A leadership team is a small group of people who are collectively responsible for achieving a common objective for their organization.
Direct, personal feedback really is the simplest and most effective form of motivation.
Hiring without clear and strict criteria for cultural fit greatly hampers the potential for success of any organization.
Conflict is about issues and ideas, while accountability is about performance and behavior.
Great organizations, unlike countries, are never run like a democracy.
An organization has to institutionalize its culture without bureaucratizing it.
Putting together an agenda before a staff meeting is like a marriage counselor deciding what issues she’s going to cover with a couple prior to meeting with them.
Most organizations I’ve worked with have too many top priorities to achieve the level of focus they need to succeed.
The healthier an organization is, the more of its intelligence it is able to tap into and use.
A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach usually ends up fitting no one.
On a cohesive team, leaders are not there simply to represent the departments that they lead and manage but rather to solve problems that stand in the way of achieving success for the whole organization. That means they’ll readily offer up their departments’ resources when it serves the greater good of the team, and they’ll take an active interest in the thematic goal regardless of how closely related it is to their functional area.
The only way for people to embrace a message is to hear it over a period of time, in a variety of different situations, and preferably from different people. That’s why great leaders see themselves as Chief Reminding Officers as much as anything else. Their top two priorities are to set the direction of the organization and then to ensure that people are reminded of it on a regular basis.
A lack of healthy conflict is a problem because it ensures the third dysfunction of a team: lack of commitment. Without having aired their opinions in the course of passionate and open debate, team members rarely, if ever, buy in and commit to decisions, though they may feign agreement during meetings.
If this is so powerful, then why don’t all executives create clarity in their organizations? Because many of them overemphasize the value of flexibility. Wanting their organizations to be “nimble,” they hesitate to articulate their direction clearly, or do so in a less than thorough manner, thus giving themselves the deceptively dangerous luxury of changing plans in midstream.
The key is to take five minutes at the end of staff meetings and ask the question, “What do we need to communicate to our people?” After a few minutes of discussion, it will become apparent which issues need clarification and which are appropriate to communicate. Not only does this brief discussion avoid confusion among the executives themselves, it gives employees a sense that the people who head their respective departments are working together and coming to agreement on important issues.
We need to hire people who are hungry. They go beyond what is required. Passionate about the work they’re doing. Hungry.
Conflict is nothing more than an anxious situation that needs to be resolved.
I think we need to start having a Headline News every day, for five minutes. We could call it a Daily Check-in or something. That means we should get together in a conference room, standing up, and just announce what we’re all doing.
Instead of asking candidates to self-assess a given behavior or characteristic related to humility, hunger, or people smarts, ask them what others would say about them. For example, instead of asking someone if he considers himself to be a hard worker, ask him “How would your colleagues describe your work ethic?
Tell me about someone who is better than you in an area that really matters to you.” Look for the candidate to demonstrate a genuine appreciation for others who have more skill or talent. Humble people are comfortable with this. Ego-driven people often are not.