I often work with leaders who are tangled up in unproductive patterns of thinking. Some leaders have self-defeating thinking patterns. As we work together, it becomes clear that they are stuck in moving forward because deep down inside they assume that they cannot. Based on what I have heard and read about Michael Jackson’s life, it appears that he was haunted by demons that impacted his personal life. When organizational leaders, like Jackson, are tangled up in themselves, it reverberates and impacts others.

Sometimes, leaders on their way up the corporate ladder are so stuck in self-defeating thinking, others have a difficult time seeing their full magnificence. Recent stories about Jackson lauded his musical talents, while at the same time hinting at the challenges his internal demons posed to himself and his later  career. I have worked with a number of very talented leaders who limited their own career growth by not getting out of their own way.

Leaders, plagued by internal tangles, like Michael Jackson, also don’t reach their full potential. As a leadership coach who visualizes the potential of all my clients, this is particularly sad. Who knows what Michael Jackson could have become in his later life. Perhaps he could have been more of a mentor to younger singers. Perhaps he would have broken throughyet unseen barriers in music and dance.

Finally, leaders who do not have the opportunity to learn and understand both their strengths and areas of development early in their career are often blindsided later on by what some of my clients call flat spots. Like a ball that cannot roll without a smooth curve, leaders who are not given the opportunity to create compensating strategies early on also don’t reach their potential. Deepak Chopra writes that Michael Jackson maintained an innocent childlike quality, and along with a quality of woundedness, was reluctant to grow up. Of course Michael Jackson became world famous at 5, and was thrust into the spotlight. Having a normal childhood is difficult under any circumstances. Michael didn’t have a chance at that opportunity. Still, had he had the mentoring and development early on, his star might have shone even brighter.

So bottom line, what can leaders learn from Michael Jackson? Get an honest assessment of your leadership strengths and area of development early on. Work on mazimizing your strengths and compensating for weaknesses. And finally, if you are stuck, seek the help of a highly trained, experienced, executive coach. It is nearly impossible for us to see our own internal tangles. Until leaders unravel their own internal tangles, their potential and star power are limited.

Please contact info@rubenconsulting.com for a complimentary consultation.

Copyright Marcia Ruben, Ph.D. Ruben Consulting Group  All rights reserved.

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

For the past ten days, I have been glued to the media and social networking sites, especially Twitter. I am not alone.  I have been awed by the level of interest, caring, and actions taken by so many after the June 12 election. As I sat in my office, watching my computer screen, I felt empowered to take a small step, to lend my voice of support to a situation unfolding half-way around the globe. I followed #Iran election, with thousands joining the conversation every millisecond. I retweeted (RT) messages that provided helpful information, and posted my own thoughts. I watched as Facebook friends joined in the discussion and became a fan of sites allegedly providing credible information. I didn’t know if I was making any difference at all, but felt I was a part of something historical, important, and much bigger than me.  

I began making connections between my work with organizational leaders and as a researcher, and my concept of tangles. I am fascinated by how people make sense of complexity. I believe that we are all interconnected in a web of relationships. According to complexity theorists, organizational systems self-organize in new structures and patterns as individuals within the system interact with each other. It just takes a few simple rules to create order in a chaotic system. With twitter, one just needs to create a post with 140 characters, retweet posts by acknowledging the source with @Name of Follower, and use the hash mark (#) to create or be part of a trending conversation.

That certainly is what was happening moment by moment as the cascade of tweets grew on Twitter. And slowly, I sensed a pattern of tremendous support, caring, and then danger and fear. It was clear that those within Iran posting video footage and eyewitness reports were in danger.  While social media opened a window to events we could never have witnesses, it also poses threats.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal featured two articles on how governments are intervening to monitor the flow of communication both within their countries and to the outside world. Christopher Rhoads and Loretta Chao reported that the Iranian government has the ability to control and censor information on the internet. In what seems like a scene out of the Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU) on the television show 24, the Iranian government can trace the sources of information and locate those sending messages. One strand of tweets encouraged everyone to change their location and timezone to Iran’s. Another encouraged all of us to not share the “handles” of those sending messages from Iran.

In an opinion piece in the same edition of the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz writes that beginning July 1, 2009, the Chinese government may have even greater powers in censoring sites that citizens visit, blocking content sent via email, and locating and punishing those who express their opinions online.  While the promise of technology is to empower everyone, those in power have the ability to disempower their citizens.

How is this related to organizational tangles? And what can leaders learn from all of this? Gratefully, we have freedom of speech here in the United States. However, I have witnessed cultural norms in various companies that discourage speaking truth to power or speaking up. My research found that true collaboration and higher productivity and profits more likely emerge in conditions when corporate employees feel they have power and are competent. When they are able to freely speak up about emerging trends that could cause problems or processes and practices that are snarling the system, order emerges. The system is not fragmented, but works together as a whole.

I have facilitated scores of offsites within a myriad of companies. I am often surprised when I hear employees complain that speaking up is a career limiting move. By the same token, the leadership team claims to encourage a free flow of information. What is going on here?  What I have observed is that those who encourage and open up communication seem to have what Mike Lombardo and Bob Eichinger describe as the approachability competency. They put others at ease and are nonjudgmental listeners. Just as I can feel powerful and competent when posting a tweet, leaders who facilitate open environments create conditions in which others can own their power and competence.

Are you a leader who encourages competence and personal power? Contact info@rubenconsulting.com if you would like a complimentary 15 minute consultation. Follow me on Twitter: @TangleDoctor.

©Marcia Ruben, Ph.D., Ruben Consulting Group

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

In last Sunday’s New York Times opinion section, Sandy B. Lewis and William D. Cohan wrote an op-ed piece with 72 font headers. Its title, “The Economy Is Still at the Brink” grabbed me.

Lewis is an organic farmer who was convicted of stock manipulation and later pardoned. Cohan, formerly a Wall Street banker, has written extensively about the financial crisis. Bottom-line, they make a very strong and persuasive argument that all efforts to “fix” the economy are in reality papering over real and structural problems.

Their proposed solution is to tear down the current system and build a new one that really works. We need more transparency and to fundamentally change our consumption habits. Restoring our confidence, they write, will not be enough to restore a broken financial system.

Lewis and Cohan raise some important and probing questions. Again, their opinion piece, interspersed with gigantic font, is surely a wake-up call. Will any of us listen?

What I know from my own experience and research is that we ignore clear warning signs at our own peril. It would be all too easy for all of us to expect a return to how things were before September 15, 2008. Lewis and Cohan’s points are unsettling and my first reaction was discomfort. It was a truth that I didn’t want to hear. However, burying my head in the sand is not an option. None of us can afford to do that.

We are all enmeshed in this potential Cascade Tangle. I plan to write letters to the editor and my state Senators. Will you all join me and do the same?

©Marcia Ruben, Ph.D., Ruben Consulting Group

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Tina Turner made a singing comeback in 1984 with her hit song, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” My husband, a family law specialist in San Francisco has recently worked with some male clients, who I call alpha males, struggling through their respective divorces. Tina Turner claims that “love is a second-hand emotion.” However, from what I am hearing, anger, blame, and transference are first-hand emotions and reactions. Going through a divorce at any time is a trying and emotionally draining experience. However, the stress and tension is now exacerbated by the economic decline. Individuals who have enjoyed unfettered economic success, and the ability to buy and demand whatever they desired, are  now finding their world crumbling beneath them.

After hearing my normally calm and collected husband recount stories of client blow-ups and tantrums, I wondered how other executives, faced with reversing fortunes, are behaving as heads of their companies. Are they blowing up, excessively blaming others, and acting out? Or, are they keeping their composure, remaining calm, and being accountable?

I know from my executive coaching work that as stress piles on, some executives rise to the occasion. Others turn into monsters. So what does divorce got to do with organizational tangles, the area of my expertise? Nothing really, except as a metaphor to remind us that when our worlds change, we can choose our reactions. There is a whole genre of family tangles, however.

Many years ago, I researched and taught courses in stress management. I remember reading a research study many years ago about people who had lost everything in a fire. Some pulled through and turned their lives around. Others fell apart and never recovered. What was the difference between the two? According to the researches, it was locus of control. Those who pulled through had an internal locus of control. They knew and believed that they could manage and control their reactions to external situations, and that they were the masters of their fates. Those with an external locus of control believed that they were the victim of circumstances, and were at their effect.

In her hit song, Tina turner sings, “I’ve been thinking of a new direction, but I have to say, I’ve been thinking about my own protection, it scares me to feel this way.” Perhaps at the root of heightened emotional reactions is our old friend fear. I can’t help but think that my husband’s clients are overreacting in an effort to protect themselves because they are scared.

In many ways, we are scared. How we react is what separates us. In times like these, leaders have to not only think of a new direction. They need to actively devise a strategy and plan and lead their organizations into more promising futures.

©Marcia Ruben, Ph.D., Ruben Consulting Group

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Wall Street Journal reporter Kara Swisher interviewed Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, at the recent All Things Digital Conference. I was struck by Bartz’s assertions that organizational structure has limited Yahoo’s ability to innovate. Bartz’s comments validated findings from my own research. I was interested in uncovering the organizational enablers that contribute to the unwinding of organizational tangles. I define tangles as those interpersonal, political, and human dynamics messes that tie organizations up in knots. What I found in my research is that an organizational structure that ensures clear levels of authority and accountability creates clear channels of communication, and removes the fuzziness that stalls forward progress.

When Jerry Yang first approached Carol Bartz about the CEO position, she was not receptive. She met with him anyway, and once into the conversation, asked him to draw the organization chart. What became apparent to Bartz was that there was a fuzziness, or lack of clarity, about who made the important decisions. She likened the structure that existed under Yang to a Dilbert cartoon.

Bartz told Swisher that organizations get in their own way when lines of responsibility are not clear, or in her words, “. . . if people are all bound up, and if they don’t know if they get to make the decision or somebody else, and if they do, what happens to them, and so on and so forth.”  In my own work, I often encounter individuals and teams that are stumbling because they don’t know who makes the final decision, or who has ownership of a particular process.  Once that is clarified, I find that roadblocks melt away and productivity increases.

Besides a lack of clarity about decision making, I also encounter turf wars between departmental or divisional silos. Bartz comments that at Yahoo “we have bigger silos inside the company than outside. The homepage people didn’t want to drive traffic to the finance page because they wanted to keep them on the home page.”  Making a change in the structure and ownership often unwinds tangles.

What I find fascinating in my work is that organizations create structures and make them work, even if there are workarounds, challenges, and inevitable tangles. Often, what looks like a personality challenge, may be in fact due to a systemic or structural issue. Lines of communication can and do get gnarled when it is not clear who has ownership, authority, and accountability. Organizational structure is one of many factors that I, as a Tangle Doctor, investigate when called in to strengthen organizational performance.

©Ruben Consulting Group

Click here to read the whole interview

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

1.       Conduct upfront assessment and planning

2.       Ensure demonstrated leadership and sponsorship commitment

3.       Involve and engage your key stakeholders during the planning process

4.       Build an implementation team that includes representation from key stakeholders and influence leaders throughout your organization

5.       Assess and monitor cultural impact

6.       Provide training and development to those who will be impacted by the change

7.       Provide honest and straightforward communication in a timely manner

8.       Rework reward system  to align with desired changes

9.       Identify and plan for workforce transitions

10.   Redesign and align the organization

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Jason Zweig, author of the Wall Street Journal’s Intelligent Investor, writes that “smart people trying to do good, honest work on behalf of others” may have been responsible for the financial crisis. Zweig’s article masterfully lays out some of the challenges that investment committees, boards of directors, and state boards of trustees can face in decisions to invest or not invest. His insightful column also can provide advice to corporate leaders making decisions regarding strategy and strategy execution.

In my work with countless leadership teams, I often observe teams who go along with the leader or the person who speaks the loudest. Zweig advises that the best groups are those with a mix of people who hold different perspectives and are willing to speak up when they disagree. Zweig recommends that committees charged with investing can clarify criteria for success. Corporate managers can do the same. For instance, I once worked with a cellular telephone leadership team deciding which new markets to penetrate. I worked with the team to determine what criteria determined success in current markets. They used that criteria to decide on new markets.

Another excellent suggestion is for committee members to break into pro and con groups, which each charged with developing arguments for convincing the other side. I have successfully used this technique in working with teams charged with making important decisions. This process encourages each “side” to think through their arguments more carefully, thereby benefitting the whole. For instance, I worked with a leadership team that needed to decide whether or not to outsource resources. This pro and con exercise allowed them to discover challenges that otherwise would have gone unnoticed.

Finally, Zweig advises asking “how” and “why” questions, instead of yes and no questions. Corporate leaders can ask “how can we maximize our investment in the offshore operations?” instead of “should we consider cuts?”

My experience has been that teams with well thought out and executed team decision processes are much more likely to create good strategies that are executed with minimal noise and disruption.

How can your leadership team improve its decision making processes? For a complimentary consultation, contact me at info@rubenconsulting.com.

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

A Strangling Tangle^TM paralyzes organizations and can lead to plummeting profits, lost revenue, and precipitous falls in market share. There are a number of causes for Strangling Tangles. Based on my experience and research, organizations with corporate cultures that discourage speaking up and sharing bad news are particularly vulnerable. Leaders play a huge role in building, maintaining, and changing corporate culture. One way leaders can change the culture is by learning and demonstrating active listening skills.

As an active executive coach, I am always looking for ways to teach my clients skills that will enhance their effectiveness. I have been twittering for over five months and just came upon some golden advice on active listening. Yesterday, I received a direct Twitter message from Kit Cooper (@KitCooper). He invited me to peruse his website, Quality of Life Project. Kit and his team interviewed Dennis Ross. Ross is an author and served as a chief negotiator for the Middle East peace process under both President Clinton and President Bush.

As a negotiator for one of the world’s toughest challenges, the Middle East, Ross has to be a gifted listener. Ross explains that when you practice active listening, you gain an understanding of what is behind someone’s position and “build good will.” These are some of the questions that Ross asks:   ”Why is that issue important to you. I want to understand it the way you understand it. I don’t want to have a false impression. Explain to me why that matters so much to you. Where does it come from? Why does it create an imperative?”

Ross adds: “When people see that I am curious by being an active listener, they get a message of respect from me.” In my experience coaching leaders and working with leadership teams, when individuals feel listened to and respected, they are much more likely to feel at ease, which in turn leads to clearer thinking, and a broader array of ideas that allows leaders to successfully work through tough issues. The ability successfully work through tough issues means that potential challenges get raised earlier, before they become impending disasters.

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

In working with executives who want to raise their EQ, I also draw on learning from my Wilson Learning days. According to MIR, there are four social styles or styles of social interaction. For those of you who took this course some time in your career, the styles are: Analytic, Driver, Expressive, and Amiable. Analytic and Driver styles focus on accomplishing tasks first, and secondarily on relationships. If they are focused on a task, and someone walks into their office, they are likely to be curt, perhaps short, and not readily willing to be interrupted or engaged in a conversation.

On the other hand, Amiables and Expressives focus first on relationship and secondarily on the task. This means that when you walk into their office, they will display more emotional signals, and are likely to first want to engage with you and create some human connection before getting down to business.

Both like to get the job done and both like people. The challenge is that they have different priorities. An adaptable, versatile, or emotionally intelligent person is able to read each situation and adjust his or her style ever so slightly to lower the relationship tension. Ideally, it is the responsibility of each party to adjust their behavior.

When relationship tension is high, one or both parties feel uncomfortable, restrained, and in some cases, shut down. Conversations don’t flow. Important questions aren’t raised and consequently not answered. High relationship tension is not good for business or profits.

When relationship tension is low, both parties are comfortable, relaxed, and usually at their best. Productive ideas and innovation are more likely to occur.

So how can you raise your EQ? One way (and this is a huge topic, so this is an appetizer) is to pay attention to facial expressions, tone, rate of speech, and focus of attention. If someone is focused on the task, keep your interaction short, business-like, and to the point. If someone is more focused on the relationship, relax, open up a bit, and engage. Most importantly, pay attention to how you feel. If there is low relationship tension, you are on your way to raising your EQ.

If you or your leadership team needs to raise its EQ to raise profits, contact info@rubenconsulting.com for a 10 minute free consultation.

Tweet This Post  Plurk This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Ping This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post