When team members don’t produce desired outcomes or don’t behave as expected effective leaders know that there are only three possibilities: 

Great leaders understand the importance of coaching team members to be their best and recognize that when team members fall short it can only be for one of three reasons as noted above. When this happens, great leaders embrace the responsibility of having a difficult and uncomfortable conversation with that team member. In fact, great leaders already have a cadence of one on ones in place with their direct reports—for the purpose of coaching them to be their best—so the needed conversation can be brought up as part of a regular one on one and is therefore not as difficult nor as uncomfortable as it would be if the issue had to be brought up on its own. 

I have found that ineffective leaders [and/or managers] don’t spend enough time coaching team members and usually avoid conflict by putting off these critical corrective conversations. This is neither fair to the individual nor to the organization.

In order to know which conversation to have with the team member effective leaders ask themselves and the individual whether the issue is that they…Don’t know? Don’t care? Or Can’t?

It’s the organization’s responsibility to equip and train team members if they truly Don’t Know. In the moment, and unless the leader is sure that appropriate information had been previously provided, the leader needs to give the team member the benefit of the doubt and provide the appropriate information and explanation. This conversation becomes a marker to reference if and when a future conversation on the same topic needs to be had.

Unfortunately, there are times that even great leaders make a hiring error and after short order determine that the team member is not a good fit to the role and they can’t actually do what is being asked of them. In these instances it’s best to remove the person from the role for everybody’s benefit including the person being removed. In some cases, when the individual is otherwise a great fit to the organization, another role may be available that the person can be moved into. Make the move quickly. Don’t wait for the 90 day probationary period to lapse. Delays are not beneficial to the individual, the rest of the team, nor to the organization.

Once it’s determined that the issue is neither one of knowing, or ability, the only option left is Don’t Care. This is when the conversation gets more difficult and uncomfortable the longer you put it off. People who don’t care represent some of the biggest cancers and toxins to an organization, because they not only don’t produce but can disrupt and infect others around them. Unfortunately, all too often an ineffective manager finds themselves repeating the same information over and over to a person who has little intention of changing their ways. Great leaders know that words don’t work with people who don’t care—the only thing these people understand are consequences. 

Seemingly good people fall into two categories: wise and foolish. And the way you are able to discern whether somebody is foolish is that after repeating the same thing to a person a number of times they don’t change their ways. You see, a wise person is identified by the way they respond to correction. A Wise person heads correction and changes their way, while a foolish person doesn’t generally respond to words. Foolish most people need consequences before they will change their ways. If you keep talking to a foolish person you will eventually also become a fool.

A word of caution about write-ups. Write-ups seem to be a favorite way for managers to provide discipline to team members. Unfortunately, write-ups can also represent a passive aggressive form of correction, especially when they are administered after a single incident. I say passive aggressive because in many cases a good one on one conversation with an attitude of development and care is much more impactful. Write-ups are a form of consequences and should be reserved for foolish people who don’t respond to coaching. 

Never write up a wise person. A wise person just needs a caring conversation to obtain the awareness they otherwise were lacking. If you write up a wise person they will feel that you don’t care and it could crush their spirit.When something happens the first time it’s an incident. When it happens a second time it may be a coincidence. But, when it happens a third time it’s a trend that needs to be addressed. To know which conversation to have ask if the issue is one of Don’t know? Don’t care? Or Can’t?

Nothing speaks to the concept of shaping more than the image of a potter and his clay.

This metaphor is even used in biblical writings, providing an image of how God molds and shapes His people as a potter would a lump of clay.

In many ways we are unformed lumps of clay at birth, but with immense potential. The challenge is how we are shaped, and by whom, to grow and mature to become our best. 

Certainly parents, teachers at school, coaches in sports, and bosses at work can be significant shaping sources. Unfortunately, in many cases these people spend more time telling us what to do and managing our behaviors than shaping us in a positive way. In other cases, which can be a pitfall of many parents, they do too much for us, giving us fish, than teaching us to fish.

Years ago, when we had young children, a friend told my wife and me about the six-year rule of parenting—an approach which provides insights into the difference between a shaping style and a management style.

My friend suggested that parenting happens in three six-year stages to help raise up a child in the way they should go between birth and eighteen years of age. Ideally, with a shaping approach, in the first six years of a child’s life (years 0-6) the parent provides a principled foundation and clarity of boundaries. This is when the child learns about the principles that govern our world and the boundaries involved in operating as an effective member of a family and society. This is also the stage when appropriate discipline takes place. As a child’s ability to reason is in the process of developing, discipline provides direction and understanding of the consequences of poor choices. 

In the second six years (7-12) the parent leads by example. If a good foundation was established in the first six years, then leading by example, with consistency, serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the principles.

The third six years (13-18) is a time of negotiation—a time of choices and consequences for the child. A time of letting the child make more of their own decisions, but with the guidance and safety-net of loving parents. In theory, at eighteen the child should be ready to live on their own, which also coincides with when most children go off to college.

While we share similar DNA with our children, they are very different people with different talents, perspectives, preferences, desires, and fears. A parent’s job is not to control their children, making them the same as the parent, but to equip them with clarity and tools to become interdependent healthy functional members of society.

A mistake made by many parents is to give the child too much freedom in the first six years. This has the effect of starting with the third stage [negotiation] without an appropriate foundation through which to filter decisions. This can have a devastating effects on the child. Here are just a few examples of how a parent might negotiate with their child in the first stage: letting them choose their own bed-time, feeding them on demand, not being consequential when they defy reasonable requests, and using the counting-to-ten method. I’m not suggesting a parent should dominate their child. But the parent must understand how good boundaries and structure actually provide the child with a greater sense of security. In the first six years the child is not mentally capable of sorting out the ultimate pros and cons of their behaviors. They are dependent on the parent to look after their best interests in these initial years.

Parents who don’t establish a good foundation in the first six years, often aren’t consistent and resolute enough to lead by example in the second six years, with the result that children come to their teenage years ill-equipped and confused. Then, when the child, who hasn’t yet developed the ability to think critically and interpret their environment, makes poor decisions, the parent, out of fear, often reverts to a more rigid and control-oriented approach, which often leads to rebellion by the child. 

Done correctly a child learns the principles of life in a safe and supportive environment during the first six years. In the second six years, still in a safe and supportive environment, the child sees how the parent navigates life. During this time the child is able to “practice life”, but with the support of their parents. By eighteen they are essentially ready to tackle life on their own, yet still with their parents in the background as resources.

Now think of the Six-Year Rule of Parenting in the context of our work life.

In organizations the three stages would not be six years each, but rather represent three stages of assimilation. In the first stage, during the hiring process and through the early weeks on the job, leaders need to establish a good foundation with clarity of boundaries and guiding principles through formal and written vision, mission, and values statements. The second stage involves leading by example, fully aligned with the guiding principles of the organization. The third stage consists of negotiation, practicing compassionate candor, and giving team members more and more autonomy and responsibility.

Too many organizations don’t lay a good foundation because they lack formal written vision, mission, and values statements. And, often times, when they have taken the time to write them down it’s more of a “check the box” exercise than creating a set of guiding principles to align the team. These organizations often bring people onto their teams without formal onboarding [foundation laying] and then wonder why so many new hires struggle to become functional members of the team.

Adding to the lack of clarity, many organizations give new hires too much leniency in the first stage, often referred to as a “honeymoon” period, a few weeks or months, during which they give them the benefit of the doubt. This deprives the new hire of valuable feedback of what is appropriate behavior. In the process, and not surprisingly, out of alignment situations create frustration within the new hire and others on the team, leading to further dysfunctional behavior and eventual termination or quitting.

Let’s reflect back on the potter. How does a piece of clay become a beautiful vase? It’s not by accident. Even before the potter places the clay on the wheel he has a vision for what he wants to create. He works with intentionality to shape the clay into the vision he has in his mind. There is an ancient story about how a Sculpture sees an image in a chunk of marble and then chips the pieces away that don’t fit.

Leaders need to have a vision of what they want to create in their organizations and then align the team with that vision. This involves giving candid feedback when behaviors don’t align with the values of the organization, and coaching team members to become their best. If we are hiring capable, cohesive, and hungry people why aren’t we giving them more autonomy in a safe, supportive, and positive environment to thrive in? Unfortunately, in many cases not enough consideration is given to the cohesive element during the hiring process. Further, most organizations don’t do a good job of on-boarding. The result is a potentially misaligned team with the vision and values of the organization. Imagine trying to drive a car with poor alignment. It may get you from point A to point B, but the ride may be shaky, may take more work to keep on course, may cause more wear and tear on the tires, may compromise safety, and may reduce performance. You might tolerate some misalignment in your daily-driver, but you certainly wouldn’t in your race car.

Shaping takes more work upfront, through one-on-one coaching, but allows people to become more effective and perform at higher levels for longer periods of time.

So why do so many organizations practice a management approach? I suggest there’s a few reasons, such as: the manager has never been shown a better way, telling seems quicker and easier with less effort, or being the boss feeds our ego and need for control. Whatever the reason it’s in everybody’s best interest to make the paradigm shift.

A couple powerful resources that will get you started to being a better leader and shaper, both written by Patrick Lencioni:

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

It’s time to reconsider the source of your frustration!

Being frustrated with others is like pointing a finger at them and realizing that there are three fingers pointing back at you. If you’re going to be frustrated with anybody it should be with yourself, but then that is just wasted energy. Either way, frustration is a sign of a need for greater intentionality.

Frustration is an emotion that suggests one of two things is taking place: either you are allowing something, which is in your control, to persist that could or should have been addressed more effectively earlier, or you have encountered something, which is not in your control, and are allowing it to bother you unnecessarily. Either way, both of these sources of frustration are ultimately on you, and not on the other person. Let me explain.

I was recently on a flight which was 100% full. I was in the aisle seat, my choice, with both the middle and window seat occupied. Literally, as soon as we reached an altitude of 10,000 feet, and the seat belt sign was turned off, the passenger in the window seat indicated that he needed to use the restroom. This is always a hassle and inconvenience, but even more so as I had just started working on my laptop. Being transparent, at first I had some judgmental thoughts and wondered why he didn’t use the facilities in the airport prior to departure. Weren’t we constantly reminded as children to use the restroom before going on a trip. But his choices, and upbringing, were not under my control.

What was controllable was my choice of an aisle seat knowing that there would be a chance that the other two seats might be occupied by individuals who had the same rights, as I have, to use the restroom at will. My frustration in this situation represents wasted emotion. I knew that I just needed to get over it and, with intentionality, not allow negativity to take root in my mind. Further, like I coach other leaders, it’s important to attribute positive intent.

Then there are situations, which are under your control. Imagine, for example, a manager who is frustrated with an employee who is habitually late, either in showing up to work or in completing projects or tasks. Emotions surrounding frustration in this situation arise because the behavior is being managed, with lateness tolerated, rather than shaped. 

When managing behaviors, instead of shaping them, a manager can easily rely on [false] hope that things will change with just one more reminder. Great leaders don’t rely on hope, but rather address situations head-on—people need to be given clarity of expectations and desired outcomes and the choice to adjust their behavior(s) [if they want to continue to be a part of the team].

Too many managers tell team members what to do, rather than ensuring buy-in, and are then disappointed when the team member does not follow through with what they told them to do. The issue is not with the team member, but rather with the manager. Assumption and hope are ineffective strategies, which usually result in frustration when desired outcomes are not achieved after multiple reminders.

Hence, frustration in these situations is a sign of a missed opportunity—a sign that you didn’t do something previous that would have addressed the issue—and instead of owning the ongoing failure, your frustration is an attempt to deflect negative emotions.

Instead of allowing frustration to turn into negativity, anger, or depression a great leader looks for their missed leadership opportunities and moves forward with greater intentionality in shaping team member behaviors.

Intentionality involves leaders asking, “don’t know, or don’t care?” They inform, teach, and train team members who don’t know, and have consequential conversations with team members whose actions suggest they don’t care. 

The next time you get frustrated pause, breathe, and look for the leadership opportunity that was missed. Then with intentionality take the appropriate steps to shape better behavior going forward…in yourself and others!

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

When you stop to think about it, most people spend an inordinate amount of time trying to manage behaviors and too little time shaping them.

Surveys, write-ups, policies, signs, warnings, tickets, reprimands, disciplinary sessions, etc. are all attempts at managing behaviors. Unfortunately, most of these efforts are doomed to be repeated multiple times over with little impact on the behaviors themselves.

Great Leaders begin with the end in mind and define guiding principles to attract the right people and repel the wrong ones. A team aligned around clear guiding principles largely self-manages behaviors together with an occasional dose of accountability.

Guiding principles are essentially the same as values. Values declare what is important to the organization and how the people associated with the organization are to behave.

It’s important to define these values or guiding principles early in the life of the organization so that they can be used to help select the kinds of people that are the best fit for the organization and to help shape behaviors each day.

When defining them it’s important that they not just be words and that the exercise is not just to check a box. Rather, these word’s need to be top of mind for everyone in the organization to guide their behaviors moment by moment.

There tend to be three types of values:

• Permission To Play Values…like honesty and integrity. These are values we expect every member to embrace without having to say so. Hence, they do not need to be spelled out in the guiding principles.
• Aspirational Values. These are values we would like to see inherent in the organization at some point, but admittedly they are not prevalent in the organization at the current time. These are values we are promoting and working towards.
• Core Values. These are values that are evident to all who know the organization. They tend to be values inherent in the founders and deemed important to the reputation and functioning of the organization as it grows. Healthy organizations do not compromise their core values without threatening the very existence of the organization.

Guiding principles should be a combination of core values and aspirational values. They are defined and clearly communicated continuously by the leaders. Prospective team members who do not align with them are not invited to join the organization and existing team members are held accountable to them. They are woven into the fabric of the organization at every opportunity and decisions are filtered through them.

To provide perspective of what a culture statement looks like, which includes a list of guiding principles along with brief descriptors, I’m including mine here:

Organizations which consistently operate in line with their values tend to build remarkable brands.

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

To be effective as a leader one first needs to come to terms with their ultimate motivation for taking on a leadership role. 

In simple terms there are two kinds of leaders. Those who seek the rewards that come with position, power, and authority—“rewards-based leaders”—and those who courageously embrace the responsibilities that define true leadership—“responsibility-based leaders” or what is often referred to as a “servant leader”. 

There is nothing wrong with enjoying the rewards that accompany leadership. The issue is whether the rewards are the goal or the by-product.

The challenge for rewards-based leaders is that tend to abdicate, avoid, and delegate the responsibilities that come with leadership. As a result the team becomes dysfunctional and inferior results are achieved.

Patrick Lencioni, author of The Motive, has done an excellent job in identifying the five key responsibilities that accompany true leadership, as follows:

1. Having difficult and uncomfortable conversations
2. Managing direct reports
3. Running great meetings
4. Developing cohesive teams
5. Providing adequate reminders

To obtain a proper perspective of these key responsibilities I encourage you to watch the following 30 minute video: 

and obtain the book, The Motive.

What you will learn is that great leaders courageously embrace the responsibilities that come with their role and are willing to sacrifice the rewards, if necessary, for the greater good. Ironically, in the process of letting go of the rewards, and embracing the responsibilities, not only are leaders defined, but greater results achieved and sustained.

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

Authenticity and humility are two attributes that some people boast they have, but somehow the more they claim them for themself the less of them they seem to have. 

Staying true to our uniqueness means remaining authentic to who we are and then making the contribution only we can make.

It is like the world is one large jigsaw puzzle and we are all individual pieces of that puzzle. 

Without each of us fulfilling our unique contribution, the puzzle, our world, will never properly come together. 

Unfortunately, we don’t always see the big picture, nor do we properly value ourselves and others. Instead, to stroke our ego, we try to elevate ourselves above others, diminishing ourselves and others in the process.

Also, and far too often, we compare ourselves to others, wishing we were somehow different, rending our contribution less valuable and potentially disregarded altogether. 

The good news is that authenticity can be developed over time by intentionally choosing to be honest, reducing self-righteousness, and increasing vulnerability.

Honesty: Things are, or they are not. Too often for self-interest and/or in fear we describe people, things, and situations different than they are. Honesty is about telling things as they are regardless of the consequences. The challenge with honesty is that we need to be honest with ourselves, and confident in ourselves, before we can be honest with others.

Self-Righteousness: We all have an innate need to be right, or at least to be seen as right. Being wrong hurts our ego. So, in order to protect our ego we often adopt a narrative [whether true or false] that puffs us up. Honesty suggests that we neither puff up or shrink away.

Vulnerability: Because vulnerability involves personal sacrifice, and potentially uncomfortable exposure, few choose it. Further, many are fearful that others will not like who they really are. So, in weakness, they choose to protect themselves and their egos. But that makes it hard, if not impossible, for people to see them for who they really are and for them to make their unique contribution. 

By definition, a leader is an intentional influencer and without authenticity a person loses most, if not all, of their ability to influence others. Hence, without authenticity it is virtually impossible to lead others.

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

It is human nature to blame.

Brene Brown, author of many books on the subject of shame, blame, and vulnerability, aptly observed that blame is essentially the dispensing of pain and suffering. In other words, when things don’t go the way we would have liked we experience discomfort and in order to make ourselves feel better we place responsibility for failure on others, a process, or some aspect of our environment.

The problem with doing so is it doesn’t help us find solutions and it only compounds our discomfort by adding guilt from potentially blaming the wrong person or thing. Further, blame hinders us from pursuing solutions.

Blame is a deflection that leads to a loss of time, resources, and leadership capital.

As a leader, when something does not go the way we would like it is better to own our portion, help the team learn what needs to be learned, and collaborate to find a better solution.

The place to look for solutions is in one of three places:

• People: this is a don’t know, don’t care question. 
  • If a person does not know what to do we either need to provide greater clarity or training and we as leaders need to own the fact that we gave something to somebody who was not ready to take on the responsibility.
  • If a person does not care we as leaders also need to own the fact that we passed a baton to somebody who did not want to take hold of it.
• Process: this is typically an issue relating to collaboration. All team members need to be a part of identifying, formulating, and executing processes that allow the organization to succeed. 
• Environment: this includes both elements that we control and those that we don’t. A natural disaster is outside our control—the team needs to [and typically does] come together for resolve. How many times the phone rings before being transferred to somebody who can answer the call is within our control—the team needs to regularly review controllable environmental elements to ensure they serve the objectives of the organization.

A brief word of caution about blaming yourself. There is a huge difference between accepting responsibility and blaming yourself. Blame is negative and defeating and shrinks energy needed for finding solutions. Ownership, on the other hand, is positive and expands energy towards finding solutions.

When things go wrong great leaders focus on:

• Investigating the facts to identify the real issues (and not just symptoms)
• Collaborating with stakeholders to tweak processes and controllable environmental factors
• Providing greater clarity and consequences to minimize future missteps.

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

Is your objective, when delivering a product of service, to avoid negative elements or to delight the customer?

A risk of focusing on eliminating negative experiences is that it can result in what is called a whelming experience—neither great nor bad.

According to the authors of The Power of Moments, Dan and Chip Heath, research shows that we tend to remember the best or worst moment of an experience, as well as the last moment, and forget the rest. 

Forrester Research shows that only $1 of every $10 of an organization’s revenues come from customers who feel they had a negative experience, while the other $9 comes from customers who had a positive experience. 

Unfortunately, human nature is geared toward fixing issues before creating special moments. The typical organization spends 80% of its customer-oriented time and resources trying to resolve customer issues and eliminate pits and potholes and then runs out of energy, time, and resources before investing in creating peaks.

In other words, an organization spends 80% of its customer-focused resources on the part of the business that only generates 10% of the revenues. This suggests that leaders need to refocus their resources on the part of the business that generates 90% of the revenues. This is done by designing moments that create positive peaks and positive endings, rather than worrying about the potholes. Certainly, pits need to be addressed, but those are more obvious and are most likely specific to individuals and should be dealt with on an individual basis.

The Heath brothers state that while human lives are endlessly variable, our most memorable positive moments are dominated by four elements: elevation, insight, pride, and connection. If we embrace these elements, we can conjure more moments that matter. 

Elevation:        Moments with boosted sensory pleasures and, if appropriate, an added element of surprise. The moments transcend the normal course of events and are literally extraordinary. A couple examples of this could be getting upgraded to First Class on a flight or getting free desert at a restaurant on your birthday.

Insight:            Moments which rewire our understanding of ourselves or the world. A couple examples of this could include a behind the scenes factory tour to see how your car was made or watching a video presenting the history of your dealership or some of the charitable events your store has sponsored while the customer waits to get into finance [rather than being abandoned by the sales person and sitting idle].

Pride:              Moments which capture us at our best, like moments of achievement or courage. Examples of this could include getting a bonus/award for achievement or being called on stage at a special event to recognize behind the scenes efforts.

Connection:    Moments which are social and are shared with others. A few examples of this would include pictures with Santa Claus, meeting Mickey Mouse at Disneyworld, or even having the owner of a car dealership come out and thank a customer for their business.

Great leaders think in moments recognizing that it creates a better customer experience, is more fulfilling for staff, and is better for business (profits, loyalty, and advocacy).

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

According to Merriam-Webster, “compete” is a verb and is defined as: to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (such as position, profit, or a prize), or to be in a state of rivalry.

Some of the best games in sports are played between rivals, especially worthy rivals—where the teams respect each other and have similar skills and abilities. It seems everybody is more focused and gives more effort and it usually brings out the best in individuals and the teams.

Compete is one of the Carrollisms (core values) of the Seattle Seahawks. Coach Pete Carroll defines it as “striving together” [for excellence] to bring out the best in each other, rather than simply winning or losing. The Seahawks believe that two key factors bring out excellence in individuals and teams: “deep and rich support and relentless challenge to improve.”

Imagine if that is how we also interpreted the idea of competition—the means to make us better, rather than simply defeating others. Walt Disney recognized that tough competition is and was critical to his and his organization’s success.

Some of the benefits of competition, are:

• More focus
• Higher urgency
• Greater motivation
• Standard to compare performance against
• Natural source of resistance to push against to build strength

Great leaders promote healthy competition within their teams celebrating the effort more than just the outcome.

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.

in·i·ti·a·tive:

1. the ability to assess and initiate things independently.
2. the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do.

Nothing happens until somebody does something. In other words, until somebody takes initiative things will stay as they always have.

Taking initiative means:

• Stepping out and taking a risk
• Owning issues before they own you
• Developing people before they request it
• Being the first to smile, say hello, or apologize
• Giving praise before morale slumps
• Speaking candidly when others are tempted to withhold
• Asking dumb questions
• Holding others accountable
• Dealing with dysfunctional behavior before it takes root in your culture
• Being an intentional disruptor when others are happy with the status quo
• Being vulnerable so others can be as well
• Trusting and being trustworthy
• Caring for others even when it is not reciprocal
• No doubt you have examples of your own to add

Taking initiative is a direct function of leadership because leaders are typically taking teams where they have not gone before. This requires courage, because going where others have not gone previous involves potentially unknown obstacles and outcomes.

Herb Mast is a Leadership Coach and Employee Engagement Specialist. Learn how he can assist you in implementing the principles and concepts presented here.