Saturday Edition

dispatches from the new world of work

Self-knowledge Reigns!
Every Interaction Unique!
Their Eyes, Not Yours!

I happened across a New York Times interview, from April 10, of Andrew Cosslett, CEO Continental Hotels Group. I was particularly taken by the following two quotes from Cosslett, as he explained his success:

"I think having a sense of self-awareness is very important, like how you impact each of the people you're with individually. ...

"The whole thing about staying alive on a rugby field is about reliance on the guys around you. You need to gel them as a team, but each one responds individually. So it's about dealing with them on their terms, not yours. I'm very sensitive to how people are feeling at any given moment."

The powerful notions, for me, are:

(1) "how you impact each of the people you're with"
(2) "sensitive to how people are feeling at any given moment"
(3) "dealing with them on their terms, not yours"

Many of the top leadership authorities, such as Warren Bennis and Marshall Goldsmith, have long put self-knowledge at the top of their lists of leaders' success traits. Fact is, research shows, the large majority of us are downright lousy judges of how we come across. Working on this self-knowledge is a big project, not to be taken lightly.

Major league baseball consists of a whopping 162 games in the regular season. To listen to the best managers, they field 162 different teams, depending on where the heads and hearts of their players are on any given day. The work year consists of about 250 "games"—and, indeed, each one differs from the one before and the next one to come. Conscious awareness of "where the heads are at" of our 25 colleagues on the project team on 25 May 2010 is of paramount importance to the leader; again, evidence suggests that many of us are found wanting on this score.

Finally is the paramount idea of "their terms, not yours." It is a commonplace, often ignored, that we deal with the world as seen through our own eyes, leaden with our feelings of the moment; and often are oblivious to the trials and tribulations of "the other"—alas, this seems to especially be the case with spouses, and for males. Seeing the world through the other's eyes does not in any way mean being a patsy, as so many seem to assume. It is possible to be just as tough, when necessary, looking through the other guy's spectacles. In fact, it can readily be argued that "being tough" (if necessary) is more effective when looking through the other's lenses; that is, many/most acts of toughness backfire precisely because they fail to account for the mental state of the other person.

All three of these ideas are near the core of effective leadership. And none of the three is easy to take aboard, let alone master. Yet it is not a stretch to say that success or failure on these three dimensions is the key to success or failure as a leader.

Thank you, Mr Cosslett!

Tom Peters posted this on 05/25/10.

Comments

A really good book on this topic, that I think addresses the three items Tom points out, is What Got You Here Won't Get You There, by Marshall Goldsmith. It makes a big point that you're probably not perceiving how you come across to other people, and that lack of self-awareness can really be holding you back. Here's a good review of the book, too: http://is.gd/coNOq

Posted by cathy mosca at May 25, 2010 12:13 PM

Those three dimensions are critical to ethical leadership! Good post.
Thanks Tom!

Posted by Randy Bosch at May 25, 2010 7:09 PM

Reading the title alone, two philosophers readily came to mind: Jean Paul Sartre and Jacques Lacan. (The latter is actually considered a psychoanalyst who made major contributions to philosophy.) Both Sartre and Lacan deal with mirror images, although expressed variously, the self and other being intrinsically linked. There is always a dual relationship. The knowledge of yourself is often actualized through others, as the human image which looks back at me. Even though every business is different and every situation varies, there is still the human element to consider. My brother told me once when I was having difficulty with an older woman who was training me to take over her business that in spite of my brilliant ideas I needed to acknowledge her position. She needed to exert her authority and I needed to humble myself. I didn't see it initially, instead being focused on what I knew needed to happen. But the minute I took his advice things changed. I began to understand her position. I saw myself. I identified. My expertise for which she brought me in flowed effortlessly and the implementation of the ideas went smoothly. Looking through the lens of others pays off big time; often times it includes our own lens. I have always delighted in saying that I step outside of myself to see others. But the truth as I now see it is that I see others through myself but lessen myself in order to see them more clearly. It seems always important to see others no matter the project or data. Neither of these are created in a vacuum and neither are we.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 25, 2010 9:15 PM

Tom and Nancy - I agree. The higher up we move in leadership, the harder it is to learn the truth about ourselves - and the more important learning the truth becomes.

Posted by Marshall Goldsmith at May 26, 2010 7:18 AM

Great post. Good leaders will change their approach mid conversation depending on the comfort level of the other person PER TOPIC.

I second Cathy's book choice - I saw Marshall speak in London a year or so back - if you ever get the chance, take it - what a great session!

One of my pet gripes is that managers spend so much time and effort on big company stuff (politics, networks, looking good, strategy, reporting) and yet neglet really basic human interaction skills. This is a huge topic and I think many leaders are promoted far to fast before they have learned this craft (1st line level manager = 7-10 year apprentiship).

With due respect to Ken Blanchard I often think "The one lifetime manager" would be nearer to the need.

Posted by PaulH at May 26, 2010 8:58 AM

I walked away from reading the interview with Mr. Cosslett feeling very differently than you did Tom. I thought David Brooks captured it well: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10102/1049669-109.stm
Knowing how you rail against Mr. Collins's positions at times, I found Brooks' reply especially fitting to post.

Posted by Drew Kugler at May 26, 2010 9:27 AM

Just beautiful, Marshall. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 26, 2010 10:40 AM

"All three of these ideas are near the core of effective leadership. And none of the three is easy to take aboard, let alone master. Yet it is not a stretch to say that success or failure on these three dimensions is the key to success or failure as a leader."

This might mean something if you yourself had some deep experience as a leader. You throw around names like King, Churchill and Mandela sprinkled with Gandhi here and there. To me, you seem to have a Walter Mitty Complex.
You treat the world of work, which is a very serious matter to most people because it keeps a roof over their heads as if it were a mere Sunday Football Game and you are the color man. All you do is supply a bunch of interesting statistics and anecdotes to keep people from flipping the channel.

Posted by zorro at May 26, 2010 11:45 AM

Zorro – at least be fair. I think even Tom’s staunchest opponent would agree he's done a bit more than “supply a bunch of interesting statistics and anecdotes” for management and managers for a few decades. Just a thought by the way - you keep coming back - you don't 'flip the channel' so whatever it is Tom does must be effective for you.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 26, 2010 4:11 PM

Fairness has nothing to do with this; it's perspective. I happen not to agree often with some of Zorro's relentless critiques, but there is also something to be said for those who do the work and those who inspire others to do so. Also, speakers have the power of persuasion so keeping them honest in the public sphere, if you will, is essential. It is quite easy to throw out a phrase or belief and have people follow it through the power of persuasion only to find out that it has been destructive. I have come to believe that quite a few things that gurus and experts have been telling us have been quite harmful. As I have said many times here, both speakers and doers have important roles. Zorro seems more pleased by those those who do the work of leadership and less so by those who inspire other through data, energy, and persuasion to do it. If Tom was actively involved in finding solutions as an engineer for which he is trained, Zorro would undoubtedly have a different opinion. But this is really neither here nor there for Tom does what he does and Zorro does the same. Having neither voice is negative.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 26, 2010 8:47 PM

"The biggest thing I remember from those days, other than the utter loneliness of being a salesman with customers who abuse you all the time, was how much of what comes out of corporate offices is of absolutely no purpose, and how far removed some people are from the front line." I LIKE this guy! It really is about relationships. Individually, collectively as a team, cross functionally. When your job is to train and develop people, it kinda of helps to actually like people. Folks have a way of knowing if you're real or a poser.

Zorro...I'm thinking that leading a team of folks building stuff on the front line of a war zone where anyone not wearing a uniform could be one of your "competitors" whose performance is measured by the number of folks on your side they make DEAD! kinda qualifies as "deep experience" as a leader. As for your "All you do is supply a bunch of interesting statistics and anecdotes to keep people from flipping the channel." Yeah...you could look at it that way. Maybe however a person whose leadership experience was learned and tested under those types of the REAL-EST OF REAL world situations knows one hell of a lot more than many about the importance of treatng people with respect "and knowing the value of (1) "how you impact each of the people you're with" (2) "sensitive to how people are feeling at any given moment"
(3) "dealing with them on their terms, not yours". Do these correctly in the corporate world, you get paid. Do them correctly on the field of battle, you might get to breathe a litle bit longer. Leadership isn't about authority, position, ego, or being smarter than everyone else. It's about being nice to folks!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at May 26, 2010 9:30 PM

"Leadership isn't about authority, position, ego, or being smarter than everyone else. It's about being nice to folks!"

I think this definition of leadership is a bit simplistic and not altogether accurate. Leadership is about authority, the knowledge that you have the answer or that it can be gotten requires ego and a certain kind of self-possession and expertise. Being smarter than others with regards to science, medicine, music, engineering, etc., often rightfully elevates your position. (True genius is often anti-social. Do we peg these as unsuccessful leaders? I think not. The work leads. The work speaks.) Kindness is important but without these other things, leadership fails.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 26, 2010 10:13 PM

Hi Judith – greetings – I hope you are well.

“Fairness has nothing to do with this; it's perspective.”

Sure that’s one opinion. My opinion is that it is ALL about fairness. I totally agree with your views about the damage some can do with their words. However I see Tom as far more than merely “a speaker” or a “guru.” His record shows he has far more strings to his bow than that. I would love to see the evidence Tom is NOT a doer? – As far as I can see the man has always been a doer.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 26, 2010 11:38 PM

Judith,

Simplistic? I'll take it! I see a huge difference between leadership and authority. Folks can "check" my positional authority real quick by simply doing the absolute minimum it takes to stay out of trouble and remain employed until they find another job. That costs my company, and me, a great deal. What makes them do any thing more than the minimum comes from within them but it is something I can influence and unlock. Authority can't do it...but the credibility and trust I bank over time as judged through their eyes can. It's not my position they respond to, it's the me as he person who holds it. They decide if I'm an ally or an enemy and act accordingly. You can't dictate it, you can't demand it, you have to earn it. They are the judge and jury on this issue and their actions, not their words, will tell you what the verdict is.

"Being smarter than others with regards to science, medicine, music, engineering, etc., often rightfully elevates your position." A true statement through some eyes. But through others it means absolutely nothing. Elevates my position? As what? What matters more to many is my "smartness" on where to find reliable child care. My sensitivity to their family or transportation situation that sometimes means they are a little late or miss a day of work. My knowledge and recognition of the fact they are going to school and doing well. Little and insignificant things to some perhaps, huge and significant to them. I know these things because I make it a point to learn them.

"Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care." Theodore Roosevelt I believe. Without kindness and caring, does the rest really matter?

Posted by Dave Wheeler at May 27, 2010 12:29 AM

"Leadership is about authority, the knowledge that you have the answer or that it can be gotten requires ego and a certain kind of self-possession and expertise"

Correct - That is ONE aspect of leadership. Equally important components:

•Recognition that he/she is a servant of followers
•Humility almost to the point of self deprecation

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 27, 2010 12:46 AM

These were the last words in "The Little BIG Things," from a Peggy Noonan de facto obituary for the jouralist Tim Russert; it appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 21, 2008:

“In a way, the world is a great liar. It shows you it worships and admires money, but at the end of the day it doesn’t. It says it adores fame and celebrity, but it doesn’t, not really. The world admires, and wants to hold on to, and not lose, goodness. It admires virtue. At the end it gives its greatest tributes to generosity, honesty, courage, mercy, talents well used, talents that, brought into the world, make it better. That’s what it really admires. That’s what we talk about in eulogies, because that’s what’s important. We don’t say, ‘The thing about Joe was he was rich!’ We say, if we can, ‘The thing about Joe was he took good care of people.’”

Posted by tom peters at May 27, 2010 6:10 AM

Amen! - beautiful.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 27, 2010 8:04 AM

Trevor - Yeah, parsing words beyond my explanation has no value for me. I am well indeed. I hope the very same for you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 27, 2010 3:48 PM

Dave - Your further explanation is appreciated although I am not too sure that more words changed the essence of what I deemed simplistic originally. But I only have love for you. This is true.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 27, 2010 3:54 PM

Trevor - Ugh!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 27, 2010 3:55 PM

The very name Peggy Noonan is enough to get my blood curdling. Her words here are appreciated, Tom. Did you just want to share these words or did I miss some greater meaning here relating to the thread?

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 27, 2010 3:58 PM

Judith,

El sentimiento es mutuo mi amigo...(hope that is close to the feeling is mutual my friend)

Posted by Dave Wheeler at May 27, 2010 9:00 PM

Mwah....

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 27, 2010 9:58 PM

Dealing with people on their terms, not mine. That is a powerful revelation, one perhaps most difficult to practice.

Difficult to truly embrace and understand. It would require one to to have an insight what their terms are. The insight can be gained by an open and two way communication. In certain situations open / two way communication may not be possible to achieve.

Posted by Genie at May 29, 2010 3:12 AM

OK - This was about Tim Russert. Wasn't he famous and rich and a celebrity? Isn't that why Noonan wrote a de facto obituary for him? His fame rates a Noonan mention that made her look good.
How more Ironic can one get?

Posted by zorro at June 1, 2010 8:44 PM

I'm sure its at least that long.

Posted by zorro at June 1, 2010 10:53 PM

Zorro – Great to know you and I agree. That's the first time I've known you to compliment Tom.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 2, 2010 5:37 PM