jim.shamlin.com

2 The Importance of Self-Awareness

Your effectiveness as a manager depends on how well you understand the impact of his actions on others. The authors claim that "many new managers" think only of the tasks they wish to accomplish and assert that this leads only to short-term results.

What you accomplish is less significant than the way in which you are perceived - your career is determined not by what you accomplish, but by having it noticed and appreciated and attributed to you. Even people who accomplish little to nothing can rise quickly in their careers is they are perceived in a positive manner.

However, the way you are perceived by others is not the same as the way you are perceived by others around you. For example, an individual who has confidence may draw this sense from things that only he perceives, and others may perceive him as unconfident or arrogant. As such, the key to self-awareness is in aligning your perspective with those of others, rather than elevating yourself in your own mind.

The Importance of Self-Awareness

Studies (Atwarer 2002) have demonstrated that high-performing managers are more self-aware than average performers, and the authors suggest that getting others to do what is needed depends on your ability to gauge your impact on others accurately. The manager whose career is said to be derailed has often failed at understanding his true abilities, and as such is out of his depth and fails to notice it.

People can, and generally do, find a way to deal with their personal weaknesses: they work around them, or they work to strengthen them. People who do not know or accept their weaknesses fail to do so, and it requires some catastrophe to cause them to become introspective and recognize the reason things have gone terribly wrong.

The unknown weaknesses are "blind spots" that a person doesn't recognize in himself, but which may be obvious to others. They may not be noticed until something occurs that has a negative impact on yourself or others. A manager can often see the weaknesses in the employees he supervises, and should well know the frustration in attempting to get them to admit and consider them.

There follows a rather long story about an imaginary manager - it's a bit lengthy, but they key details are:

• The manager rose due to technical competence as a software developer, being "smarter" than many of his peers.
• As a manager, he often jumped into the work to solve problems for his people rater than letting them discover a solution because it was faster
• His people felt belittled by this, particularly when he did this in front of other people
• His brightest employees left first, followed by those who had genuine potential but felt they were not growing
• HR noticed the high turnover rate in his team, and decided to intervene

In this happy story, the author suggests that they used coaching and feedback to make the manager aware of the impact of his behavior on others - he was totally unaware of it and was just doing what seemed expedient to solve problems by stepping in personally.

(EN: I often cut out these fairy tales, but this one seemed rather well-crafted in terms of expressing the ideas the authors are struggling to get across.)

Building Self-Awareness

The authors suggest that increasing self-awareness can make our actions at work deliberate and mindful, which is especially important because in an environment change we cannot count on rituals and patterns. What worked well in the past may not produce the same results, and what failed may be just the thing that will succeed because the environment has changed.

(EN: It would seem that environmental awareness would therefore be important, but I can accept for now that the self is the one element of the environment over which a person has the most control.)

Self-Assessment

The authors offer a facile magazine-style quiz that asks the reader to score their responses to ten questions such as "I know my strengths and weaknesses" or "I find it easy to work with people I have just met."

(EN: The quiz itself is facile and quite bad and likely misleading, and is really more a test of narcissism - a person who indicates he knows his strengths and weaknesses may not know them at all, and may be lying even to himself, considering that self-awareness itself may be his weakness. A better approach to self-awareness would require a more granular instrument, and would compare a person's score to the way other people score them.)

Emotional Intelligence

The authors touch on "emotional intelligence," a trend that was a cash cow for management consultants a decade or so before the book was written, but had faded since. EQ focused on a person's understanding of their own emotions and the ability to recognize the potential emotional impact of their actions upon other people. In application, EQ focused on controlling your emotions and those of others in order to use emotions to support motivation and control behavior.

The appeal of EQ to business was the typical ploy: playing down the importance of intelligence and "book smarts" in favor of craftiness and social engineering, which offered people who were not very bright a set of tools by which they could aggregate power to themselves.

(EN: Likely I'm editorializing a bit here, but likely not by much: the authors say the very same things but with a positive spin. EQ is worth studying because it actually does have some valid perspectives to offer, but also a great deal of subterfuge - so if nothing else EQ teaches us the way that manipulative people operate so their tactics can be recognized.)

What Motivates You?

While considering the consequences of our actions is important to making decisions regarding behavior, understanding motivations helps us to improve behavior by consider the reason that an action is even considered. The authors indicate thatChapter Three will provide a more detailed consideration, a brief introduction is presented here:

While considering the consequences of our actions is important to making decisions regarding behavior, understanding motivations helps us to improve behavior by consider the reason that an action is even considered. The authors indicate thatChapter Three

The author considers McClelland's model of human motivation, which defined three areas of motivation: affiliation, achievement, and power. While a person may be motivated by different elements at different times, they do tend to gravitate toward one of the three.

• Those with a high need for achievement seek to accomplish things, setting goals that they can meet, and tend to be quantitative rather than qualitative.
• Those with a high need for affiliation seek to be liked and affected by others, and make decisions based on their ability to impact others by their actions.
• Those with a high need for power seek to have control, and their decisions are made with an eye toward how they personally benefit, immediately and in future

(EN: This seems a bit off, as a person who takes actions to benefit others, but at the same time to ingratiate them to himself, can be place in either of the last two categories. One cannot know his true motivation, and he may not be aware of it himself.)

There's also some mention of focus: whether the individual is attempting to "achieve things" for himself or for his organization. It's suggested that those who matriculate into "senior roles" tend to think more of the organization than themselves, because those who are self-directed tend to take actions on a smaller scale.

Another facile quiz is provided, which correlates desires to these categories:

• Achievement - Managers who want to make decisions, tell people what to do, and plan and direct their work
• Affiliation - Managers who want to be popular, liked, known, or respected by many people
• Power - Mangers who want to be successful, accomplish important things, and receive recognition for their personal contribution

(EN: Achievement seems off, as the qualities the authors describe are about power and control. My sense is a manager who seeks achievement is concerned with meeting quotas, breaking records, or otherwise getting things done with no concern for others.)

Gaining a Realistic View of Yourself

The authors (at last) mention the importance of aligning your self-perception to that which others see, and offer some insights in that regard.

The Johari Window

The Johari Window was developed by Jospeh Luft and Harry Ingham (the window is a portmanteau of Joe-Harry) which compares a person's self-perception to that of others, dividing them into a four-square diagram:

• Public (both you and others know) - Personal facts and aspects of your character on which you and other people agree are strong foundations of your personality: others expect you to be punctual, you prefer to be punctual, so your behavior generally fulfills their expectations and reinforces punctuality as a character trait that defines you.
• Private (things you know that others don't) - Those facts and aspects that you are aware of that others are not are part of your private self. Some of these are intentionally concealed (if you are a homosexual, chances are it is something you keep to yourself) while others are not known because they are not relevant to a relationship (the people at work don't know you enjoy collecting stamps because the topic doesn't come up)
• Blind Sport (things others know that you don't) - Those facts and aspects that others know about you but you are not aware of personally, often because they have not disclosed them to you (or you have denied them if you have). For example, the employees may not feel comfortable telling the boss when he's in a bad mood, so he doesn't recognize what sets off his temper.
• Unknown (things neither you nor others know) - This is an area in which there are aspects of a person's character that neither he nor others are aware of, which may be recognizable to someone with training or experience (a sociologist or psychologist) can detect. (EN: This is a dangerous area because "not known" and "not true" can be difficult to distinguish.)

The facts and aspects shift among panes in the Johari window. A person may disclose something about himself, moving it from private to public, or a contact may point something out to him, moving it from the blind spot to public. And, of course, the Johari window is different for each person - not all coworkers know the same things about a person.

The authors stray a bit into the area of relationships: the way that two people get to know one another is by moving into the "public" area (which again means known between those two, not necessarily the general public) by disclosing information - to talk about themselves to move facts out of the private area, to talk about others to overcome their blind spots. But everyone has a different threshold as to what they consider too personal or invasive for other people to know about them.

The author's go back to their case-study of the micromanager who was controlling of other people. It's suggested this behavior is often a blind spot and subordinates are reluctant to complain, when complaining would make him aware of his negative behavior. (EN: This is not universally true, but tends to be true of people who are sensitive or temperamental - if you're more easy-going people will not be as reluctant to give you honest feedback.)

What Should You Get Feedback On?

There are three general categories when soliciting feedback:

1. Abilities - The skills or competencies necessary to being successful in your role, particularly in a way that can be related to the outcomes you achieve. Ideally, your abilities are matched to the needs of the job.
2. Behaviors - Specific actions you perform, particularly those that are witnessed and evaluated by others. Generally, some behaviors should be developed, others emphasized, and others reduced or discontinued.
3. Perceptions - The manner in which others see you - right or wrong, peoples' perceptions of you is their reality. This can be the most subjective area, but also quite critical because you can often consider your own abilities and behaviors, but only other people can tell you how you are perceived.

Naturally, all feedback should be accepted graciously but taken with a grain of salt, as each person's feedback is just one person's perception - but this also includes your own perception of yourself.

Methods for Gathering Feedback

There are a variety of potential sources of information about your abilities, behaviors, and the way you are perceived, each with distinct advantages or disadvantages. Direct feedback from one person is incomplete, as they may not see everything, so it's worthwhile to leverage multiple perspectives and methodologies.

Unfortunately, most people will be reluctant to give negative feedback for social reasons - they would rather be kind than honest (EN: not to mention that they have their own agenda for controlling your behavior to their advantage). Finding a mentor or hiring a coach can be helpful, as criticism is understood to be part of the relationship, but they can be hard to find. Many people mean well, but are not good at coaching others.

(EN: Two particular problems are that mentors may not appreciate the complexities of a situation nor do they pause to consider the full scope of the consequences, and as such give superficial and even harmful advice.)

360-Degree Feedback

The 360-Degree methodology solicits input from multiple sources - not just your boss. Your peers, your subordinates, contacts in other department, and higher levels of management participate to provide a broad range of feedback that helps to provide a broader range of perspectives.

One of the strongest features of this method is to compare and contrast multiple assessments; whether a finding is the opinion of one person or many, and whether different people have different perspectives, helps to weight and balance the remarks that others make.

The authors also stress confidentiality: good feedback is frank, but frank feedback can be considered hurtful and can damage relationships if not handled properly. As such your approach cannot be overly casual.

Formal Versus Informal Feedback

Informal feedback is as simple as asking a person (directly or indirectly) their opinion and letting them respond to very loose questions (what am I doing well and what could I do better), but the responses may be random and not particularly helpful.

A more formal instrument that asks specific questions can be better geared toward gathering details about the degree to which you demonstrate specific abilities and behaviors related to your work. However, a poorly-designed instrument can be detrimental, so it is worth the investment (around $200 to $400) to purchase a well-designed instrument.

The authors suggest that a formal assessment is "usually only done every three to five years." (EN: Which is way too infrequent, particularly in offices where people change positions and responsibilities frequently, and does not give a person adequate updates to know whether a change they have made in their behavior is working. I would suggest that quarterly or semi-annual feedback at the least, depending on turnover/turbulence in a given place.)

Four characteristics for a good instrument are stressed:

1. Ease of Use. While the survey should gather granular information, it should not require an inordinate investment of time to complete, nor should questions be ambiguous or vague.
2. Benchmarked. A good survey should provide scores that are compared to benchmarks, via a database of responses for others in comparable roles and in comparable organizations.
3. Reliable and Valid. The survey should be statistically analyzed to ensure that it measures what it intends to measure, and does so consistently across many users.
4. Confidential. The respondents should remain anonymous and the results disclosed only to the subject, though a common exception is that they are often shared with the subject's coach, mentor, or supervisor.

A single survey gives an individual a snapshot, showing the impact of recent behaviors on performance. Taken over time, it can demonstrate changes and trends.

Personality Assessments

While feedback pertains to the short term (behaviors in the last few months), personality assessments dig deeper into qualities and traits that are a part of a person's character, which is a more long-term phenomenon.

Of particular importance is that behaviors can be altered easily but personality cannot. At best, a person can understand their personality, recognize where it is in conflict with others, and develop constructive approaches that account for personality. To "change who you are" is an unreasonable expectation of anyone, including yourself. (EN: Though I would posit that character development is possible, though more gradual and long-term.)

Unfortunately, psychology is not an exact science like chemistry, and provides only general assumptions rather than clear and specific answers. The elements of personality accrue over the course of our lives, and include innate traits, and every person is different to others in most ways - though they may be similar in a few superficial aspects.

(EN: I truly loathe the comparison of psychology to chemistry, because chemistry is only an exact science in a laboratory environment where the chemist knows exactly what is in the beakers - a chemist cannot predict what will happen when two unknown solutions are combined in the field without thorough analysis of their content. The problem with psychology is one of methodology - people who've taken Psych 101 think themselves experts in the subject, and sloppily apply theories without due analyses, and then blame their failure on the science rather than their own reckless abandon.)

There are many personality assessments that can be helpful, but even the best of them are not an absolute determination of truth. Unfortunately, there are many bad assessments, magazine-style quizzes that are superficial in gathering information and deeply flawed in their analyses. These are often used because they are very quick and simple, but they are wildly and dangerously inaccurate.

The authors mention two popular assessments that they feel are well designed: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and DISC profiles - both have been developed by qualified scientists, are extensive, and pass tests for statistical reliability and accuracy. The MBTI is perhaps the more widely recognized and the authors highly recommend it, but will instead consider the DISC as it is a simpler model.

Personal Styles and the DISC

The DISC model analyzes personal interaction styles in terms of four qualities.

• Dominance - People who tend to be controlling and self-centered in dealing with others, aggressively seeking to impose their own will
• Influence - People who tend to be more social and talkative, and attempt to convince or influence others to cooperate
• Support - People who favor harmony and consistency, prefer to avoid turbulence and change, and often subordinate themselves to others to keep the peace.
• Conscientious - People who favor rules, regulations, standards, and procedures, and who tend to be tactful and diplomatic but insist on confomity

It's noted that there is no one "best" style for every situation, though people tend to prefer one or two by default. Each style has strengths and weaknesses and can be more or less effective in interacting with others. Also, while people have preferred styles of interaction, they use all four styles in different situation. The notion that people can be neatly placed in one of the four "boxes" is a misapplication of the methodology.

Because it focuses on interaction between people, rather than qualities of a person in isolation, the DISC model is more often used by managers and management associations.

Random Thoughts on Personality Assessments

The authors provide a list of random thoughts:

1. Personality is not a simple matter, and cannot be reduced to a binary yes/no type of categorization system
2. Diversity of personalities is good. A group of people who all think alike perform no better than one person acting alone
3. Personality assessment is not a panacea that is universally applicable to all human behavior
4. Competence is separate from personality - because a person is not inclined to do something does not mean they are not capable or even skilled at doing it
5. Personality assessments are intended to help people work together, and are not designed to be screening instruments for hiring or promotion
6. Assessments are only as good as those who administer them. Whenever possible, hire a qualified professional to administer assessments, analyze scores, and facilitate feedback
7. Above all, avoid using personality assessments to label or stereotype individuals.

Process of Personal Change

Assessment of behavior and personality is the first step, which entails performing diagnosis. In order for this to do any good, it must be followed by a course or treatment in which changes must be made to achieve better outcomes.

Some people seem to readily accept feedback and quickly make changes in their behavior, whereas others resist or deny feedback and refuse to take any action in response. In essence, it is their response to an assessment: is the benefit of a change worth the pain of making it?

(EN: I would add that this question is on the part of the individual in question. His supervisor or his company may wish him to make the change for their benefit, often indifferent to the "cost" of making it - and this is because they receive the benefits without the costs. This is especially true in companies that conduct assessments but are unwilling to invest in follow-on training or development.)

Five Steps to Achieving Change

The authors suggest a five-step process by which a person achieves a change. (EN: No source is cited, but this is similar to the cognitive process for planning, although it seems to assume certainty that the change will accomplish the outcome - as there are no steps for gauging the chances of success, considering the risk, and evaluating options. Nor is there any after-action evaluation, consideration during the course, etc. All in all it's a bit deleterious and sloppy.)

1. Awareness. This is the fundamental step of recognizing how we behave and how we are perceived by others.
2. Understanding. This step considers the causality of our behavior, as derived from personality and motivation.
3. Acceptance. Acknowledging that a given behavior is something that a person has the power to change or influence, as well as the means by which it can be changed.
4. Commitment. Resolving to make a genuine effort to take the necessary actions to effect the change
5. Action. Undertaking those actions and sustaining the effort over time.

Achieving Change over Time

The authors offer up some trite platitudes about committing to change - that it's worth the effort, takes patience, and won't happen overnight. Then they refer to the four-stage model of effecting change, namely:

• Unconscious Incompetence. We do not recognize the things that we cannot do well.
• Conscious Incompetence. We are aware that we cannot do something well.
• Conscious Competence. We are capable of doing well through focus and attentive effort.
• Unconscious Competence. We are capable of doing well "naturally," without having to think about it

The point being that once a person decides on making a change, they have completed the first two steps, then face the daunting third, before they will achieve the fourth.