Thursday Edition

Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

dispatches from the new world of work

Carrot or Stick?

Two key ingredients of Excellence in any professional pursuit are to master the relevant disciplines and to apply them at every opportunity. A recent choral singing experience has left me rather thoughtful about the leadership practices most likely to develop and deliver Excellence through others.

I have been a member of a 200-person amateur symphony chorus for nearly 20 years, and during that period, the chorus's performance has steadily improved. For our latest concert, we were rehearsed by a stand-in chorus master whose approach was very different from that of the chorus master who has led us throughout my membership. Both men are equally well qualified and highly gifted musicians, and both expect equally high performance standards from their choirs. But we are used to a very critical and directive style of leadership which contrasted sharply with the stand-in master's much "softer" all round approach.

For example, he regularly took the time to tell us what we were doing well, as well as correcting us when we were getting things wrong. He was often quite generous in his praise, in stark contrast to our regular master. He challenged us to perform one of the movements in the concert from memory—no mean feat when the text is in Polish! He assured us from the first rehearsal that we were good enough to take this on, and kept reminding us of this throughout the rehearsal sequence. He even provided us with some novel support materials to help us all to practice our Polish at home.

On the day of the concert he cancelled the normal pre event "warm up" session, which is usually quite an ordeal for us to get through just before a live performance. He said he had been more than satisfied with our performance at the dress rehearsal in the morning. This is totally unheard of!

Our performance was one of our best ever and acclaimed by the critics. The movement we had learned by heart completely stole the show. But ... here's my question ... did the stand-in chorus master succeed because of the disciplines that had already been drilled into us by our regular leader? What would happen to our performance standards if we worked with the new chorus master in the long term? Would his approach result in a gradual reduction in standards?

I tried these questions out over a drink in the pub with my choir mates, and the opinion was divided 50/50. What do readers of this blog think?

Madeleine McGrath posted this on 08/27/09.

Comments

I side with the group who believes your success would increase faster, and you would not suffer a decrease in performance standards.

Too often is there a belief that kindness and generosity are "soft" and should not exist in the hard-fought, dog-eat-dog world of business.

After 20 years in corporate human resources at Fortune 500 companies, and numerous voluntary positions, I've seen where leaders who focus on the person and his/her success achieve greater outcomes than those who focus on only achieving perfection of performance.

Setting high standards is required; being clear about performance against those standards is essential; but giving individuals a belief in and recognition of their ability to achieve the standards is critical.

Posted by Scott Nielsen at August 27, 2009 6:48 AM

Check out Dan Pink's TED talk about this very topic. Presentationzen.com has a review of the talk and Tim Brown mentions it too http://designthinking.ideo.com/?p=379

Posted by Helen at August 27, 2009 7:20 AM

I'm inclined to think that such a quick change, with no evidence of whether the improvements brought about by the new approach would stick, isn't at all to do with "soft" and "hard" management. I suspect it was due to change and difference. You were used to one style, worked with another and it was the change that made the difference.

That said, I suspect if you'd gone from "soft" to "hard" management, it would not have been the same result.

Posted by Mark JF at August 27, 2009 7:43 AM

What a great question! It's impossible to give a firm answer, simply because of all the "it depends" factors. Do you know whether the "softer" master is always like that or can he apply the rigour when it's required? You say he has just as high standards as your normal taskmaster, so he is unlikely to overlook the basics. Plainly in this case he worked with what he found, and as a stand-in he may have decided that your technical discipline was more than sufficient and that he could safely develop the chorus in other ways on that basis.

Intuitively I believe that his approach is more rewarding, particularly for amateur performers but as a more general rule as well. Your story is about discovering richer dimensions to a collective creative process that a focus purely on technical excellence has not provided. The fact that you posted leads me to feel that this was very special, not just because the performance went well, but because you all came away more fulfilled, challenged, inspired. And to me, that's leadership.

Posted by RobCH at August 27, 2009 7:44 AM

I am with Mark – it was probably the Hawthorn effect – change, either negative or positive, will affect performance. ‘Difference’ often motivates – sometimes it will be for the better sometimes not. I don’t think it’s an absolute.

My personal manager/leader style is very firmly in the camp of ‘care for your people AS people.’

I’ve always performed better and worked harder for people who show interest in me as a person. The leaders and managers don’t care about me will get the same back from me and my motivation and performance is about my own personal standards until I can find somewhere else to work where I am valued. It’s about kindness, respect, politeness, caring, caring and good manners - it’s a no brainer from where I sit.

Quoting Tom - “Life is too short to work with jerks”

I remember when I played football (soccer) the captains/coaches that ‘balled me out’ always got a verbal barrage back and less than 100% performance from me. Most other players felt the same. Those teams were ALWAYS LESS successful than those teams who’s captains/coaches encouraged us, made us feel special, made us feel unbeatable by making us feel good as people. They ALWAYS got 100%.

Any leader who gets satisfaction from balling out another human being is kidding themselves if they think that is in any way a positive motivator. Rule by fear is bad news … end of story.

Great discussion - thanks Madeleine

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 27, 2009 8:40 AM

The new boss syndrome is an interesting thing to watch. I agree very much with Trevor that the best work is done for people who are interested in you as a person. Having said that there is often a straightening of backs and bucking up of attitudes when a new boss takes over (whatever their style). I think that a team having the same boss for too long (I am talking years here) can sometimes be detrimental and a fresh impetutus can useful.

For me it's about love - a manager who loves his/her people usually does better - love isn't about liking it can often be hard - tough love is where you care enough about someone to be tough and help them to be the very best they can be.

Posted by PaulH at August 27, 2009 8:57 AM

Neither is probably the case. You simply had a great night - but - you're falling into the trap of thinking that because of the closeness in time of the master's behavior and your performance - the quality of your performance was caused by the master's behavior - but it's not.

The book The Drunkards Walk has a great discussion of this issue. I posted something on it here:

http://tinyurl.com/n3pzdp

The point is that we believe that good (or bad) performances are a function of what intervention occurred before that performance. We attribute the change to the intervention when in fact it is just a statistical anomaly.

Wait and see - in the future you'll have a similar situation and the performance will be poor - will you then blame the master's approach for the poor performance AND the good performance?

Posted by Paul Hebert at August 27, 2009 1:36 PM

I believe both master influenced the success. In my experience, some "leaders" have help me to hone my technical skills, while others helped me to improve my mental skills.

I believe the case presented benefited from both masters, it is, hard to find one person who both builds your technical skills and your mental skills (going for the extra mile). I have met a couple of them, but most go just on one side.

Posted by Luis Iturriaga at August 27, 2009 2:35 PM

“Life is too short to work with jerks”

So, what Obama supposed to do?

Posted by zorro at August 27, 2009 4:25 PM

The political discussions are tired and boring...let's not go there again. Zorro, it's obvious you are partial to Obama and like his style, that's great.

The discussion of life is too short to work with jerks has nothing to do with political affiliations or an administration. Obama has his hands full, he'll make mistakes on somethings and do well on others.

Why don't you let us know about your philosophy of stick or carrot?

Posted by Scott Peters at August 27, 2009 6:03 PM

It's been great to see the different angles that people have commented on here. And, as RobCH says, impossible to give an answer to my question - Carrot or Stick? It seems like the answer is 'it depends' I am inclined to think that Luis may have nailed it by pointing out that teams actually benefit from both types of leadership; the technical coach, who drives you to improve your personal mastery and team contribution, and the mental coach, who inspires you to see artistic (in this case) possibilities. However, there is no doubt in my mind that our 'technical' leader, the regular chorus master, has made a massive contribution to the performance of the chorus over the past 20 years. There has been a steady and consistent racking up of standards.

But I think the real difference on this occasion was not the absolute standard that was achieved, but as Rob suggests, how we all felt about the performance - fulfilled, challenged, inspired.

I do also agree with Mark JF and Trevor that a change is stimulating, although for those of you who do not work in the Arts world, I have to tell you that a new leader has a very critical audience to impress. The chorus begins with a mindset of - "come on then, show us what you can do" and the new guy must get past that before s/he can get down to the real work of creating the next performance. I can tell you that the first couple of rehearsals with the new guy were rather rocky. But his gentle and competent approach eventually won through.

As for Paul's question about who would I blame if the performance didn't go well, that's easy - me! When it comes to the live performance, the choir has to deliver, not the chorus master, but it is the discipline and focus that has been put into the rehearsing that provides the safest platform for individuals to make their own contribution to Team Excellence.

Fortunately for my chorus, we do get the chance to have the best of both worlds, with our regular guy occasionally being replaced by stand ins. But if and when our regular guy does decide to move on, I'd certainly vote for this stand-in guy above others we have experienced.

Incidentally, Helen, I thought the Dan Pink Video clip was excellent, and really connected well with this discussion. As Scott pointed out, so called 'soft' approaches are not 'per se' weak ones.

Posted by Madeleine at August 28, 2009 5:27 AM

However it came about, having just listened to the performance I can completely agree it was marvellous. Szymanowski is new to me, so now I will have be seeking out more of his stuff. Congratulations.

Posted by RobCH at August 28, 2009 9:35 AM

Thanks, Rob. I'm so glad you enjoyed it. Szymanowski was new to me too, but I understand his 3rd Symphony is mentionable in the same breath as the Stabat Mater.

Posted by Madeleine at August 28, 2009 9:53 AM

Madeleine McGrath ,
A good introduction to the topic is Aubrey
Daniels’ Performance Management which gives the
gritty details of reinforcement in the workplace
(read the section on “the punishment trap” with
heightened attention)
http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Management-Changing-Organizational-Effectiveness/dp/0937100080

His Bringing Out the Best in People covers the
same material without the graphs and charts.
http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Best-People-Aubrey-Daniels/dp/0071351450/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

Swen Nater & Ronald Gallimore’s
You Haven’t Taught Until They Have Learned
John Wooden’s Teaching Principles and Practices
is also helpful
http://www.amazon.com/Havent-Taught-Until-They-Learned/dp/1885693664

and Bill Russell’s Russell’s Rules comes from the
perspective of his and Red Auerbach’s successes.
http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Rules-Leadership-Twentieth-Centurys/dp/0451203887/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251683508&sr=1-3

The more I read on this subject, and the more
experience I have with it, the more I am convinced
there is no clear answer—at least not yet.

Perhaps the main reason is that millions try their
hand at management, but it is a rare, rare, person
who is truly skilled in the arts and sciences of
improving performance. (As is made clear in a book
Tom Peters recently recommended: The Talent Code
by Daniel Coyle.)

Perhaps the dilemma is best captured by the dog
trainer John Johnston:

“The only thing two dog trainers will agree on is
that the third one is wrong.”

If we haven’t figured it out for dogs, how could
we have it figured out for people?

Shakespeare’s Debtor (aren’t we all?)

Posted by Shakespeare's Debtor at August 30, 2009 9:11 PM

This article has demonstrated to me more clearly than ever that there is “a time and season” for all forms and types of leadership. I recall beginning football camps where the physical training and abusive leadership of the assistant coaches made even the bravest of us wonder why the heck we wanted to play for this team so badly, when we were obviously not appreciated.
Then a transition began, after we had the play book toughly implanted in our minds, and reaction to situations almost visceral rather than conscious thought driven. We began to tune the plays to improve them, not in gross things, but very finite motions that really did perfect the intent of the coach.
The head coach took over at this point and suddenly we were talking amongst ourselves as to how we might improve our performance for a particular play, much like studying the Polish at home. We received and gave advice and counsel to our teammates and thru that effort became even better than before. The coach even saw things he didn’t direct happening that he liked and praised the innovation and incorporated the improvement into his plans.
Leadership, as the team, should change with the “place” the team is at. Would the head coaches mentoring methods have worked in the beginning – perhaps. Was he the one who designed the entire training program – you bet. He had a vision of what he wanted the team to become and put in place the best methods he could devise to arrive at the destination. He knew and saw the end from the beginning and took us of that journey.
Having served as a military over for over 22 years prior to my current career as a CIO, I learned that you can always lightened up on the folks, but it is far more difficult to move from an expected self actualizing mode to a directed mode when goals aren’t achieved.
The team is both harmed by the failures that will occur early on and disheartened that their leader didn’t quickly develop an understanding of their needs and direction. I have watched tragically as a unit has tried to rise to the level of self actualization that the leader expected of them without having developed the tools and skills they needed to achieve the goal. I have also witnessed the pride and sense of achievement on faces as they became truly self actualizing in their professional lives for the first time, because the proper assessment by the leader, the understanding of the vision and the proper course had been laid to arrive at that moment.
Part of the “magic” of greater leaders is knowing exactly where on that line of progression this team is, where do we start, what methods do we use and how do we anticipate change as it needs to be made.
The very best choirs, football teams and business units are those that require very little of their leaders other than a vision and opportunity to excel. The goal of every coach, director and leader should be to at some point be able to “roll the ball onto the court” and have the team pick it up and become world champions in whatever endeavor your pursuing.

Posted by Jim Norris at August 31, 2009 3:44 AM

Great dialogue you've sparked here! I've shared you post with my readers in my weekly Rainmaker 'Fab Five' blog picks of the week (http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2009/08/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-3.html) so they can join the conversation.

Be well!

Posted by Chris Young at August 31, 2009 7:49 PM

Between a carrot and a stick is a jackass!

Posted by patrick at September 1, 2009 2:42 AM

I was inspired to comment after reading both Madeleine’s post here and Steve’s above (Social Media futures).

Is it not the case that leadership and motivation (soft or hard, encouragement versus discipline – however you wish to describe it) is about how someone reaches “inside of you” and enables you as an individual to achieve your very best? Different people respond to different approaches and techniques and this might therefore explain the 50/50 split in Madeleine’s cohort.

The parallel with the future of Social Media might be tenuous, but consider how our friends inspire us, motivate us…

Personal validation, a need to belong and feel loved are cornerstones of our existence. Social networks give their users this personal validation. As Steve says, we are not numbers or a crowd, we are individuals. The challenge to marketeers seeking to use social networking platforms to reach target audiences is EXACTLY the same as Madeleine’s Choral Master reaching out to each and every individual in the choir.

Posted by David Jones at September 2, 2009 5:12 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Management-Myth-Experts-Getting-Wrong/dp/0393065537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251921599&sr=8-1

Posted by zorro at September 2, 2009 3:02 PM

Zorro, this space is provided for comments related to the post at hand. If you'd like to promote a book, please do so on your own blog.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at September 2, 2009 4:26 PM