Our people are dealing with complex problems. We’d like to bring you in so you can stimulate a thoughtful conversation, and hopefully stir up some big ideas that will take us forward.”
As a self-employed leadership consultant, I used to hear this kind of thing a lot, mostly before the 2008 financial crisis. ...
English: Dow Jones Industrial Average Jan 2006- Nov 2008 中文(简体)‬: 道琼斯工业平均指数（2006年1月-2008年11月） (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I rarely hear this kind of sentiment anymore, despite the fact that so many organizations are focused on the mantra of fostering change. In fact, during the initial planning stages of a retreat or conference, I’m often told just the opposite, with some version of the following message:
“One thing you need to know is that our folks are very busy. They don’t have the time or bandwidth to deal with a lot of big-picture concepts or ideas about the future. What they want are a few simple takeaways––three things they can do on Monday morning.”
Leaving aside the question of whether the leaders in question are really looking for three things to add to their already jammed Monday calendars, I find myself increasing skeptical of this approach. It seems to be based on a faulty understanding of what professionals operating in a complex and demanding environment actually require. Harried and rushed, distracted by technology overload, struggling with compliance issues that keep them mired in a welter of detail, and assailed by requests whose claims of urgency have become routine, the executives I meet these days often seem to be in need of refreshment and renewal rather than additional to-do’s.
Instead of three tips on how to manage invasive technologies, leaders need opportunities to articulate a broad vision of what they’re trying to achieve, so they can better distinguish which tasks require diligence and which can be let go. Instead of exhortations about the need to “manage up,” they need to understand how the erosion of barriers that defined industrial-era culture is leaving the employees they manage exposed to uncertainty and fear. Instead of quick fixes to address shifting markets, they need support to recognize how intersecting trends are creating whole new categories of unmet needs. ...
... By focusing potentially profound conversations on three action points or five bullets, those who plan seminars and retreats risk squandering the opportunity for thoughtful engagement and short-circuiting creative solutions that smart people, given the time and permission to think, are likely to come up with on their own.
Being able to shoot the rapids in an era of constant change requires robust thinking skills. People do not develop these skills by responding to prescriptive formulas, however neatly packaged as takeaways. Planting seeds that may germinate in the coming years is also a useful antidote to the sense of unrelenting urgency that pervades organizational life and that can undermine peoples’ ability to make good decisions.
Solution of the Nine Dots puzzle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Given companies’ oft-stated desire to help people “think outside the box,” I believe consultants and other service providers do a disservice when we go along with requests to deliver overly simplified solutions to problems that will just grow more complex. Instead, we should push those who engage us to think more profoundly about what thriving in a highly demanding global environment requires. Only by doing so can we support leaders in delivering programs that extend their employees’ capacity to respond to the complexities of today’s economic and technological frontier.
“Leverage” has become a significant if not dominant concept in the corporate lexicon and it’s now a buzzword used every day in many ways. Here are examples of how I’ve heard “leverage” used: “He carries a lot of leverage” and “You’re not exercising the right leverage” and “How do we leverage these relationships?” and “We need to leverage this negotiation” and “We have to leverage our human capital.”
So just what is “leverage?”
Leverage is using something you already have---in the case of human capital the skills, knowledge, and experience possessed by the employees of a company---to achieve something new or better.In other words you don’t have to invent something to achieve your objective. You can use what is already present.
So what about emotional leverage? What do you think and how do you feel about the idea of using people’s emotions to achieve some objective? Many people would say it’s repulsive, unfair and controlling, and what’s worse, even devious and manipulative. But is it really?
For the purposes of this post, consider that you are managing a person who is a passionate idealist. He assesses his decisions and actions through the lens and measure of his ideals which he holds dear. However you, as his manager, can clearly see that his commitment to his ideals, partly conscious and partly unconscious, is standing in the way of his getting along with the members of his team. His believes that the other team members fall short of what he views as acceptable. According to him, unless they can “come up to” his bar he has difficulty working with them. But he is an excellent talent and an asset to the company. What do you do?
You can request that he be given an individual contributor role. But for the overall purposes of your department he has been assigned to you and it makes most sense that he be on your team.
You can try various techniques to “get him” to conform. But trying to change someone, no matter how important or valuable your objective, is generally a futile endeavor. People don’t change unless there’s something in it for them. So what do you do?
People Buy Emotionally and Justify Logically
An axiom in sales states that people buy emotionally, whether it’s an object or an idea, and use logic to justify what they’ve bought or bought into. To sell or persuade someone of something you must begin with establishing emotional appeal.
Idealists crave that which transcends the bounds of the material world; because for them reality is fundamentally mental and mentally constructed. They are less attracted to money, or titles, or material things---although unconsciously that may be a different story as long as you can link it to their beliefs. They are powered by ideas placing high value on emotional self-awareness as a precondition for the bettering of humanity. Applying the sales axiom to facilitate change you must begin by “embracing” rather than resisting what the idealist holds dear---his need for excellence, the purity of his point of view, and his desire to contribute to the betterment of humanity. That’s where you will find his emotional base. In sales it’s called the “sweet spot.”
This describes only part of the idealist’s character structure but it will do for the purpose of illustrating the power of non-manipulative emotional leverage. What he is committed to is generally of high value. If his beliefs can be used to turn him toward cooperatively it would benefit the team and his own sense of fulfillment.
Emotional Leverage
To employ emotional leverage begin by recognizing that emotions are information, not unlike thoughts. They are data points you must assess. If your intention is to benefit him as well as yourself you won’t abuse his emotions. You won’t disrespect or abuse what he values. But you must keep his emotions at an arm’s length. You cannot become immersed in them or you will lose your ability to assess and determine what is best for both of you. For the purposes of persuading him to become a better team player you must see his emotions as a lever to move him.
To succeed using emotional leverage you must:
● Remain aware that his vision is the product of an emotional base and, no matter how he rationalizes his position, he clings to it for some emotional reason;
● See that if you want him move in your direction enough to be able to work well with the team your task is to discover the emotional value that drives his vision---his sweet spot; and
● Understand that once you know his emotional sweet spot you can craft an approach that blends his need with yours so that you both can feel successful.
And you are doing so by leveraging his emotional state.
To reiterate, you are using something he already has, his passionate idealism, to achieve something new or better for you and for him.
The point here is to keep in mind and be sensitive to the emotional elements involved---mostly in him. In that way you can use emotional leverage to best serve him, your team, the job, and the company, and not least of all yourself as an excellent manager.
This example of an idealist is only one of many personality types you will encounter but the process of emotional leveraging remains the same.
How do feel about emotional leveraging? Please let me know.
(Photo Credit: Jenny Waterloo Flickr)
Jim Sniechowski, PhD and his wife Judith Sherven, PhD http://JudithandJim.com have developed a penetrating perspective on people’s resistance to success, which they call The Fear of Being Fabulous. Recognizing the power of unconscious programming to always outweigh conscious desires, they assert that no one is ever failing. They are always succeeding. The question is, at what?
Currently working as consultants on retainer to LinkedIn providing executive coaching, leadership training and consulting as well as working with private clients around the world, they continually prove that when unconscious beliefs are brought to the surface, the barriers to greater success and leadership presence begin to fade away. They call it Overcoming the Fear of Being Fabulous.http://OvercomingtheFearofBeingFabulous.com
(MoneyWatch) It is the economic calamity that no one expects and everyone fears.
Experts agree that failing to raise the nation's debt ceiling by Oct. 17, when U.S. officials say the government will run out of money to pay its bills, would gravely wound the economy, and perhaps even throw it back into recession. Because Treasury bonds and the dollar are cornerstones of the global financial system, meanwhile, the shock wave would be felt around the world.
"The potential is disastrous," said Gus Faucher, senior economist with PNC Financial Services Group. "We would see interest rates spike across the board. We'd see a huge crash in the dollar. People count on lending their money to the federal government and getting it back, and if that trust is taken away -- it's never happened that we haven't met our obligations as a nation -- then that has very, very negative consequences for the U.S. economy."
The consequences are so severe that, even as the government shutdown enters its second week, most seasoned political observers still expect Congress to ultimately reach an eleventh-hour deal to lift the government's borrowing limit.
But what exactly is the debt ceiling, and exactly how worried should Americans be that it could come crashing down?
What is the debt ceiling?
English: Chart of the United States' debt ceiling from 1981 to 2010 in $ trillion. This chart tracks the debt ceiling at the end of each calendar year. Years are color coded by congressional control and presidential terms highlighted. Data source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np Modified chart by http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LibertyUSArocks&action=edit&redlink=1 to remove New York Times logo and make more NPOV. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The debt ceiling is the total amount of money the U.S. government can borrow (by selling Treasury bonds) to pay its obligations, including interest on the national debt, Social Security and Medicare benefits, and many other payments. That limit is currently $16.7 trillion, although technically the government already exceeded it in May. The Treasury Department has since used various measures to continue borrowing.
During World War I, amid uncertainty regarding the total costs of funding U.S. involvement in the conflict, Congress created the cap in 1917 to put an upper limit on federal borrowing. Since 1960, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times.
How is the debt ceiling changed?
Lawmakers can adjust it by passing a standalone bill or by including it in another piece of legislation as an amendment.
U.S. debt from 1940 to 2010. Red lines indicate the Debt Held by the Public (net public debt) and black lines indicate the Total Public Debt Outstanding (gross public debt), the difference being that the gross debt includes that held by the federal government itself. The second panel shows the two debt figures as a percentage of U.S. GDP (dollar value of U.S. economic production for that year). The top panel is deflated so every year is in 2010 dollars. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Does raising the debt ceiling increase the federal debt?
No. Lifting the borrowing limit simply allows the government to pay its existing bills. That debt exists whether or not Congress authorizes additional borrowing, and to avoid default it must be paid.
Why can't Congress and the White House avoid lifting the cap by cutting federal spending?
Because preventing the government from borrowing to meet its obligations would require all discretionary spending, such as for defense, education, housing and other annual appropriations, to stop, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the outlays for mandatory programs, such as Social Security, also would have to be halted, while taxes would need to rise to ensure the government had money to spend. Deep spending cuts and tax hikes would throw the economy into recession.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew recently forecastthat on Oct. 17 the government would have about $30 billion on hand. That isn't enough because the government spends as much as $60 billion per day. "If we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the United States of America to meet all of its obligations for the first time in our history," he said last week in a letter to congressional leaders.
What happens if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling?
If the government runs low on cash, it will have to withhold a range of payments. Retirees might not get their Social Security checks, especially worrisome for the millions of Americans who depend almost entirely on the social insurance program for income. The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Holders of Treasury notes, from Wall Street and other global banks to foreign governments, also could get stiffed, jeopardizing the solvency of many financial institutions and choking off global credit flows.
The U.S. also would struggle to pay the interest on its debt, including a $6 billion payout due at the end of the month. At that point, the U.S. would be in default of its obligations. The value of Treasury bonds and the dollar would nosedive. The nation's borrowing costs would soar as anxious investors demanded a higher return to buy suddenly shaky U.S. debt. And because the interest rate on Treasuries provides a benchmark for rates on other loans, from mortgages and credit cards to car and student loans, borrowing would become far more costly for consumers and businesses. Stock markets in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world would almost certainly plunge.
"When stock prices fall, investment or other spending to expand a business is more costly," the Treasury Department said in a report last week outlining the potential impact of the debt-ceiling fight. "The effects on households and businesses, moreover, are reinforcing. Less capacity and willingness of households to spend, when businesses have less incentive to invest, hire and expand production, all lead to weaker economic activity."
In short, the already fragile economic recovery could stall.
There is recent precedent for such turmoil. Consumer confidence plummeted after lawmakers squared off over the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, while the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index dropped nearly 20 percent. Hiring among small businesses slowed. Ever after a deal was struck to raise the cap in August of that year, credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. debt for the first time ever.
Beyond the immediate economic fallout of defaulting on its debt, for the U.S. the symbolic blow might be even greater. In the post-World War II era, Treasuries and the greenback have -- for better and for worse -- served as the foundation of the global financial system. A default would shatter the faith on which that system relies.
How much danger are we in?
Although financial markets are not yet in panic mode, the standoff in Washington has them worried. Unlike during the 2011 dispute, when Republicans and most Democrats favored cutting federal spending, the stark division over Obamacare suggests there may be less room for compromise this time around. One clear sign of distress: Interest rates on short-term Treasury bonds rose last week, as investors seek greater yields to offset what they perceive as the greater risk of holding the debt.
Still, most economists, stock analysts and, for all the pointed rhetoric on Capitol Hill, even congressional leaders themselves downplay the chances of a default. The belief is that common sense, or at least a sense of political self-preservation, will prevail.
Neuroscientists have long known that the human brain is always on, even when its owner isn’t consciously using it. (For other perspectives on this phenomenon published in s+b, see Matthew May’s piece from the Spring 2013 issue, and the Thought Leader interview with Loran Nordgren in the Autumn 2013 issue.) In fact, that’s exactly when the default mode network—a connected group of functional areas within the brain—is most active. As Brafman and Pollock explain it, “The default mode is always engaged, unless we actually interrupt it to perform a specific task.”
This neural network helps us evaluate our environment, reflect on it, and make connections between external information and the data we have stored in our heads. These connections are the fodder for all kinds of creative endeavors, including business innovation. ...
English: Albert Einstein Français : Portrait d'Albert Einstein (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Brafman and Pollack would say that my shower is “white space”—a time and a place in which I let my thoughts become less structured and more chaotic. In The Chaos Imperative, they point out how the white space in the lives of people like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs produced some pretty good ideas, like the theory of relativity and all those digital fonts in your computer. The authors also describe how they have worked with the U.S. Army to produce fresh thinking by introducing a bit of white space into an environment in which being “on task” is a fetish.
So, if you’re pursuing innovation in your company (and what company isn’t?), what can you do get white space working in your innovation process? Brafman and Pollack offer these four tips in the book:
Employ white space judiciously. It works best when you have a clear goal in mind and have already spent some time consciously working on a problem.
Consider how much white space is too much. Ask people if they feel like they need more or less unstructured time.
Move. As long as it doesn’t require a good deal of conscious thought, exercise is a proven way to trigger the default mode network.
Create a micro white space. Don’t look for answers as soon as you ask a question; give people 20 seconds or more to reflect. Likewise, start an idea session with a minute of silent reflection on the meeting’s purpose.
Theodore Kinni is senior editor for books atstrategy+business.
401k, retire, retirement, retiring, 401(k) plan, money, investment, investing /ISTOCKPHOTO CBS News: By
RAY MARTIN /
MONEYWATCH/September 20, 2013, 7:00 AM
(MoneyWatch) Workers in 401(k) plans are required to make important decisions that can have a significant impact on their ultimate retirement savings. Folks relying on their 401(k) as their primary retirement nest egg need to make the right decisions on when to enroll in the plan, how much to contribute, how to invest contributions and how to manage the account.
Most people have the best of intentions when they contribute to their 401(k), but merely being a good saver isn't enough. Here are some of the common mistakes savers should avoid in order to keep their savings growing in their employer's plan.
1) Not enrolling at the earliest opportunity
The problem is that a lot of workers don't take the steps to sign up and join their employer's 401(k) plan at the earliest opportunity. ... The problem is they've lost out on matching contributions (assuming their employer matches) and on the tax-deferred gains on funds they could have saved and invested. Changing jobs five to seven times over a working career (which is typical) only compounds this mistake.
2) Not increasing contributions
According to industry data, the average contribution percentage for workers saving in a 401(k) is around 6 percent. Most studies that take a measure of what folks need to save over their working lifetimes indicate that workers without a pension will need to save and invest 10 percent or more every year into a 401(k) type retirement plan. These assets combined with Social Security income should be sufficient for retirement. If you enrolled into your 401(k) with a six percent contribution percentage, increase this to at least 10 percent as soon as possible and work towards increasing it from there over time.
3) Not making catch-up contributions
... In 2013 workers can contribute up to $17,500 annually into their employer sponsored 401(k) type retirement plans. But if you're over 50 at any time in 2013 (even if you turn 50 on December 31st 2013), you can contribute an additional $5,500 (which remains unchanged from 2012 limits) for a total contribution of $23,000.
4) Taking a 401(k) loan
Most retirement plan experts agree you should never take money from your 401(k) plan because you are taking money away from what you will need for a financially secure retirement. The biggest risk of borrowing from your 401(k) is that most plan rules require repayment within 30 to 90 days of leaving your employer. That's a disaster for someone who suddenly loses their job. If you don't have the money to pay off the loan it will be included in income as a taxable distribution. If you are under the age of 59 1/2 you'll owe a 10% penalty tax on top of applicable federal and state income taxes. If you don't have the money to pay the tax, the IRS can collect what you owe by deducting it from your remaining balance, virtually wiping out your retirement savings in the plan. Whether or not it's a good idea to take a withdrawal from your 401(k) account ultimately depends on what you are doing with the money, but for the reasons explained here, it's wise to avoid this move, as it can backfire.
5) Not running your retirement numbers
The time to find out you have not saved enough is not after you retire. Now is the time to do some serious number crunching. Calculating how much income your current retirement account and annual savings will generate at retirement is a critical step to ensuring you are on track to achieving your retirement income goals. If your retirement plan offers access to online tools to do this, use them.
View all articles by Ray Martin on CBS MoneyWatch »
Since 1986, Ray Martin has been a practicing financial counselor, providing valuable and practical financial guidance and advice to individuals. He has appeared regularly as a contributor on the CBS Early Show, CBS NewsPath, as a columnist on CBS Moneywatch, and on NBC-TV's morning newscast TODAY. He has also appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show and is the author of two books.
Posts
