The Dayton Daily News had an article today about a woman who completed all 2,184 miles of the Appalachian Trail. She did it in parts over several years. 33 miles here, 245 there. She slowly but effectively made progress toward her goal. 

Years ago I  backpacked parts of the trail, mostly in North Carolina and Virginia. And I have walked parts of the trail in other states. I enjoy reading about the trail. Bill Bryson's A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering America on the Appalachian Trail is a favorite. 

I would like to have walked the entire trail. But I never made it a goal as many people have. And that is the difference in many aspects of life and careers. Goal setting. Do you have goals? Do you know where you would like to be in 10 years, 5 years, one year? Do you have plans to get there? What do you need to do this year? This month? This week? Today? Do you have your personal goals in writing, typed on your computer, visible on your smartphone? Are they specific? Are they measurable? Are they achievable? At least once a year I set aside time to revisit my goals in various aspects of my work and life. I have a written list and have done this for many years. In my opinion a major key to personal and organizational success at all levels is goal setting. 

I have blogged about pursuing dreams. The backpacker in the DDN story had a dream. She set goals, made plans, took action. She could have failed. But she pursued her dream to the best of her ability and succeeded. The DDN article quoted her:  "A dream is only a dream until you step out and make it a reality." Goal setting.

Image adapted from http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-4555694835/slideshow. By Brandon Feagan.
Used with permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Front page of The Washington Post today: “More workers told to cut tether of e-mail.”  The report cited a Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) survey that about 25% of companies have formal or informal policies limiting afterhour and weekend e-mails.  The article cited several organizations that have done away with or experimented with doing away with weeknight and weekend e-mail communications.  Workers tend to like the freedom from 24/7 e-mails and other communications. The Post stated some companies see this as part of work/life balance.

The SHRM survey cited in the Post was reported by SHRM.org on July 16, 2012. The 2011 survey found that the vast majority of companies let employees determine how much to use e-mail and other communications after hours and weekends.  Furthermore it is difficult to determine the extent of the “cut tether of e-mail” movement.  SHRM surveyed over 2500 HR professionals, randomly selected members of SHRM. Only 12% answered the survey, that is 322.  Do one in four companies have formal or informal policies? Given the small sample, it is difficult to tell. No item nonresponse analysis was reported in the SHRM results. It is possible companies with such policies were more likely to respond than companies who do not, thus inflating the results.  

Of the 84 HR professionals who reported their companies have work/life balance policies, only 22 people indicated their supervisors discouraged nonworking time e-mails and communications. SHRM suggested that, “In some cases, these limits might be put in place to be compliant with Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requirements for nonexempt staff.”

The question of  e-mails and phone calls during nonwork hours is important, subject to debate, and needing research. My guess is that many people are bombarded with e-mails in their nonwork time, find it annoying, disruptive to their private lives, and dislike. Their lives would be greatly improved if they did not have these afterhour communications. But wanting to be seen as team players and keep their jobs or hopes for promotions, they answer the e-mails and phone calls. On the other hand, there are those who do not compartmentalize their lives, who really do not have nonwork time, who have no problem with these communications. The Howard and Bray AT&T studies reported in Managerial Lives in Transition clearly indicated the people who reach the top of corporate America eat, live, and breathe their jobs. And there are some jobs where by necessity, communications during nonwork hours are critical, even a matter of life and death. Physicians, firemen, police for example.

So in your organization are the e-mails and communications after the workday reasonable or a burden? Does management need to review the amount of work communications expected during employees’ private time? Is it pervasive, affecting quality of life?  There may be areas within organizations where more thoughtful and respectful climates can to be created. 

Who are the primary beneficiaries of services or products produced by your organization? How much contact do your employees have directly with these beneficiaries? Or how much contact do they have with internal customers impacted by their work? Research suggest that when employees “see the tangible, meaningful consequences of their actions for a living, breathing person” (Grant, 2012, p. 459), they see their jobs as more meaningful and performance increases. Adam Grant discussed this in a recent Academy of Management Journal article.  In studies in private industry and government he found that transformational leaders need to do more than provide a compelling vision through inspirational words. Leaders need to provide opportunities for employees to experience the impact of that vision by employees interacting with beneficiaries. In the private sector study Grant found that a leadership initiative “enhanced sales and revenue, but only when employees had contact with a beneficiary” (p. 470).

Imagine working on a product but never seeing people experiencing the benefits of that product. Imagine being so removed from a service, in the service chain, that you never see the impact of your work on the next person in the chain, much less the end user. An e-mail from a former student telling me about a course or idea that helped professionally can be the highlight of my week.

I am reminded of  Know Your Customer by Woodruff and Gardial, in my opinion the most important book I have read on producing customer value. At the core is really knowing your customer. Not thinking you know your customer but really knowing your customer. That means interacting with your customers on their turf, seeing your products and services through their eyes. Woodruff and Gardial talk about a boat manufacturer who gained a competitive advantage after he went boating with a customer and got a new insight into how the boat was piloted. 

Incorporating beneficiary contact into jobs and activities may be a key to enhanced productivity in your organization, or your part of an organization. Use the Crawford Slip Method (I have permission to share) and ask employees how contact with beneficiaries could be increased. Then use the results.

Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effect of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, No. 2, 458-476. 


Image:"Busy people maintaining boat" by Steve Hillebrand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Obtained from Google Advanced Image Search. Public domain.

In the fall of 2011 I gave a presentation with Dr. Nancy Waldeck at the meeting of  the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. We argued that the leadership literature overall is a mess. J. R. Meindl has stated, “It is easier to believe in leadership than to prove it.”  Most studies of “leadership” can easily be viewed as studies of “management”. That is not to say that leadership is not real or important. Ask the Denver Broncos now that they have Peyton Manning.  Ask the New York Jets how Tim Tebow affects team attitudes. Both lead. No, the problem is operationally defining it and measuring. That’s tough.

In my opinion the transactional – transformational view of leadership (Burns, Bass) is useful. I would argue though that transactional leadership, the day to day process of getting things done, is what most would call management. Transformational leadership is what most would consider to be leadership.  At the heart of leadership is the ability to inspire individuals or groups to go above and beyond just doing what they have to do to meet job requirements. 

David Houglum of Gonzaga University had a thoughtful article, “Myth-busters: Traditional and Emergent Leadership”, earlier this year in  the journal, Emergence: Complexity & Organization. In a nutshell he argued that servant-leadership as formulated by Robert Greenleaf is a better approximation to the kind of leadership today's complex organizations need. So much of organizational dynamics cannot be controlled – or predicted – by leaders. Our organizations need leaders who want to serve others, who genuinely listen, have a commitment to building community, who seek to heal and help. And do so in a manner consistent with perceptions of humility and perhaps even grace. Not exactly the model in vogue these days. 

We need more thinking about the nature of inspiration. Is it part of a charismatic personality? Or can it be situational? Can you inspire others and not be aware that you are so doing? Or can inspiration come from a different place, perhaps the heart of a servant leader? 

The Dayton Daily News today featured the retirement of a local Air Force leader. The non-commissioned officer (NCO) achieved the rank of Chief Master Sergeant, a rank achieved by less than 1% of the enlisted force. When asked what he had learned during his 30 years of service, he replied: “I learned that in order to be an effective leader, you must give respect down the chain. In other words, you should respect our young airmen and NCOs just as you would respect a colonel or a general officer.” 

Sometimes leaders forget that respect is a two-way street. If you want or expect respect from your direct reports, then you should respect them. And whether or not you respect them will be evident in your actions – or perhaps more importantly, your lack of actions. 

Marius Pretorius and Ingrid le Roux (2012) recently published a study, “A Reality Check for Corporate Leaders: When Managers Don’t Respect Their Bosses” in the journal Strategy & Leadership. They surveyed middle managers in the banking industry of South Africa. I think their results are applicable to most organizations. They concluded:

“The main insight for managers who want to develop their leadership potential is that they are as likely to be judged by what they do not do, rather than what they do  . . . managers not recognizing subordinates’ contributions and not sharing information with them.”

Part of conversations about leader and leadership development should include the perceived effects of not listening to subordinates, failure to give feedback, failure to acknowledge contributions. Respect nurtures respect. Respect cannot be directed. Only earned. 

Do you have an open door policy? Do your leaders? Does your organization? Are the policies effective? I was reminded of open door policies while reading a 2011 Forbes.com article by Carmine Gallo, “The 7 Secrets of Inspiring Leaders,” the secrets he discusses at length in his book of similar name.  Over the years I have known managers who say they have open door policies but they really didn’t. Without a culture of trust, open doors are not open. 

Almost 20 years ago Aaron Shenhar wrote in the Leadership & Organization Development Journal that “an open door is very often only a myth,” that telling employees “the door is open  . . . is not enough.” Shenhar continued:

“Why is it that so many managers are convinced that their door is open, while it is actually closed, or at least perceived to be closed by their subordinates? . . . Even honest statements made by management, that their doors are open to employees, do not seem to be able to break the barriers. . . Only a genuine, open-door policy that functions frankly and regularly can create among employees the feeling that someone is listening and cares, and only then will it be possible to crack these invisible walls.” 

Marissa Mayer’s open door when she was a Google VP is an example of a successful policy. Gallo mentioned Mayer in his Forbes article but provided more detail in his 2006 BusinessWeek piece.  Mayer held office hours daily from 4:00-5:30 p.m. Employees could sign up on a board outside her office. First come – first served. She sometimes had as many as 15 meetings during these office hours. 

Mayer's daily open door time represents a strong commitment. But I do like the idea of a time on the schedule for the open door. Even if just once or twice a week.  Open doors can greatly benefit leaders willing to truly listen, leaders who respect others.

The Wall Street Journal this morning has a page 1 article describing visual experiments with "change blindness", "This Isn't Candid Camera, It's a Science Project." In the experiments a stranger asks a person for directions. An object comes between them,  such as a door being moved, briefly hiding the stranger from view. After it passes the person continues to give the stranger directions failing to notice the stranger is now a different person. Change blindness occurs when we fail to notice changes. 

The WSJ article did not contrast change blindness and inattentional blindness, an equally important concept. With inattentional blindness we fail to perceive things that are there. Here is an excellent video from NOVA explaining these differences.

While the videos and WSJ article are discussing vision, both of these concepts are also useful in understanding organizational decision making. Sometimes we fail to notice changes around us. Businesses must be vigilant. Corporate IBM in the early 1980s was still in a big mainframe mode even while some of its employees were doing pioneering work on the personal PC. The change was coming but not really seen. Case studies indicate it took Microsoft and Intel to get IBM's attention. Change blindness.

On the other hand, inattentional blindness occurs when information is staring you in the face and you just don't see it. You are losing customers steadily but you write it off as a fluke.  What you think you see -- or what you fail to see -- can impact you on many levels, in your organizational life and your personal life. 

"How would you feel about working for others, and working hard to pursue someone else's dream?"  "How do we let ourselves focus on what we love, and to live our dream?" These questions were raised in comments to a recent blog. Here are some thoughts:

People work for several reasons.  Probably for most, the most fundamental reason is pay. In most societies, we need income to buy goods and services. In the current economy there are many who just want a job, any job, that can put a roof over their heads and food on the table. Beyond that, we are social animals. We need other people. The workplace can be like a second family, functional or dysfunctional. We find part of our identity in what we do in our jobs. For some it can also provide a sense of our place in community, a perception of status. 

We seek the best person-job match we can given our economic situation. For some the dream is that paycheck and the resources just to enjoy life. In hiring, employers should provide realistic job previews. But in my opinion it comes down to organizational leadership. Not just at the top but at every level. From first line supervisors to CEOs, leaders should actively listen, translate the company vision, and create a culture to which people want to belong. For some their lives in these organizations will fulfill, or potentially fulfill dreams. But for others, that is not enough. 

What if you have a dream? What if you want to create a business, pursue another career?  Then you do what you can do within the reality of your situation. Sometimes leadership can play a role here also -- opportunities and support. I am reminded of a man I know who worked in the construction business. It was a paycheck. He was a fine worker but his dream was to be a writer. He wrote in the morning before going to work. He wrote at night. He wrote on weekends. He did this for five years. Eventually he sold his first article to a national magazine. He decided to take the plunge. He told the owner of the construction company that he was taking off six months to pursue his dream of being a writer. He would appreciate it if should he fail, six months from now there would a job somewhere for him in the construction company.  The owner replied, "Have you figured out how much money you need to get by each month."  "About $1000." The owner thought and then said, "If you fail, your job will still be here for you. In the meantime, you are still on the payroll at $1000 a month. I wish you success, but if not we will be glad to have you back." He did not go back. Today this man is an award-winning author whose dreams came true -- supported by a humanistic leader, one who truly cared about his employees.  

My opinion:  If you follow what you love long enough and hard enough, a path may become clear. Along that path, you may discover what you want to pursue. It may involve activities in your workplace job, or how you spend your evenings and weekends. It may take more education -- or more networking. It may take sacrifices. And this path may lead to a road. You will be able to see it. The journey becomes a passion. You can feel it in your veins. But without actions, the passion dies or lies dormant. And we go about our lives.  . . . Dream. . . Act.




Image: copyright Bruce McKay Yellow Snow Photography,free to use and share, Advanced Google Image Search.