The Attitude of Gratitude

‘Tis the season to give thanks. The attitude of gratitude is a powerful posture on both the personal and professional levels.

I’ve known people who are very self-focused. The psychological term for this is narcissism. For such individuals, life is a play in which they are the Star. They see everyone else as supporting cast whose primary job is to make them look and feel good. When things go badly, the Star can only see the personal damage sustained and quickly finds scapegoats. “How could they do this to me.” Such people are not much fun to be around. Perhaps you know one or two.

On the flip side, those who see that they are but one in a cast of thousands, in a complex plot that is perhaps unfathomable, tend to take themselves less seriously. Consequently, they find it easy to give thanks, to appreciate, to acknowledge. They find it easy to see the glass as half-full. They might even be grateful when the glass is only ¼ full; at least they have something to drink. These people are not necessarily lacking in ambition or self-confidence. But they’ve reflected on life, on history, on the Enormity of things. And they’ve come to a conclusion that Life is Vast and it would be presumptuous to take things too seriously. Sometimes their thankfulness is spiritually based (humility being a virtue in every legitimate religion); sometimes it is pragmatic.

How does this apply in the workplace? Employee surveys for decades have revealed that when someone leaves a job, the number one reason is NOT money. Much higher on the list is they do not feel appreciated by their boss. Human beings CRAVE appreciation, recognition and acknowledgement. Is it any wonder that the boss who is too busy to express appreciation does not elicit great warmth and loyalty?

On the continuum between self-centered and grateful/humble, most managers and leaders are somewhere in the middle. That’s a good thing, but here’s the problem. In these turbulent times, many bosses are so overwhelmed and over-worked, that even if they are inclined to express gratitude, their good intentions are thwarted by a hectic pace and more compelling (or so it seems) priorities.

So, how about using the excuse of Thanksgiving to catch people doing things right, and well. This should not be done as a shallow, hollow “thanks” or “great job.” Instead find an authentic way to acknowledge brilliant work, or extra effort, or even a bright, engaging attitude. Let people know they make your life easier, or more enjoyable. Even under-performers possess virtues, and as human beings they want and need encouragement and appreciation. Time enough for critical-but-fair feedback later, during performance reviews.

While passing around praise is good for business – Gallup research shows that employees who feel appreciated are more productive and more engaged – it’s also good for your own state of mind. People who are grateful and appreciative of life’s bounties tend to be happy. This state of mind does not come from outside. We’re not talking here about, “I’m hitting my numbers so I am happy.” Instead, happiness occurs no matter what is happening in your external circumstances. It is a conscious choice, an attitude of gratitude. Words spoken with intention and resolve have incredible power. Simply by declaring yourself happy and grateful, you bring that spirit into being.

In this spirit of gratitude, I want to express deep appreciation to my clients, whose stories and lessons find their way into these posts. You give my world profound meaning. I am thankful to my teachers and mentors. You have challenged and inspired me to stretch and grow. And finally, I am grateful to my friends and family for enthusiastic support and fun on the journey. Special thanks to my wife, Melissa, who is beautiful and wise, powerful and compassionate; a true work of Art.

Life is good. There is much for which to be Thankful.

The Power of Politics

Last post I admitted to a dislike for office politics. At the same time, I maintained that political acumen is essential for surviving, if not thriving, in most organizations. To figure out how to develop political skill, let’s start with my definition:

Political Acumen – The ability to understand and influence others given real or perceived differences in power

Think about this in the context of local, state and national politics. Ideally, our elected politicians seek to understand the needs of their constituents, and influence others to take appropriate actions on behalf of those constituents. At the same time, politicians must pay attention to power – the power of money (donors, fund-raisers), the power of voting blocks, the power of other politicians, the power of causes, the power of perception.

In my coaching, perhaps the greatest resistance I encounter when I broach the topic of political acumen is what I’ve come to think of as a “take me as I am” view. In such cases, clients feel strongly they should not have to modify behavior, especially in deference to the power elite. They feel they should be judged on the strength of their results. I always respond, “You’re absolutely right. In an ideal world, you would be recognized and rewarded based on merit. The question you have to examine is whether you work in an ideal world.”

Others who pride themselves on “not playing politics” may go out of their way to challenge authority, speaking contrary opinions loudly and indiscriminately. Such individuals inevitably get labeled as “not a team player.” This is the kiss of death for career advancement.

So if you’re still hanging on to baggage around office politics, consider this an area of skill that can be used to support your own career goals and those of the organization.

Speaking of baggage, perhaps the most contentious element in my definition has to do with power. Most of us probably relate to the quote of Lord Acton in 1987: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He also went on to say, “Great men are almost always bad men." In this spirit, power is seen as a manifestation of greed, avarice, and corruption. If you hold this interpretation of power, then you would understandably want to avoid power – unless you’re evil.

Here is a more useful and workable interpretation of power:

Power - The ability to influence one’s environment.

On a personal level, power in the form of money allows one to buy a nice house in a good neighborhood, major aspects of environment. Schools, cars, clothes, jewelry, club memberships – all are manifestations of power.

Returning to the world of business organizations, a VP might have the authority to approve an expense of, say, $50,000. A manager in the same company may have authority to sign for $5,000. By this measure, we could agree the VP has more power.

Compared to a manager, a VP will more frequently connect with the company’s top executives and owners. So if a manager and a VP each has an idea about how the company can grow, the VP is more likely to: a) be granted an audience with decision-makers, and b) get buy-in to her idea based on relationships. This is another manifestation of how power differentials play out.

Title and formal authority are not the only sources of power. Knowledge and competence can be potent sources of power. Many companies have a go-to person who is so smart or capable that colleagues fight to get him or her on their project teams.

A key strategy in building one’s own power and political clout in an organization is to assess who has what power. Those with higher rank are obvious, but who among them carries the most influence with the top executive or owner? Who has critical skill, knowledge or experience to help get something done? Which clients have the most political pull? If two executives are engaged in a political battle, and you are pressured to choose a side, which side do you choose? While devoting energy to such considerations may seem inefficient and unproductive, many (most?) organizations orient to such nuances.

Bottom line, political acumen requires a blend of talents: assessing, interpreting, discriminating, communicating and deciding when and where to act based on those many and varied interpretations. When you come right down to it, these same skills are essential for managing, leading, marketing, selling, project management, client services, etc…

Politics - The Dark Side

I’ve never liked what most people think of as office politics. I’m talking here about people getting jobs or promotions based on who they know. I’m talking about people getting special treatment because of their ability to suck up. I’m talking about people retaining their jobs despite uninspired, risk-averse, complacent, don’t-rock-the-boat behaviors. I’ve seen these situations many times and it always galls me.

I’ve left positions or companies because of politics. Years ago, I was working for the veterinary division of Pfizer when they acquired the veterinary business of Smith Kline Beecham. While the deal was an acquisition, it was portrayed as a merger. An SKB executive was named as the GM of the combined N. American businesses, displacing a popular Pfizer executive. This decision seemed to be based on politics over performance. The new GM appointed a blue ribbon panel to decide where the company should locate its veterinary division HQ. The top contenders were Kansas City, where Pfizer was based, or Philadelphia, where SKB was based. After rigorous analysis, the panel recommended Kansas City – unanimously. The SKB GM overruled them and picked Philadelphia. Again, politics trumped reason.

The culture of the newly merged company was confusing and conflicted. While Pfizer did the acquiring, SKB was calling the shots, at least in N. America. People jostled for jobs and influence based more on who knew and liked them rather than on competence. The SKB GM lasted less than a year. My friends on the inside reported continued confusion for the next two years. Fortunately, I had a premonition of how the political winds were blowing, so I took a package and opted out.

Political favoritism also happens regularly in any big company. Just ask anyone who happens to work in one. They have probably been personally impacted by such politics.

Why, you ask, does political savvy trump competence? I have a few unscientific answers, in no particular order of priority:

* Insecure leaders have a fear of being exposed at any moment as incompetent and incapable. So they surround themselves with people even less talented than themselves, or people who tell them how wonderful they are.

* Overly busy executives assess individuals based on their fleeting moments of contact during meetings and presentations. They fail to take the time to understand the views of folks down the hierarchy. They fail to ask questions about the working conditions around those individuals.

* Overly trusting leaders take people at face value, never dreaming that they are being played.

* Executives observe other executives making political decisions and figure they should follow the leader. Or in currying favor or building obligation, they accept another executive’s recommendation over a more objective assessment of who to hire or promote.

If it's not already clear, you can count me among the majority who loath, despise and detest these forms of office politics.

It may therefore seem contradictory when I say that political acumen is an essential leadership skill. Funny thing is, when it’s done well, we don’t usually call it politics. We call it “good communication,” or “good people skills”, or success at “managing up.”

Next time I’ll attempt to provide a few guide posts for developing political skill. Stay tuned…

Developing Future Leaders

I recently worked with a group of senior executives who had concerns about how to develop the next generation of leaders in their companies. The organizational development speak for this is succession planning. In sports we call this bench strength.

There are reasons that companies resist the investment of time and resources in developing future leaders. For one, there is the fear of increasing the hopes and expectations of employees. This is especially true for small companies. An executive might help a manager get ready for advancement, but there are no slots open, and none anticipated for years into the future. That’s discouraging.

Another barrier involves executives who are insecure about their own positions and therefore thwart the development of potential rivals and replacements. Still other executives simply lack the patience and knack for teaching, coaching and developing future leaders.

Without strong commitment among the full executive team, comprehensive succession planning is easily derailed or deferred.

Perhaps the biggest deterrent to leadership development is overwhelming competition from other initiatives, e.g., reacting to competition, product development, personnel changes and the myriad circumstances that consume our days. True leadership development is not a one-time event, or a one-week course, or a simple conversation. It takes ongoing commitment, follow through and dialogue, not to mention new practices from all participants.

Given the pain of leadership development, one might wonder if it’s worth the effort. So let’s look at the alternative. Without a concerted effort to develop the bench, a company risks serious consequences in the event that a key leader suddenly exits (due to health or other causes). Some insurance companies insist a company have a written succession plan or contingency plan in case of such an event.

Perhaps a greater threat is the stories that go on inside employees’ heads.
“There’s no future here.”
“Nobody here cares what happens to me.”
“If I want career progression, I’ll have to keep changing companies.”

Research by the Gallup organization on 10 million employees over several decades reveals that negative stories like the above correlate to sub-standard productivity, morale and profitability. In such organizations, a mood of complacency and mediocrity can take root in the culture.

When talented, ambitious employees are invited into regular conversations about career growth and development, their commitment to and enthusiasm for the company is strongly enhanced. They feel pride in the company’s accomplishments and tend to have a stronger sense of teamwork. This is a competitive advantage that is hard to beat.

Take a close look at your company. Are leaders encouraged and rewarded for developing and promoting talent? Are good people staying with you for years? Are you readily innovating and growing? Do people seem interested and engaged, or are they punching the clock? It’s not easy to develop future leaders, but it sure beats the heck out of the alternative.

Circles

When it comes to building a business or network it can be useful to arrange people on a series of concentric circles.

The inner ring, ok, the “inner circle,” is comprised of people with whom we are the most intimate and honest. These people know our secrets, and love us anyway. With these folks we can share our hopes, dreams and disappointments. Our politics, assessments, and opinions. We can ask inner circle people for help and favors even as we look for ways to help them achieve their own aspirations. There is reciprocal care, concern, regard and support. There is no "right" number of people comprising the inner circle. Too many and we may not be able to fully reciprocate and support them all; too few and life can be lonely and more difficult. Rather than work toward some number, seek to grow the quality of the inner circle. Attract and hold on to those who have integrity, ambition, proficiency and compatible values.

As we progress to outer rings, our relationships are less intimate. Consequently, the farther from “core” a person is, the less likely we are to trust, to make requests, to disclose confidential information. At the outer edges are people who are acquaintances. We might transact with them, stay in light touch, but they tend not to have a deep, reciprocal relationships with us.

Why is this useful? One application is job hunting. One client wanted to advance to the next level in her profession. She had been thwarted in past attempts. In formulating a campaign strategy, I asked two questions:

1. Who do you know that could have a positive influence on the hiring decision?
2. Where do they fall on your map of concentric circles?

For example, she knew an influential senior VP, but just barely. In other words, the VP was outer circle. It seemed unlikely that this executive would offer much help, so why even ask? It might waste future political capital. There was another VP who was a strong supporter. She jumped at the chance to help my client, loudly singing her praises. We carried this thinking through and wound up with six influential people who were close enough to her inner circle that they were willing to lend support. Ultimately, she got the job.

One important note in this happy story: my client invested months or years in cultivating these people before asking for their support. She gladly helped them, stayed in touch, acted with integrity, acknowledged them, and spoke well of them. Hence, when the time came to ask for their help, they were glad to support her case.

Another application involves customers. Take a stab at situating your clients on the grid of concentric circles. Almost certainly you have customers who transact with you in a mostly impersonal, mutual use relationship. In other words, they are in an outer circle. If you raised your price, they might ditch you. On the other hand, your best customers probably know you or some of your people really well, care about them, and would feel personal pain at the prospect of losing you as a resource partner. These inner circle clients are the ones to cultivate, nurture and hang on to. You have to screw up pretty badly to lose their business. But you can never take them for granted. You must continue to search for ways to help them. Meanwhile, you might investigate the value of firing some of those outer circle clients. They can be royal pains!

Where somone falls on the circles is not an objective matter. It is invented based on observations, interactions, and experiences. Your first impression of someone you meet at a networking event may be tepid, so you initially place him on an outer ring. But the next time you encounter the person, he remembers you, passes along a referral, and demonstrates greater depth than you initially experienced. Consequently, this person might jump in a few circles. This is a simple illustration of how we continuously make assessments, and then revise those assessments over time as new data surfaces. But at least the circle map provides an orientation and framework for who you might approach and how you might approach them.

What do your circles look like? Are you intentionally working on ways to add to your circles? What steps could you take to attract higher quality people to your inner circles? Where do you fit in the circle maps of others?

Bridging Realities

Last post I claimed that humans live in different realities. It’s not just a particular event, like a basketball game, or perceptions of a particular person, like a boss. EVERYTHING we experience differs from another person’s reality because each person has lived through a completely unique blend of life experiences: family dynamics, education, religion, ethnic traditions, economic status, and the myriad situations and emotions we encountered. Given the infinite array of experiences we have each encountered, it’s not surprising that there are so many interpersonal conflicts.

Let’s look at a typical example. A client of mine was promoted to sales manager and was preparing to give a veteran employee a performance evaluation. The manager’s assessment was that sales rep had some strengths but seemed complacent, even below standards in some areas. Weekly reports were often late and sloppy. The boss was not confident the employee was a good fit. Past reviews had been acceptable, with little data.

Prior to the performance review meeting, he asked the sales rep for a self-appraisal, and was shocked by what he read: a totally different reality. The rep wrote that she was doing very well, was on track to achieving her sales goals, and received lots of positive feedback from her clients and colleagues. She rated herself “above expectations.”

Uh-oh. Talk about clash of realities.

Fortunately, my client was well positioned for the performance conversation. With the aid of foresight (and brilliant coaching!) he had done what I call building a conversational bridge between his reality and those of his direct reports.

The first step in building that bridge happed in his first days on the job, when he met with each rep to share and discuss mutual thoughts and feelings on roles, goals and expectations.

The next bridge-building step was regular, often short, conversations between manager and employee. For the boss, these conversations included both positive reinforcement and constructive, corrective suggestions and advice. For the employee it was an opportunity to share triumphs and challenges, ask questions, and ask for support. Good bridges work equally well in both directions.

This manager has a tendency to accentuate the positive and downplay the negative. Frankly, if you are to err one way or the other, I would rather have a manager err on the positive. But he had not completely ignored constructive feedback, and had done so both verbally and in writing. Unfortunately, the rep had somehow blocked out or diminished the negative feedback, hence their different perspectives.

Finally, and most important, the notion of “bridge” here is that there are two sides and BOTH are important. Translated to management, a good boss will ask for and listen attentively to the employee’s perspective on progress, challenges, likes and dislikes. This is why it is valuable to ask for an employee’s self-appraisal before the formal session. Knowing how the employee views their own performance gives advance warnings of the areas of connection and disconnection. It is also possible that the employee has a more powerful or accurate interpretation of her performance. After all, the employee has spent about 100% of her time with herself, while the boss has spent only a fraction.

Armed with the employee’s self-assessment, my client looked in the mirror and asked himself if he was being fair and consistent in his expectations, whether he had communicated feedback appropriately, and whether there were any perspectives from the rep that should cause him to re-evaluate. He concluded that his case was pretty strong, but because the rep was seasoned, he wanted to explore her viewpoint further.

Building a bridge is not the sole domain of the boss. Although most employees abdicate responsibility for performance assessments – unless forced by the system – it is far more powerful for them to hold up their part of the bridge. I encourage my clients to ask for regular feedback, from their boss, peers, direct reports and customers.

So how did the performance meeting turn out? Well, the conversation was difficult. When it became clear to the rep that the boss had a VERY different assessment than her own, she expressed both anger and tears. Because he knew that the conversation might go this way, my client was prepared to call a short break, allow the rep to regain composure, and then expressed genuine desire to turn the situation around. Sensing he was genuine, the rep opened up and said that many of her behaviors had been encouraged by the former boss and that perhaps she had not made a strong enough effort to adapt to different expectations from her new boss. The manager countered by saying there might be things he could do differently. They worked out a few ideas and agreed to speak weekly until they felt things had turned around. A year later, the employee was rated among the best in her region.

Strong bridges do not guarantee that every performance problem will be resolved in such a positive way. Sometimes, it is actually better for the organization and all involved that the parties part company. And if parting is the outcome, strong bridges will usually keep such separations from turning ugly.

Perception Is Reality

Picture 5 people watching a Duke-Carolina basketball game. One of them, a Duke fan (boo! – My wife is a Tar Heel), knows all the Duke players, none of the Carolina players, and has emotional reactions depending on how well Duke is performing moment to moment. Another observer, perhaps my wife, has similar reactions related to how well Carolina performs. Euphoria for one will be misery for the other, especially at the final buzzer.

A third observer is an NBA scout. He has a casual interest in the game as a contest, possibly no interest in who ultimately wins. For him the game is a chance to assess the NBA potential of the players.

A fourth observer is a fan of European soccer and has never seen a basketball game; it was a free ticket from a friend. He is confused by what happens on the court. The rules don’t make much sense. In fact, the game doesn’t make much sense. There is a lot more scoring than happens in soccer, that’s for sure.

A fifth observer has scant interest in the game. He’s interested in the crowd, the band, the beer, the hotdogs, the cheerleaders. ‘Nuff said.

For each of these five, the game is perceived differently and the experience of the event is vastly different. Asked after the game for highlights they will give completely different reports.

Apply this thinking to five employees of a company sitting with a management consultant – better yet, a business coach. Asked for their candid appraisal of their mutual boss, you get five different snapshots of reality. Having facilitated many 360 appraisals, I am no longer surprised to find the same person highly rated by some and condemned by others.

In most businesses there is a tendency to believe in an objective reality where one perspective or course of action is “right” and others are “wrong.” I orient differently: every view is VALID when you consider the observer’s perspective. In the basketball example, the scout with 30 years of playing, coaching and scouting basketball has a perspective on the game that is no more or less valid than those of the first-time observer. Likewise, all five employee opinions are VALID. From THEIR point of view, the reality they speak is true.

One major lesson from this insight: Leaders should pay more attention to the views of others, probing to understand their perspectives and the underlying values, beliefs and experiences that drive those perspectives. Further, a good leader understands that he or she has only a small slice of the “total truth.” Honest input from others provides a fuller, more complete interpretation and set of options.

While I hold that all perspectives are equally valid, they are not equally powerful.

In our basketball example, assume you want to determine the game’s MVP. Which of the five is likely to give you the most powerful answer? The scout, of course.

In the case of employee opinions about a boss, we might want to consider the situations of each and speculate as to how it might impact their opinion. A client recently reported that in an annual survey, he was highly rated by all but one direct report. That direct report had recently been demoted, and that likely colored her judgment of her boss. At the same time, though some assessments might be less prejudiced than others, it is valuable for a leader to hear all of those perspectives.

Lesson No. 2: In addition to seeking various viewpoints on an issue, Leaders also need to develop skill in discriminating among viewpoints to determine the most powerful course of action given a set of goals, resources, constraints, etc. Further, Leaders will dig beyond superficial answers in search of deeper insights and truths that are not apparent.

Get out of the game of “right-wrong,” especially if you are prone to assuming that your opinions are usually “right,” and everyone else’s are wrong! Get into the game of being curious about what the range of views might be and discovering ways to evaluate, assess and move forward with the most powerful ones. This is a game worth playing.

Try Not to Say "Try"

I recently overheard a client say to an employee, “I’ll try to send that data to you by the end of the day.”

Not wanting to miss a coachable moment, I asked her what she meant. She seemed confused by my question. “Well,” I said, “did you make a commitment just now or did you not?”

She explained she intended to complete the task, but she had several other matters to complete by the end of the day, so it was possible she would not get to it. I then asked the employee if he needed the information. “Yes,” he said, “I cannot proceed without it, and we have a deadline tomorrow.” In a few more minutes we found a way to get him the information without involving his boss. He would have it faster; she would have one less to-do.

A few days later, the client sent me an email quoting George P. Burnham: “I can’t do it” never yet accomplished anything. “I will try” has accomplished wonders.

She seemed to be telling me that there is nothing wrong with the phrase, “I’ll try.” After all, we grew up with the story of the Little Engine that could, the one who kept chanting, "I think I can. I think I can." As Burnham suggests, “I’ll try” is powerful and courageous when one is undertaking a difficult journey or project.

However, when we apply “I’ll try” to routine promises, the phrase becomes a hedge, an excuse, an admission of weakness or a lack of commitment. For example, if I say, “I’ll try to attend the meeting,” I might be intentionally or unconsciously sending any of the following messages:

• I don’t really have much control over my schedule and other commitments, so I cannot or will not make a firm commitment.
• I am not sure I really want to come to the meeting, so saying “I’ll try” gives me an excuse to bail out later if something better comes along.
• I am pretty sure I cannot attend the meeting, but I just hate to say “no” to anyone. Isn’t it more polite to say, “I’ll try?”
• Everyone knows that when I say, “I’ll try to be there,” I am really saying “I probably will not be able to attend.” It’s obvious.
• I really do intend to attend, but I would rather not set that expectation in case something unexpected happens and I am late or have to cancel. I don’t want to disappoint you.
• I value modesty and am uncomfortable with assertive statements. People might think I’m arrogant.

These are possible meanings – there may be more. The point is that vague, non-specific, uncommitted language creates confusion, inefficiency and mistrust. If a culture is characterized by a heavy dose of such language, imagine how difficult it must be to get anything done. In contrast, picture the competitive advantage that might accrue to a person who makes short, simple promises and acts consistently with those commitments. For example:

• “I will be at the meeting.” (And arrive on time.)
• “I will send you a proposal by close of business Wednesday.” (And deliver it on time.)
• "I cannot meet your deadline without incurring additional expenses or compromising other projects. Would it work for you to add an additional week to the timeline?” (Know your limits, speak them without apology, and stay open to the possibility of creative problem-solving with the other party.)

Suggestion: For one week, try to avoid using the word “try”. Better yet, just do it.

OK. SMART Goals Work, Too

Last post talked about the power of setting goals that are un-SMART. I acknowledged that Specific, Measurable and Time-bound are fine for any goals. But I took a dim view of Achieveable and Reasonable. In my experience, these aspects of goals contribute to mediocrity.

As with so many things in life, one “rule” does not fit all occasions. While I stand by the assertion as to the power of stretch goals (or as Jim Collins might say, Big, Hairy Audacious Goals – BHAGS), there is at least one place where setting smaller, more reasonable and achievable goals is especially useful. That’s in building competence and confidence.

If you’ve never run a marathon, and you set a big hairy audacious goal of competing in one within, say, 6 months, you need a set of intermediate goals that bridge your current reality (out of shape) with your desired future state. You might start by committing to run at least 3 days a week. Further, you might set a goal of running five miles comfortably by the end of one month. Successfully accomplishing those smaller, more reasonable goals will help propel you toward longer runs, building your body’s strength (competence) and along the way building your own confidence in being able to achieve the BHAG.

If you have employees in roles for which they are relative beginners, it would be overwhelming, frustrating and demoralizing for them to be held to unrealistically high performance goals. Instead, you let them know the ultimate level of performance, and create interim goals or milestones toward that level. Along the way, if you’re a good boss, you will provide plenty of feedback, coaching and encouragement. As reasonable as this sounds, it seems that companies are less and less willing to support newer employees in this kind of step-by-step development. When I coach a first-time manager it is often because her boss lacks the time, and sometimes the skill, to coach and mentor her through the early bumps and trials.

So, if you are tackling something radically different – personally or professionally – your focus should be on short-term, manageable goals that build competence and confidence. On the other hand, when you and your team have talent, experience and skill in delivering a product or service, setting small goals is tantamount to sand-bagging, playing below your ability level. Not only will such a move rob the company of better performance and financial results, but it will also drain the zest and enthusiasm that comes when teams elevate their game to meet and beat challenges.

Bottom line: setting goals and committing to their achievement is far more powerful than drifting along, taking one day at a time. There have been some 200 scientific papers documenting this aspect of being human.

un-S.M.A.R.T. Goals

Using goals to achieve success is a well-researched and widely accepted practice. One goal-setting term that has entered into our common sense is the acronymn, S.M.A.R.T. According to this system, goals should be: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Reasonable and Time-Bound. (Note: There are variations on what the acronym stands for.)

I’m fine with 3 of the 5 elements of SMART: Specific, Measurable and Time-Bound. These three elements promote commitment and accountability, the lifeblood of any organization. Show me a company culture that is in turmoil or characterized by low morale and finger-pointing, and I’ll show you a company where commitments are rarely made and routinely missed, without any fear of consequence.

My problem with SMART lies in “Achievable” and “Reasonable.” For many businesses, these elements give permission to set modest, even ridiculously easy goals. “We will grow our top line by 10%,” is a classic achievable, reasonable goal. Here’s the problem with this orientation: To achieve 10% growth, a company will not need to make any significant changes in how it operates. Increasing by 10% can usually be achieved by a little luck, some extra hours of work and through the organic growth that comes with being above average in what you sell.

A client of mine had this orientation to 10% growth. One day, I challenged him to consider a goal of 100% growth in his monthly revenues. I asked him what it would mean to him and his business to achieve such lofty heights, and he rattled off about a dozen reasons why this would be a great thing for him personally and professionally.

But after the giddy sensation of this possibility wore off, he said what many good leaders would say. “I have two problems with this idea. First, what if we fail?"

My answer was a slam-dunk: Assume a goal of 100% growth is set and the company achieves only 50%. Compared to current projections of 10% growth, would 50% be considered a failure? For reasonable folks the easy answer is, “Hell, no!”

His second objection was, "How would we ever achieve such a goal?” While many a good consultant would revel in this question, offering case histories, models and solutions, I was more restrained: "I have no idea how you can achieve this goal.”

He looked at me, as if waiting for a punchline. Instead, after a long pause, I explained: “I do not know the specific plan that will help you double your business. But I do know that the key is to tap the collective energy, enthusiasm and insight of your team. I can help you do that.

That conversation set in motion a series of meetings with his small company. These meetings led to a few powerful initiatives that changed how the firm approached business. Whether it was the power of the stretch goal, the process of getting his team enrolled, the ideas that came out of the team meetings, or the stars all aligning -- whatever the cause, my client attained his goal (doubling monthly revenue) within three months. Within 12 months, they were at four times the original monthly revenue.

Stretch goals do not guarantee dramatic results in and of themselves. They require a commitment to a process that challenges the status quo and confronts uncomfortable truths. More important, they require steady follow-through, including progress reports. But the results can make a leader look plenty smart.

Warning: If you belong to a publicly-held company, do NOT announce stretch goals. The common sense of Wall Street cannot grasp the power of using stretch goals to radically shift a company’s growth trajectory.