadline for the website became more important than the website’s ability to handle influxes of millions of users. Wanting it fast began to overcome wanting it right. Confusion about who had the authority to approve contractor requests and expend funds crippled CMS’ ability to implement an effective accountability system. According to the GAO’s Report, this led to more than $200 million in piled fees, and no improvements in HealthCare.gov’s effectiveness.
During a high-visibility, high-stress project like HealthCare.gov, it is crucial for the program office to leverage a balanced quality assurance function that helps to assess its process strengths and weaknesses. Instead of establishing a dependable quality assurance function, project roles and requirements were often unknown and unclear. What did this mean for CMS? Every action it took involved great risk. Unfortunately, CMS failed to put measures in place to alleviate these dangers, such as:
- Clarified roles and responsibilities
- Established best practices
- Governance approvals
- Accountability functions
As HealthCare.gov’s lifecycle matured, it should have been able to demand more of its contractors and workforce and expect optimized performance and results. However, little to no risk management challenged the program office’s ability to properly facilitate each step of the institutionalization of HealthCare.gov. The program managers could not right-size their use of program standards to make HealthCare.gov more effective because the standards were unclear and unknown.
Communication always tends to be the fall guy when a project fails or performs inadequately, but in this situation, it would be unfair to blame poor communication. If CMS’ program office had implemented strict program management best practices, set rigorous performance expectations and established flexible, adaptive objectives at each level of HealthCare.gov’s process maturity, perhaps we would have seen a more successful, efficient launch.
If you would like more information on our Game-Changing Program Management approach, please contact us at 703-663-2480 or at firstname.lastname@example.org.
We welcome comments and discussion on this blog below!
by Emad Elias, MBA, PMP
Is this man lying? Yes! Most of us are born with an ability to be incredibly intuitive about facial expressions and body language as a basic survival instinct. As we learn to defend ourselves, this ability gradually erodes. Can we “reawaken” this ability?
In January, 1998, President Bill Clinton gave his State of the Union address. For those of us that either have an inherent ability to “read people” or have developed it, it was clear that Bill Clinton was not being honest in the latter days of his presidency. A quote from the New York Post: “President Clinton stuck his chin out, flared his nostrils and blinked a mile a minute — signs he was a little sorry, a little angry and terribly nervous body language experts said last night.”
According to Patti Wood, a body language expert, feelings, emotions, and decisions are generated by tone of voice and the timing of words as they follow specific gestures. As Barak Obama speaks, it almost doesn’t matter what he’s saying because the cadence and rhythm of his voice create good feelings similar to the way a song you like can make you get up and dance.
Why Body Language is Important
Most of us ask ourselves these two questions to account for 80-90% of how we evaluate others: “Do I like this person?” and “Do I respect this person?” According to Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist), nonverbals and body language may have a bigger influence than what’s actually being said. If you put in perspective that many of us do not often question our self-image, and probably have an idealized view of ourselves, it makes sense that we may be consistently giving signals that are not necessarily intended to be communicated.
Your Body Speaks for You in Meetings
Meetings are a large part of nearly every job. Charalambos Vlachoutsicos, an Adjunct Professor at Athens University of Economics and Business in Greece, suggests we consider asking ourselves the following questions before our next meeting:
- When did I last eat? Physical conditions have a powerful impact on one’s emotional and physical state, and on the body language colleagues will be watching. If you haven’t eaten for several hours, do so. Make sure you’ve visited the toilet recently. Be careful about having that extra cup of coffee just before an important meeting.
- Do I have issues with anyone I’m meeting? Suppose you are irritated with a particular subordinate. Your irritation could come through in the way you talk or position your body in relation to her (are you closed off, are your arms folded?), which could well inhibit her from making a useful contribution. Before going into a meeting, note the issues and feelings you have with the people with whom you will be engaging.
- Am I prepared? If you aren’t prepared for a meeting you’ll have to rely on winging it. In that case you will concentrate on making sure you keep up with the discussion and don’t show your ignorance. People who aren’t well prepared end up compensating by taking a lot of airtime to make others think that they are well informed. So, whatever body language faults they have get amplified. What’s more, they are unlikely to think about their body language if they are concentrating on winging it. So if you’re not prepared it’s better to postpone a meeting until you are or admit that you are not. If you can’t or won’t do either of these, the best thing is to keep quiet and make sure you’re better prepared the next time.
- Am I fidgeting? If you’re fairly still and listening then all is probably well. But if you’re shifting about in your chair, drumming your fingers, doodling or, worst of all looking at your phone (Statistic: Of working professionals with a salary of more than $30K, during meetings, 86% think it’s inappropriate to answer phone calls, and 84% think it’s inappropriate to write texts or emails), then you can be pretty sure that the person talking is likely to be feeling that you’re not interested in what they have to say. Is your pose attentive or are you leaning back with arms folded, indicating impatience or withdrawn skepticism? Smiling helps many people stay calm and attentive.
- Am I interrupting? In any healthy debate people will occasionally interrupt. But if you do it a lot, people may feel that you’re not open and not listening carefully to what they are saying — or indeed that you’re overcompensating for your ignorance. Asking yourself if you’re interrupting too much also leads naturally thinking about how you are communicating with your body, expressions, and gestures: are you acknowledging the other people, are you smiling at them or looking angry?
Some Tips to Project Confidence and Improve Engagement
We all have so much on our minds these days. If you’re particularly distracted, and have already practiced a technique to focus your attention, such as taking a few deep breaths or physically moving around for a few minutes, here’s what you can do to projecting confidence:
- Assume the Superman position – do not fold your arms across your body but instead keep them at your side or on your hips
- Control Your Hands – Hand gestures come naturally to most of us, and they help us emphasize important points. To avoid flailing when a discussion heats up, keep your hands between your shoulders and your waist. Touching your face, neck or hair are also weak moves
- Keep Your Head Level – While a tilted head can express interest in a personal conversation, it can come off as a sign of acquiescence
- Keep eyes on your audience – Make eye contact with other people in the room, and read their signals. If you catch them using their phones or computers, do something slightly unexpected, like changing your voice level or tempo or asking a question
Evans Incorporated coaches leaders to be effective, not with techniques or systems, but rather with old fashioned and genuine collaboration through honesty, integrity and structured communications. Change Management can be extremely valuable as all of us strive to improve our communities through carefully considered and planned infrastructures, even to the point of how our body speaks for us.