“Working with Eric was a pleasure. We developed a good rapport and established a level of honesty and trust. I valued his counsel and recommendations. I find Eric to be very competent in a variety of disciplines. He is able to correctly diagnose organizational problems and suggest solutions that are on point. I found Eric to be a professional with the highest levels of honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior. I would not hesitate to engage his services again in the future.”
Kathy Lueckert,
former Corporate Services Director,
Department of Planning and Development,
City of Seattle
(Kathy is now Director of Planning and Finance for Advocacy and Communications at World Vision.)
“I've worked closely with Eric on developing and presenting the Leadership Eastside community leadership program. He has that rare blend of extensive real-world experience along with a very strong background in theory and research. He moves easily between big picture strategy and the tactical details. Eric brings a superb ability to plan, execute and follow-through, both as a behind-the-scenes planner and as an upfront instructor and facilitator.”
Annalee Luhman,
founding board member,
Leadership Eastside
Conflict and change: The blog
10 March 2008
Relationship Repair
“Relationship repair” is the term a client recently used to describe what I did in her organization. I was able to help her to resolve differences between her and her peer, as well as between two sets of professionals who had been entrenched in a bitter, divisive conflict. This latter problem had been building for a while. (One side was convinced the only solution was to fire someone on the other side. One manager was so certain that needed to happen that she herself resigned when it became clear that I wasn’t going to recommend such a firing.) Despite all that, the parties were willing to sit down together, work through some difficult issues and feelings, and change how they work together. I find this work very gratifying: to help people to really understand each other’s concerns and needs—to unravel the conflict—and then work to design and create the future they all really want.
4 February 2008
TIME
Last week, I facilitated a meeting of sales managers drawn from all over the country. We were working on an important organizational issue—one that was affecting the bottom line. As sales managers, every minute spend in that meeting represented lost income—and yet, there they were. It was that important. And, we had an intense and productive meeting that I think will lead to real results. Unfortunately, not all clients are as clear about the stakes of a project. On more than one occasion, I’ve been asked to work on projects that didn’t seem to matter, and some of those I've pulled out of. These days, I try to ascertain at the beginning of the project if a client is really serious about doing it—to make sure it really matters. What are the business results you are looking for? Are they important enough to warrant the resources needed to fix the problem? One of the best indicators of commitment is how much time the boss is willing to spend on the issue. How personally involved is s/he willing to be? If it’s important, people tend to find the time. If it’s not, maybe the project shouldn’t be undertaken and consultant (me) not hired. No matter how difficult or damaging a situation, it’s better to leave it alone than attempt to fix it when you’re not serious about getting results.
3 February 2008
Why make it worse?
I was recently preparing to facilitate a high-stakes meeting in an organization (one you’ve heard of). The people had been involved have been in a dispute over a significant decision and now were trying to move forward. When I interviewed the players, it became clear that they were very polarized, and some people were even vilifying the “other side.” In other words, it had gotten ugly. One interested thing was that everyone felt betrayed by their opponents. When I explored that a little further, it became clear that that feeling of betrayal came not only from the decision itself but from how people felt treated. The losers on the decision complained about how the decision was handled, even though they now see it as a reality (and a few even embraced it). Interestingly, the people who prevailed in the decision felt betrayed by how the losers behaved afterward. Everyone felt betrayed, and it wasn’t over the substance of the decision. They felt they had been “dissed.” Naturally, people will disagree about various decisions and actions, yet what seems to have the greatest effect on people is how they feel they’ve been treated. If the decision is going to produce winners and losers anyway, why make things worse by vilifying and “dissing” one another?
11 January 2008
Best practice
Yesterday, I had an opportunity to listen to Randy Talbot, the CEO of Symetra Financial. He tells a very compelling, personal story of how Symetra was formed in 2004 after its parent company decided to sell off the division in 2003. It was an impossibly tenuous process—involving many suitors (coming in motorcades of limousines), big money, high risk, and all sorts of regulatory requirements. Yet, Talbot was able to successfully complete the transition without losing a single member of his executive team. I thought this was very significant and spoke volumes about Talbot’s style. When I asked him why no one left, he alluded to the relationships they had built together and also to weekly meetings in which they candidly discussed each other’s business; he implied that these conversations were not always easy or pleasant. It sounded to me that he and his team had done a lot of hard work and achieved a level of trust that proved essential when they faced the ultimate organizational crisis (survival). This is a great example of how a best practice (candid dialogue) helped the team face a sudden and dramatic challenge.
26 December 2007
Executive sponsorship
Many organizational change efforts fail for lack of a clear executive sponsor, someone who can marshal resources, focus people and drive the change. When I was younger, I thought that anyone, at any level of the organization, could fill this role. However, as I’ve observed (and participated in) both failed and successful change initiatives, I’ve noticed that one difference that stands out is whether a senior-level executive sponsor is actively involved. When there is, failure is “not an option.” When there isn’t, failure is almost always assured. I recently spoke with a colleague inside Washington state government, who has been running a change project inside his agency, but with little buy-in and even fewer results. In talking together, we realized that his first job was to approach the person who asked him to take on the project and get her to take on the role of executive sponsor. As the change agent, he can’t do that. He doesn’t have the authority. And neither does an external consultant (like me). Only a supervisor, manager, director or executive with sufficient authority can sponsor a project. That doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s absolutely necessary.
© 2012 All Rights Reserved