Connect with us

Running a Business

Design Your Organization to Withstand Future Disasters

Published

on

In the business literature about crisis and disaster management, there’s a tremendous focus on topics like leadership, communications, and planning. Security personnel and those tasked with making sure companies are prepared tend to be more concerned with the technology and equipment needed to reduce physical and cyber risks. But between crisis leadership and tactical planning, a fundamental structural gap often exists — a dangerous chasm between those in charge and those on the ground.

As companies prepare for crises, they too often fail to take a step back and ask a simple question: How are we designed? I’ve spent years training and advising companies on disaster management and preparedness and have come to believe that good preparedness follows good organization — and bad preparedness can usually be explained by bad organization.

It’s obvious, entering year three of Covid response, that we’re all crisis managers now to some extent. The threats we face — to life, business continuity, property, and reputation — will not end as our masks come off. Company leaders must take inventory of their “architecture of preparedness.” This means focusing less at first on training, protocols, leadership, and communications and more on the company’s internal reporting and governance structure. The fundamental question for all companies now, in an era of recurring disasters, is whether their management and leadership design is safe.

In studying disasters and their consequences for my book, The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disasters, I identified several design flaws that should be addressed before — not if — the next crises comes. To design their company’s management structure to better respond to crises, leaders should focus on the following three areas.

Position

When I teach about crisis management at Harvard’s Kennedy School, my very first class is about design, because the “bones” (i.e., the underlying structure) of an organization matter. I ask a simple question that’s met with wild guesses and blank stares every year: In the U.S. government, where is the U.S. Forestry Service placed? Immediately, some confident students will shout out “Department of Interior.” Having failed, others suggest the EPA. The answer is the Department of Agriculture. Think about what that means, what that placement discloses about how the government once viewed (and still views) forests: as an agricultural commodity, much like cows, corn, or soybeans. For better or worse, by design, trees and forests are in a government agency whose priority is not the environment or protecting historic lands. This placement matters because it informs the Forestry Service’s priorities.

Companies rarely have security personnel placed in permanent leadership roles. Few boards of directors for public companies have a single individual from the security or cybersecurity sector. This is not merely a symbolic challenge: It says to those professionals that their skills or expertise aren’t integral to the company’s leadership. It can impact the capacity to guide budget and staffing priorities, as executives divide up limited resources. It denies relevance: a seat at the table. And if an issue isn’t viewed by management as essential, it won’t be viewed by employees as essential either. Security must be elevated by governance design that shows that it’s as integral to a company’s future as its bottom line.

Often, to compensate for these design flaws or to seem responsible to the outside world, many companies, especially newer technology ones, are creating what they call “trust” or “trust advisory” boards. I don’t know if this is because “trust” seems less intimidating than “security.” These boards tend to be filled with all sorts of experts and former government officials (I’ve served on a few!), but the name — a euphemism — and place — outside of the organization — are telling. They simply consult and give recommendations, and importantly, cannot demand action. They’re literally off to the side and are often for show. Security architecture is serious stuff, and it can’t be relegated to the equivalent of the kids’ table at Thanksgiving. If board directors or internal leaders can’t drive preparedness planning and capabilities, then it won’t get done.

Access

No matter where the security personnel resides within an organization, I’ll often ask CEOs how often they meet with various members of their teams. Their responses are revealing. Many say they meet with the COO several times a day, the CFO at least a few times a week, the general counsel if they must. But as for the chief security officer or equivalent, the answer is often some variation of: “Well, he’s former FBI, so he knows what he’s doing.” This is the wrong answer. If it’s unacceptable for a CEO to delegate all financial or legal responsibility to others in the company, the same should be true for preparedness. A prepared CEO is one who understands that how they focus their attention and demands informs what the company deems as valuable.

In the security world, the capacity of the safety apparatus to have a say in business planning and priorities is called availability. Is the security team accessible when it matters the most? Many institutional leaders would say yes, that they know who to call if something goes wrong. This suggests that leadership doesn’t see security as an enabler, but more as a necessary nuisance or an add-on, the thing to be called rather than the connective tissue for the company. Complicated reporting structures, with safety personnel distributed so they report to different parts of the management structure, such as legal, risk, or strategy, minimizes their influence and capabilities.

Treating security personnel as afterthoughts by limiting their access to leadership is short-sighted and self-defeating. For example, consider the city of Oakland’s long effort to build a new stadium for their baseball team, the Oakland Athletics, at the Howard Terminal (an effort that’s dragged on for so long that it’s been called “a journey of a thousand steps”). The project has run into many delays and roadblocks since the Oakland Athletics Investment Group chose the Howard Terminal site in 2018, one of which was the discovery of numerous safety vulnerabilities that should’ve come into view before they made their selection.

The site was perfect for recreational and investor needs. But because it’s surrounded on one side by water and has just a few exit roads (some of which were consistently blocked by rail and cargo), the advisory review I served on discovered that there was no way for people to leave safely should something calamitous (an earthquake, fire, active shooter situation, etc.) happen. It so threatened the safe and secure flow of Oakland’s major port that Union Pacific railroad even raised opposition.

Where was the Investment Group’s safety team? There was none to speak of, and there was little attempt on the front end to engage other companies, including rail and cargo, and the residents who understood the site’s risks and challenges.

There’s no one-size-fits-all architecture. Ideally, a senior head of safety or security would report directly to the CEO or a senior member of the leadership team. That security official would oversee all aspects of risk policy and guide budgets and personnel with support from the top. Security is too important an issue to hide it down an organizational chart or delegate to outside “experts.” If that’s not feasible given a company’s size or structure, the CEO and leadership team should ensure that security is always represented in budget and priority business decisions before they’re made.

It’s also essential that leaders be willing and engaged when security personnel request their presence at tabletop exercises or training. A monthly briefing is valuable, as risks often change. This kind of familiarity makes a leader fluent and comfortable in a space that’s key to their mission, even if they’re not the one purchasing cyber defenses or building gates around a building.

I once worked for a political leader as his homeland security head, but by statute, I wasn’t a direct report. I told him simply that “you do not win elections on my docket, but you are likely to lose them on it. When I need to see you, make sure I can be seen.” He concurred and told his team the same. The reality that nobody cares about safety until everybody cares should inform a leader’s accessibility.

Unity of Effort

These design changes aren’t simply about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. They’re about ensuring that, should a harm come to pass, the consequences can be minimized and the harm can be reduced. And that can only happen if a company designs for unity of effort in anticipation of the next disaster.

After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, many companies rightfully promoted or hired a CSO, chief security officer. Over the course of the following decade, as companies were experiencing cyberattacks and vulnerabilities, a new leader arose: the CISO, chief information security officer. Now, due to the pandemic, many major companies are hiring CMOs or CHOs, chief medical or health officers. That’s a lot of C-people.

The sentiment is commendable, but the effort means little without some connective tissue. One solution is to appoint a chief of security or preparedness who oversees these efforts. Though all of those C-roles are focused on different threats, a leader’s response is going to be essentially the same whether it’s an active shooter, earthquake, cyber breach, or virus: Execute a plan, minimize the impact, and lead the company. With divided efforts, focuses, and labor, the “chiefs” are often in different reporting and management silos. The problem is: However the ship goes down, the whole ship is going down.

For example, consider the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline in May 2021, which resulted in the pipeline operator having to shut delivery of gas and oil to nearly 45% of the Eastern Seaboard for over a week. Analysts tend to ask how the company could have been so vulnerable. The better question is: How could they have no plan for the how the inevitable cyber disruption would impact their capabilities and lead to a short-term energy crisis as the supply chain shut down?

The company had no choice but to shut down the entire system because it couldn’t effectively monitor gas flow. Companies generally divide systems between operations and information technology. They’re interdependent, which means a risk to one is a risk to the other. Had Colonial had a senior leader overseeing the entire array of potential consequences, the company might have been more prepared. It could have built redundancies or separated key data needs — such as those related to operations and distribution — from business ones — such as payroll — on the network. It might have planned a more sophisticated recovery effort that focused on getting large pipelines moving quickly and relied on trucks and other forms of transportation for local delivery. Instead, what could have been a minor disruption common in cyberspace became a national energy supply challenge.

. . .

Design, as much as a good PR plan or effective training, is an essential aspect of preparedness in an age when disasters will keep coming. Before a company invests in the next cool new security product or appoints a fancy new advisory board, it should first examine its own architecture. Good preparedness comes from strong bones.

Advertisement

This post was originally published on this site

Continue Reading

Leadership

Distributed work is here to stay — how your business can adapt

Published

on

Get up to 30%* off! Get going with GoDaddy!

Close the gap

It’s no secret that the business world and working environments have changed drastically since 2020. With fierce competition in recruiting for skilled labor becoming a critical issue for businesses, having employees in varied locations around the U.S. or even internationally has become an increasingly common solution. It looks like this distributed work model is here for the long haul, so it’s time to get your business on board.

What is distributed work?

Distributed work is defined as a business that has one or more employees who work in different physical locations. This can range from having different in-person office locations, remote work or a blend of the two — often termed “hybrid work.” Large companies having a distributed workforce is nothing new, as having multiple locations allows companies to meet more of their customers’ needs.

The difference now, though, is the massive increase in remote work triggered in large part by the COVID-19 pandemic, ramped-up competition for skilled workers, and how those factors have combined to impact smaller businesses.

If you’re struggling to keep up with today’s workforce demands, take heart. Distributed work can provide some solutions.

Millennial and Gen Z workers strongly prefer flexible working environments and a distributed work policy fits into that preference nicely. Additionally, distributed work structures have the benefits of increased access to international talent, more productive employees and higher job satisfaction.

How to adapt your small business for distributed work

Making the leap to a distributed workforce can feel daunting, but it doesn’t need to be. Software solutions tailored specifically for supporting a distributed work environment can help ease the transition and make your business run efficiently.

In this guide, we’re going to take a look at important adaptations needed to bring your small business up to speed for distributed work and how to accomplish them.

  • Get your business security up to date.
  • Tap into global talent pools.
  • Maintain quality communication between employees.

Let’s take a closer look at each point below.

Get your business security up to date

When remote work exploded in early 2020 due to COVID-19 office closures, it quickly became obvious that improvements to business security protocols were necessary. Now with many businesses planning how their company will operate going forward, security continues to be a crucial consideration.

What are some security considerations important for businesses with distributed work environments? Here are a handful of important security features you’ll want to think about:

1. Avoid losing business documents with automatic saves

The stress from losing hard work or entire documents altogether is something most people have dealt with at some point. Having to backtrack and redo lost work is tedious and unproductive.

The best way to avoid that ordeal? Automated saves.

With Microsoft 365, your Office documents are automatically saved for you. Whether it’s a document in the company Sharepoint or in your own OneDrive account, your hard work won’t go to waste.

Additionally, Sharepoint allows your company to collaborate on documentation without having to worry about whether the current document is the correct version. An average of 83% of the current workforce loses time daily due to document versioning issues. Microsoft 365 makes it easy to avoid lost time and frustration, with the added benefit of simplifying collaboration.

2. Maintain business security across all user devices

In the United States, 68% of organizations reported being hit by a public cloud security incident when polled in 2020. Attacks like these can cripple your business’ productivity and lower public perception of your company as a whole.

Both Sharepoint and OneDrive offer multiple layers of security to keep your business documentation safe on the cloud servers themselves, including:

  • Virus scanning for documents
  • Suspicious activity monitoring
  • Password protected sharing links
  • Real-time security monitoring with dedicated intrusion specialists
  • Ransomware detection and recovery

With these built-in protections, you can keep your company safe no matter where your company’s distributed work happens.

3. Adopt company-wide security policies

Effective company security policies protect your organization’s data by clearly outlining employee responsibilities with regard to what information needs to be safeguarded and why.

Having clear guidelines set ensures that both your company information and your employees are safe from security threats.

Items to include in your security policy might include:

  • Remote work policies
  • Password update policies
  • Data retention policies
  • Employee training guidelines
  • Disaster recovery policies

This list obviously isn’t exhaustive, so we’d recommend using a security risk assessment tool to pinpoint specific areas your business should address.

Note: Social engineering and phishing are major security threats for businesses of all sizes. To avoid becoming a target, your company must implement strong security practices for your users. For example, using a secure two-factor authentication setup can help prevent unauthorized users from accessing company documents.

4. Ensure communications are secured

Having a distributed work environment tends to mean that most (if not all) communications occur digitally. As such, keeping digital communications secure should be a top consideration.

Using Microsoft 365, you can ensure that your communication remains encrypted.

If video calls are a major part of your business needs, Microsoft Teams offers robust encryption for your calls. Additionally, email through Microsoft 365 offers top-tier anti-phishing protection for your business.

To learn more about available tools for secure business communication, refer to the Microsoft documentation here.

Tap into global talent pools

world map on a computer

The pandemic triggered a drastic reshuffling of how workers view their jobs, leading to what has been dubbed the Great Resignation. In the United States, more than 11 million jobs were sitting unfilled as of January 2022. With jobless claims on the decline, the domestic labor pool is small and competitive.

It can be easy to feel overwhelmed as a small company attempting to attract talent in the current labor market. You’ll want to ensure that you’re offering competitive wages and benefits, but it can be difficult to go toe-to-toe with large corporations.

However, this is another instance where distributed work can help. One solution? International talent.

The distributed work model makes employing remote workers worldwide more seamless than ever before.

A few considerations here to keep in mind, though.

  • You’ll need to apply for certification from the U.S. Department of Labor to hire outside the country.
  • Be aware of additional taxes that might result.

For more information, review the official documentation for this process.

Note: The same standards do not apply to international contractors, but there are special considerations for contractors as well. Read this guide for more details.

Maintain quality communication between employees

Successful businesses rely on open communication for everything from keeping employees up to date on company information to maintaining morale. Let’s go over a few ways to implement quality communication in a distributed work environment.

1. Cultivate a healthy work environment

Company culture can feel like an afterthought when your teams work separately from each other. However, cultivating a strong company culture is vital, especially for distributed work environments.

The first step here is to clearly define the company culture that you want. By setting the company standards early, your employees will be able to benefit from a solid starting point.

Second, reinforce the culture that you’d like to create. Setting goals, establishing performance metrics, fostering accountability, building trust with employees, and being open to feedback from workers all help reinforce a healthy company culture.

And third, it’s important to prioritize the mental and physical health of your employees. Encourage vacation time, allow for flexible working arrangements, and make mental health support a priority.

2. Foster open communication

Digital communication is key for distributed work environments, so keeping open and transparent channels for communication is imperative.

Email and chat tools are communication fundamentals, but fostering communication itself can feel a bit daunting.

Here are a few suggestions on building healthy communication for your distributed work teams:

  • Make empathy a priority.
  • Greet employees every day.
  • Create a virtual water cooler to encourage socialization.
  • Announce company updates directly.
  • Give recognition and feedback regularly.

By encouraging clear, focused — but also fun — communication, your teams will grow to trust each other and interteam collaboration can flourish.

Distributed work is the ‘new normal’

Building your business toward a distributed work model is a solid investment in growing your company in the future. Tools like Microsoft 365 offer an all-in-one solution to take the pain out of transitioning your business, so take charge of your business’ future today.



Get Hosting for $1.00*/mo with GoDaddy!

This post was originally published on this site

Continue Reading

Managing people

How to Build a Culture That Honors Quiet Time

Published

on

If you could travel back in time to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to visit the legendary meeting hall where the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were doing their work, you’d find something rather strange.

The street in front of Independence Hall was covered with a giant mound of dirt.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution had ordered the construction of this earthen sound barrier because they were concerned that the noises of horse-drawn carriages, street vendors, and conversations outside would disturb the intense concentration that would be necessary for completing their task. The delegates weren’t going for total monastic silence. The historical records show that there was plenty of vocal debate and disagreement. But there was an underlying recognition that the group needed a quiet container for doing their extremely challenging work. That was the point of the big dirt mound.

Fast forward about 240 years, and you’ll find that lawmakers in the United States have a rather different attitude toward noise. One of us, Justin, worked for several years as a legislative director in the U.S. House of Representatives, and he consistently found that it was too noisy to think. With cable news blasting, Twitter notifications dinging, high-decibel alarms signaling votes, to say nothing of the informational noise that pervades Capitol Hill: endless time-sensitive emails and the constant pressures of networking, politicking, and media management.

The example of this radical shift over 240 years illustrates a simple fact: An organizational culture can be noisy, or it can be quiet.

A World of Noise

There’s empirical evidence that life is noisier than ever before — there are louder and more ubiquitous TVs, speakers, and electronic device notifications in public spaces and open-plan offices. Across Europe, an estimated 450 million people, roughly 65% of the population, live with noise levels that the World Health Organization deems hazardous to health. All this has serious implications for our mental health, our physical health, and our ability to generate creative work.

The meaning of noise can sometimes be subjective. One person’s symphony is another person’s annoyance. We define “noise” as all the unwanted sound and mental stimulation that interferes with our capacity to make sense of the world and our ability to act upon our intentions. In this sense, noise is more than a nuisance. It’s a primary barrier to being able to identify and implement solutions to the challenges we face as individuals, organizations, and even whole societies.

So, how do we transform norms of noisiness? On our teams and in our broader organizations, how can we build cultures that honor the importance of silence?

If we want organizational cultures that honor quiet, there are a few general principles we need to apply to make the transformation. The first is that we have to deliberately talk about it; we need to have clear conversations about our expectations around constant connectivity, when it’s permissible to be offline, and when it’s acceptable to reserve spaces of uninterrupted attention. These conversations can get into deeper cultural questions like whether it’s possible to be comfortable in silence together rather than always trying to fill the space, or whether it’s OK to be multitasking when another person is sharing something with you.

We’ve found that, across different settings and situations, answering the following three questions can help teams begin to honor quiet time.

In what ways do I create noise that negatively impacts others?

Starting a conversation about shared quiet doesn’t just mean seizing the opportunity to point fingers at other people’s noisy habits. The best starting point for a conversation on group norms is a check-in with yourself. How are you contributing to the auditory and informational noise facing the greater collective?

Maybe you unwittingly leave ringers and notifications on full blast. Maybe you “think out loud” or habitually interrupt others. Perhaps you impulsively post on social media or send excessive texts or emails that require responses. Maybe you play music or podcasts in common spaces without checking in with others or jump on important work calls while your daughter is sitting next to you doing her homework.

Take some time to question whether any given habit that’s generating noise is necessary or if it’s really just an unexamined impulse — a default that needs to be reset. If your self-observation doesn’t yield clear insights, ask a truth-teller in your life for observations about how you could do better.

What noisy habits bother me most?

Susan Griffin-Black, the co-CEO of EO Products, a natural personal care product company, tells us that she made a vow years ago to, “never be on my phone or computer when someone is talking to me, no multitasking when I’m with someone else.” She upholds her golden rule, despite having hundreds of employees, a family, and a lot of social commitments.

Like Susan Griffin-Black’s commitment to not multitask in the presence of others, you can set a golden rule for mitigating noise or bringing in more deliberate quiet. Model what you want to see more of in the world. Stop to consider what you value most when it comes to mitigating noise and finding quiet. What personal golden rule reflects that? Or, alternatively, consider what noisy habits bother you most. What golden rule would address those?

How can I help others find the quiet time they need?

In the 1990s, as an executive with Citysearch (now a division of Ticketmaster), Michael Barton noticed a problem. Workers, particularly programmers and developers, were struggling with noise and frequent interruptions in the open plan office. A young analyst at the company offered him an idea: Give each team member a “red sash” — a three-foot-long/three-inch-wide strip of bright red fabric — to wear as a “do not disturb” sign. There would be no stigma involved with wearing it if everyone knew they could simply open their drawer, take out their red sash, put it over their neck, and be considered “out of the office.” Barton took the idea up the chain, and the company decided to try it.

The red sash was not a panacea. It didn’t eliminate many of the problems of noise and interruption. But it was a start. It led to several other experiments, including quiet phone-booth-sized mini-workstations and a hermetic “tech cave” for coding work. More importantly, however, the red sash intervention raised the issue of noise and distraction and opened an important dialogue.

Where it’s appropriate, and when it’s within your influence, consider how you can be a champion for quiet — not just in the whole organization, but specifically for the people who lack the power or autonomy to structure their own circumstances. Maybe you’re in a position in your company where you can call out the plight of an engineer or copywriter who obviously needs a sanctuary from the workplace din. In the personal sphere, maybe you suspect your introverted nephew could use an occasional break from boisterous family events, and you can gently raise the issue with your sibling.

While you can’t set the overall group norms and culture unilaterally on the basis of what you think is right, you can be on the lookout for new ideas to propose or new possibilities for managing the soundscape or enhancing the ambiance, especially ones that serve the interests of those who lack influence.

Transforming Norms of Noise

The participants in the 1787 Constitutional Convention had norms that honored quiet deliberation. Facilitating pristine attention was a shared goal. That big mound of dirt reminded them — and the public — that the point of their gathering was to get beyond distraction in order to do important work. While a mound of dirt would not solve today’s problems (the noise is so often inside our offices and homes), there are ways, as we’ve seen above, to shift organizational cultures with respect to noise and quiet.

At Citysearch, it was the red sash. For Susan Griffin-Black, it’s adhering to a golden rule. But there are many more ways to help create cultures of quiet. At some organizations, it’s “no email Fridays” or “no meeting Wednesdays.” At others, it’s eliminating the expectation of being available and on electronic devices during weekends or after 5 pm. For some workplaces, a redesign of the floor plan might help specific kinds of workers get the focus that they need. One solution might be authorizing uninterrupted blocks of time during the workday. Another might be giving up on the open floor plan and moving the whole office to a new building. For others still, it’s eliminating email as the primary means of communication and turning instead to a twice-daily team update meetings or an electronic system that preserves quiet headspace.

Across our society today, norms of noisiness run deep. Demands like constant connectivity and maintaining a competitive advantage still prevail in most office cultures. Few organizations prize or prioritize pristine human attention. But there are simple strategies we can employ in order to find our own personal sanctuaries and to shift broader cultures. By reclaiming silence in the workplace, we can create the conditions for reducing burnout and enhancing creative problem solving.

Even in an increasingly noisy world, we can be quiet together.

Advertisement

This post was originally published on this site

Continue Reading

Leadership

To Get Results, the Best Leaders Both Push and Pull Their Teams

Published

on

Over the past year, there has been a call for leaders to be less demanding and more empathetic toward individual employees. To get results, managers needed to rely on “pull” — giving employees a say in how they carry a task out and using inspiration and motivation to get them going. But an analysis of thousands of 360-degree assessments showed that the most effective leaders also know how to “push” — drive for results by telling people what to do and holding them accountable. The takeaway? Your efforts to increase empathy shouldn’t diminish your ability to, on occasion, push when needed. The data shows that it can be a strong force that builds confidence among employees. The key is to know when to use which approach, depending on the task, the timing, and the people.

When you see a task that needs to be accomplished by your team, do you “push” them to get it done or do you “pull” them in, giving them a say in how they carry it out and using inspiration and motivation to get them going? These are two very different approaches to reach a goal, and the latter is often the best one, but knowing how to combine these two paths is an important skill for managers and leaders.

Take this example from a client of ours. There had been an ongoing discussion about the company’s policies around the environment and sustainability. The CEO had allowed debate and encouraged everyone to weigh in. The CEO strongly supported the need for change but allowed time for ample discussion (using the pull approach). However, two members of the executive team were naysayers and dragged their feet on enacting any of the proposed initiatives. After two months of inaction, the CEO announced to the team that the company was going to implement two initiatives and stated that everyone needed to get on board (moving to the push approach). One of the executives balked at this and made clear he wouldn’t support the initiatives. The CEO terminated him by the end of the week (using the ultimate push approach).

Leaders who are willing to try hard with pulling but ultimately resort to a strong push provide a good example of the power of the combination of these two approaches. Pushing too hard can erode satisfaction but, at times, is needed, especially when pulling just doesn’t work.

In our research, my colleague Jack Zenger and I identified two leadership behaviors directed at the same end goal but utilizing opposite approaches. We call one behavior “driving for results” (push), and the other “inspiring and motivating others” (pull). Let me define what I mean.

Defining Pushing and Pulling

When a leader identifies a goal that they want to accomplish, there are two distinct paths to get there.

Pushing involves giving direction, telling people what to do, establishing a deadline, and generally holding others accountable. It is on the “authoritarian” end of the leadership style spectrum.

Pulling, on the other hand, involves describing to a direct report a needed task, explaining the underlying reason for it, seeing what ideas they might have on how to best accomplish it, and asking if they are willing to take it on. The leader can further enhance the pull by describing what this project might do for the employee’s development. Ideally, the leader’s energy and enthusiasm for the goal are contagious.

Gathering data from over 100,000 leaders through our 360-degree assessments, we measured both push and pull and found that 76% of the leaders were rated by their peers as more competent at pushing than pulling. Only 22% of the leaders were rated as better at pulling, and a mere 2% were rated as equal on both skills.

We also asked the people rating those leaders (over 1.6 million people) which skill was more important for a leader to do well to be successful in their current job. Pulling (inspiring others) was rated as the most important, while pushing (driving for results) was rated as fifth most important.

Understanding What People Want and Need

While our data is clear that most leaders could benefit from improving their ability to pull or inspire others, our research revealed that leaders who were effective at both pushing and pulling were ultimately the most effective.

We gathered 360-degree assessment data on 3,875 leaders in the pandemic. In this analysis, we did the following:

  • The direct reports rated the leader’s effectiveness on both pushing (driving for results) and pulling (inspiring and motivating others).
  • The direct reports were also asked to rate their confidence that the organization would achieve its strategic goals and their satisfaction with their organization as a place to work.
  • We ranked leaders’ data on pushing and pulling into quartiles and identified those who were low (bottom quartile) and high (top quartile).

The results are captured in the chart below. When both push and pull are in the bottom quartile, both confidence and satisfaction of direct reports are low. When push is high and pull is low, both confidence and satisfaction increase. When pull is high, satisfaction increases to a level substantially above confidence. When both are high, then you see the most significant increase. (Note: High confidence and satisfaction were measured by the percentage of people who marked 5 on a 5-point scale. This is a very high bar for satisfaction.)

Bringing Push and Pull Together

As many leaders across the globe grapple with retention and how to prevent their employees from joining the Great Resignation, they’re asking themselves hard questions. How do you motivate people to stay? How do you encourage them to increase their efforts? What is it they really want and need from their work environments?

Over the past few years, there has been a call for leaders to be less demanding and more empathetic toward individual employees. More pull, less push seemed to be what’s needed to retain talented employees. While I agree with this sentiment, this data also offers a clear warning. Your efforts to increase empathy shouldn’t diminish your ability to, on occasion, push when needed. As our data shows that it can be a strong force that builds confidence.

In fact, your influence as a leader comes from your ability to know when to use which approach, depending on the task, the timing, and the people. So next time you’re trying to accomplish a significant goal, consider whether your team really needs a good push, a big pull, or perhaps both.

Advertisement

This post was originally published on this site

Continue Reading

Trending

SmallBiz Newsletter

Join our newsletter for the latest information, news and products that are vital to running a successful SmallBiz.