Google Ad #1 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #3 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #1 - mobile - 300x200

Google Ad #3 - mobile - 300x200

ATD_Half_Page

Googel Ad #1 - Side Bar - Content pages

ATD Footer Logo

Daniel White, MSOD, works with businesses and not-for-profits as an organizational development consultant at AGH (@aghlc), and teaches graduate-level organization development. He is a former not-for-profit administrator who has consulted with organizations in the United States, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Ghana. Reach him at Daniel.white@aghlc.com.

Daniel White

December 2017 - TD Magazine

Invest in Yourself

Implementing and coping with change is an essential skill that many lack. Paul and Daniel White explain why appreciation is a powerful tool for change management—when done with authenticity.

Appreciation and Change Management

Despite soft skills’ importance, many still struggle with them. Daniel White outlines the five most common soft skills gaps and how you can overcome them.

Top 5 Soft Skills Gaps and How to Overcome Them

Billions of dollars are spent on leadership development, and yet, our leaders are not ready for today’s challenges. Research increasingly shows that most programs are failing.Read our whitepaper to explore the research and how to fix your leadership program. Leadership Development for Long-Term ChangeWhat makes a leader? Psychologist and leadership expert Daniel Goleman has researched this for decades. His answer is emotional intelligence. The need for it is greater than ever in today's complex global world. Linear thinking and command and control were successful after the industrial revolution, but people now expect fluid leadership styles along with synergistic intuition.And these things can’t be taught. They have to be experienced, because to develop these traits, we need to tap into the limbic system. This area of the brain that deals with feelings, impulses, and desires is essentially the connection to emotional intelligence.As Goleman mentions in his HBR article “What Makes a Leader,” the “limbic system learns best through motivation, extended practice, and feedback.”Despite this, most leadership programs try to teach in ways that appeal to the prefrontal cortex, or in other words, the logical part of the brain. This makes little difference to leaders because we need to target the emotional brain, which requires a different approach. Successful leadership development programs need the following:Stories – By being exposed to international projects and assignments as well as various coaches, mentors, and stakeholders, leaders don’t just listen to different viewpoints. They also question their own mental models to start fine-tuning their leadership identities.Learning challenges – Without facing tough experiences in life, we never learn. So, we all need challenging projects and even so-called difficult people to grow. Making sense of it all – As we touched on in our blog on the comfort food of learning, vertical development allows leaders to change. Book clubs and group coaching are great examples because they provide multiple ideas whilst giving leaders the confidence to try things out in their day-to-day. Who Ate Our Culture?Management and leadership guru Peter Drucker famously said, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” But who or what eats culture?We are our environments and vice versa. As such, we need both a learning culture and a safe environment that encourages individuals to challenge their biases and to come together for a common goal.However, most organizations promote individuals and support hierarchical career development rather than focusing on teams. As a result, self-interest takes over and your culture is devoured by the needs of a few elite individuals.As this paper on leadership development further explains, not only do most leadership development programs neglect the team, but they also often ignore politics.No one wants politics, but if we don’t talk about the issues and dangers, how can we hope to make leaders aware of the delicate balance between self-interest and the common good?To nurture the best culture for your organization, ensure:Cohort learning – As previously explained in “How to Stop Failing at Leadership Development,” learning should involve the community. Groups that co-learn, for example, book clubs, develop a common language and way of behaving that inspires them to support each other.Inclusivity – Everyone can be a leader within their remit. In fact, the more people you develop, including low performers, the more you transform your culture and reduce politics.Measurability – Development programs are increasingly being measured with, for instance, the Kirkpatrick model. The Dupont Bradley Curve also gives you a useful framework to check in on culture. Make Your Transition to Modern Leadership DevelopmentDeveloping leaders, or any adult, is hard because it means we have to appeal to the emotional part of the brain. The one that’s wrapped in mystery and instinct.Nevertheless, book clubs are a powerful way to open up that mystery. They leverage the wisdom of groups and stories such that people can self-reflect and practice in-situ.Furthermore, a book club or group coaching session promotes social connectivity and co-responsibility that encourage people to grow into new perspectives and ways of being. As a result, you rewire some neural networks and you set the stage for long-term change.Don’t miss our whitepaper for all the details. 

How to Fix Leadership Development Programs for Actual Results

You can separate your awareness—your conscious mind—from the automatic responses triggered by your brain.

7 Steps for Managing Your Emotional Reactions While Training

Write Simply So Learners Trust Your Content

While EQ may seem to come more naturally to some, it can be developed with practice and feedback.

4 Ways Leaders Can Develop More EQ to Lead Under Pressure

This is the first post in a three-part series examining leadership. (See post 2 and post 3.)  “With each new day in Africa, a gazelle wakes up knowing it must outrun the fastest lion or perish. At the same time, a lion stirs and stretches, knowing it must outrun the fastest gazelle or starve. It is no different for the human race. Whether you consider yourself a gazelle or a lion, you simply have to run faster than others.”— from “My Vision: Challenges in the Race for Excellence”by His Highness Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum,Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai There is little argument that leadership is comprised of many facets. For many, leadership is the key aspect of a manager’s job—as well as a critical component of any directing function. More importantly, many agree that a main role of leaders is to empower others to work toward specific objectives. Accordingly, leadership is a constant process, rather than a “product” that happens overnight. In addition, leadership is focused on making other people feel more energetic and determined to work. In other words, leadership is a “contact sport” that routinely occurs via positive social modeling and continuous learning and development. Apart from this “relationship” dimension of leadership, there is an emphasis on accomplishing purposeful tasks, improving performance, and achieving results. What the Research Tells Us International research consistently shows that investing in leadership development and management capabilities is the key to achieving sustainable organizational growth and success. Indeed, the evidence touting the value of leadership development is compelling. A major case-based European HRD research project examined learning and development (L&D) practice in nearly 200 “learning-oriented” enterprises (most employing between 500 to +1,000 employees) in seven European countries: Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The study found that it takes a learning culture to produce a learning culture, and its development could be traced to such factors as organizational leadership, a strong push for innovation in the workplace, and future learning capacity development (Tjepkema et al., 2002).According to research, led by Birkbeck, University of London, about management training and development approaches in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Norway, and Romania, there is strong statistical corroboration for management development leading to superior organizational performance across companies of all sizes, sectors, and national location (Mabey and Ramirez, 2004).Research into National Vocational Education and Training (NVET) systems in the Netherlands, Germany, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan found that NVET strategies impact both workforce upscaling and re-skilling, and are the foundation of success in the knowledge-based global economy of the 21st century (Harrison and Kessels, 2004).A Harvard Business School/Hay Group research project that examined more than 100 senior teams around the globe revealed that effective teams can significantly contribute to their enterprises, yet only one in five are extremely good, while one-third are mediocre, and 42 percent are poor. The study identified “a clearly defined senior leadership team” as one of the conditions for effective operations—rather than a heroic CEO (Wageman et al., 2008).Another study found that ineffective management is estimated to cost, for example, UK businesses more than £19billion per year in lost working hours. More importantly, the data showed that bad management by company directors is the source of 56 percent of all corporate failures (BIS, 2012). Clearly, leadership is one of the most loaded, not to mention well-established, issues in management today—whether we are dealing with a global corporation, government institution or a start-up in Abu Dhabi, London, Minneapolis, Moscow, Mumbai, Shanghai, Silicon Valley, or Toronto. And even though we have been studying “leadership” since the time of Plato, the same questions emerge: Are leaders born or made?How are we doing as leaders?   How we thought about leadership and its development, though, has changed over the years. Let’s now explore the journey of leadership. Trait Approaches to Leadership Trait approaches seek to uncover what makes a leader_—_in contrast to those who are not leaders. The typical assumption is that that some people simply possess the “right stuff” to be leaders, while others do not. The implication is that good leaders are, in fact, “born to lead.” These "born leaders" possess unique traits that are not equally present in all individuals. For example, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) researched the regularity of certain traits in leaders, such as:energypersonalized vs. socialized leadership motivationhonesty and integrityself-confidence (including emotional stability)cognitive abilityknowledge of the business. The study found weaker support for other traits commonly touted as necessary leadership traits, including charisma, creativity/originality, and flexibility. Meanwhile, Daniel Goleman (1998) produced a meta-analysis of leadership competency frameworks in 188 different enterprises. He found that it is the “emotional” competencies—a combo of traits and abilities enabling people to work with others and lead positive change—that make an effective leader. His research found that five emotional intelligence (EQ) competencies (self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill) were twice as significant as other capabilities, specifically: technical skills (accounting or business planning) and cognitive skills (big-picture thinking or analytical reasoning). Research, however, has demonstrated little consistency in these “bundles” of personal capabilities among power leaders who drive organizational performance far above the norm. Leadership Behaviors and Styles for Different Situations Along a different vein, other leadership analysts have shifted the emphasis of study from “what the leader is” to “how leaders behave.” For example, McGregor (1960) held that the leader determines the style they manage staff, and thereby, successively determines how the staff behaves. Leaders who buy into “Theory X” believe that people are naturally irresponsible and uncooperative, and must be rewarded or punished to add value. Leaders who subscribe to “Theory Y” believe that followers are naturally energetic, growth-oriented, and interested in being utilitarian. Though the model admittedly plays up and groups leadership behaviors along an orientation toward employees, it offers little concrete basis for action. Furthermore, Blake and Mouton (1964) created the “Managerial Grid,” which is based on two facets of leadership behavior: people and production. This grid then produces four leadership styles:Authority-Compliance (High on Production, Low on People)Country Club (High on People, Low on Production)Impoverished Management (Low on People, Low on Productivity)Team Leadership (High on People, High on Productivity). However, although this framework is significantly more inclusive (the assumption being that leadership involves learning leadership behavior) and numerous leadership development interventions have been built on it, it fails to account for events and circumstances that cannot be predicted with certainty. Finally, situational leadership, a contingency model by Hersey & Blanchard (1988) provides a remedy for adapting the leadership style to fit the demands of the environment. Having diagnosed the developmental level of the followers, as well as their needs, this model contends that the leader works through the four styles:Directing (telling)Coaching (selling)Supportive (participating)Delegation (empowering). Again, many current leadership development solutions are being designed around this model of leadership. Perhaps, though, it is time to move onto a post-heroic view of leadership that offers an L&D orientation of leaders. This will be the focus of my next post in this series on leadership. Stay tuned...

Leadership: Trends and Dead Ends

Approach-Avoidance Conflict and the BrainApproach-avoidance conflict is a term used to describe a major decision that has both appealing and unappealing elements to it. Since most people inherently mistrust salespeople, nearly every major purchase decision falls into this category. How can we feel good about a deal we’ve just made with a perceived devil? Neuroscience suggests that the less we trust the salesperson, the more risky we believe the purchase decision and the less likely we are to act, regardless of the product’s benefits.The Brain on TrustEverything we think or feel is generated in the brain as an electrochemical response to outside stimuli interacting with previous memories. While this statement is an oversimplification, it will work for the purposes of this post. Neuroscientist Paul Zak was one of the first to identify the neurotransmitter oxytocin as an indicator that we are feeling a high degree of trust toward a stranger, as exhibited by heightened levels of oxytocin. Oxytocin and other “messenger molecules” are released in response to internal and external stimuli, flooding specific parts of the brain and triggering specific emotional reactions. Daniel Goleman, expanding on his initial work in emotional intelligence, has discovered that the brains of two people who trust each other have a remarkable symmetry—their brains are so in sync that they exhibit high levels of brain activity in the same parts of the brain at the same time. The same synchronicity has been found in couples dancing and musicians playing duets. Experienced sales professionals may have sensed this syncing of brain waves when things are going extremely well in the sales process.Zak found that the more oxytocin coursing through your brain, the more likely you are to trust people. It stands to reason that if we can stimulate oxytocin in the buyer’s brain, we can overcome the deeply ingrained tendency to distrust a sales representative. Here are a few behaviors that stimulate oxytocin and make us believe that an individual is trustworthy.The Power of TouchBeing touched by another human being stimulates oxytocin and other transmitters and increases the feelings of trust toward that individual. Zak found that hugging, in particular, generates high degrees of trust in both participating brains. Handshaking can also improve the degree of trust between two individuals and make the prospect of striking a deal more likely.Each Purchase Increases the Likeliness of the Next PurchaseWhen we make a purchase, we feel good about it because our brains reward us with oxytocin. This feeling becomes associated with the person, company, and product that has been purchased, making future sales more likely. Each time the customer goes back over the same pathway, the reward response increases in a virtuous cycle, ramping up the trust level and making each sale more likely than the previous one. For this reason, many online marketers promote low-cost entry-level products, knowing that the buyer will continue to move up to higher-cost items as long as the customer experience remains positive.All Decisions Are EmotionalWhile many sales professionals believe that certain types of purchases, such as those made to support a business, are completely logical processes, the truth is that every purchase decision is emotional at first. The “reasons” for the purchase are often concocted by our neocortex—the seat of rational thought—to help us accept a decision that may have originated in the amygdala, the seat of emotional response.Storytelling Builds Trust and ConnectionStories have a profound effect on the brain. Brain imaging studies have shown that when we are immersed in a story, our brains respond as though we are the protagonist of the narrative. Therefore, stories about others buying and using the product can help buyers see themselves making the purchase decision and generate positive emotions about the product and the salesperson.You Can’t Fake TrustworthinessThe results above suggest that we should train sales professionals to touch their prospects more often, start with smaller sales and lead the buyer to increasingly larger purchases over time, and use stories to appeal to the emotions of the buyer. If only it were that simple. Remember, our brains are highly tuned survival machines, and at some point in our evolution it became necessary to detect lies in order to stay alive. Today, our brains are capable of detecting false statements or actions within milliseconds. We may not be able to express the reaction in words, but we know at “a gut level” (really a brain level) that some people are not genuine. Trustworthiness cannot be faked; your brain will give you away every time.ConclusionIf you review the top 20 sales training organizations, you may see a familiar pattern. To me, their content seems to focus on external behaviors that will make salespeople appear more credible. Neuroscience seems to indicate that we should focus instead on teaching sales professionals to be genuine, sincere, and trustworthy—a much bigger challenge with a much greater payoff.

Search results for 'Daniel White'

Categories

Refine By