Can you help me ... ?

A short story on how I recently helped a small leadership group that was anything but a team. Although they all got along very well, they were simply working alongside one another rather than with each other. They were not ready for a big two-day team session so I recommended to start with the basics: a weekly team huddle of no more than 30 minutes, where each shared with the others something really great that had happened in their scope the previous week, and updated them briefly on the progress on their priorities. No Powerpoints or meeting room tables: the huddle was done standing up in the open space, visible to the others in the organization. And the last part of the team huddle was where the team leader asks who needed help from anyone else in the coming days or weeks to be successful in their priorities.

The team huddle went well and created a very basic but regular exchange where people learned about what was going on in the others' areas. But the interesting development happened with the last part of the team huddle. The first team huddles, when the team leader asked if anyone needed help, there was awkward silence, fiddling of empty hands, and soft but unconvinced whispers of "no, thanks ...". And then in the fourth team huddle, John spoke up "Yes, in fact, I would like Susan to help me with ...". The huddle was concluded and John and Susan walked off and started to discuss the issue John was struggling with. The ice had been broken and in the next team huddle, there were multiple requests for help. The final part of the huddle, which at first had been an uncomfortable way of concluding the session, became the way the team connections started to form. And soon, people were going to see the others in between sessions, not to talk about their priorities, but to ask others for help.

Asking for help is a powerful glue to start building a team. You cannot mandate it, but as a leader, you can model it. And when you ask someone for help, do so in front of others. If you want to build a team, start small !

What does your trust look like ?

This is a picture of an ice-selling shop near where I live. The first time I went there to buy ice, nobody was in. I shouted a couple of times and waited a few minutes but it remained all quiet. The next time I tried the same, a little girl of about 5 years came out to help me put the ice in the bag and take the money. When our business transaction was nearly finished an adult showed up. So I told him that it was difficult to find someone around to buy ice from. He explained me the established operating procedure.

Anyone buying ice selects one of the plastic bags hanging behind the blue ice tank. There are three sizes. Filled with ice, they cost 3, 5 or 10 Thai baht. You can pick ice from the blue tank, with the big ice cubes, or the red tank, with the small tube-like ice cubes. Or you can mix both. Once you have filled your plastic bag to the rim with ice, you drop either 3 or 5 or 10 Thai baht in a rusty cup. There is no sign "put your money here" ! And that's how the ice shop works. So once I knew the ropes, I became one of their self-service customers.

"How can they trust strangers ? Don't people come and steal ice, or pay less than they should ?" I don't know the answers. But the shop has been operating for ages, and I guess they would have changed the system if it didn't work.

This is what trust looks like in this particular situation. Trust is a word with meaning, and is often used in a very general and conceptual way. We often say trust is important. So what does your trust look like ? With your team members ? Peers ? Clients ? Concretely. What do you do or say or don't do or refrain from saying, that established trust with those around you ?

Is your team sustainable ?

Sustainability is one of the many popular business buzz words. In the last year or so, I have seen issues of Harvard Business Review and Rotman Magazine dedicated to the topic of sustainability. In times of uncertainty, stakeholders want to be reassured that the organization they are investing in, belong to or are a consumer of, will continue to be around.

On a somewhat smaller scale, let's look at a team's sustainability. A sustainable team would mean that the team is "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level". This means that the team continues to deliver high performance, year after year, whether in a crisis situation or in a growth environment. A sustainable team also means that the team continues to deliver after you - the leader - has moved on.

Leaving behind a sustainable team is the pinnacle of team leadership.

Any team can be "whipped up" to deliver under difficult circumstances. A pep talk, an all-hands meeting will often boost energy and motivation. But this does not go on forever. If the team is pushed all the time, for more, faster, better ... individuals will often end up being burnt out. You can only push so much, or be pushed so much.

The only antidote to performance burnout is to create and maintain a positivity in the team. Positivity is not the same as friendship (although camaraderie is part of it). Positivity is a shared energy and power to support extraordinary motivation (www.teamcoachinginternational.com). In a future blog I will review the components of team positivity, and how you can nurture each to create a sustainable team.

When do you start building trust and respect ?

In the leadership program I am currently running in a global company, managers share their challenges through Action Learning sessions. Most of the management issues that participants discuss are about their direct reports. Very often it is about a particular person in the team with who things aren't going so well. Performance may be below par, or the "behaviors" are not as expected. Although the managers don't use the word, it is pretty much about som

eone very different from themselves and "difficult" to work with.

The process of asking open questions (as opposed to fact-finding investigative questions or "let me share what I think you should do" discussions) often leads to the insight on the part of the manager that there is a genuine gap between themselves and this particular person. The manager can give plenty of examples of behavioral or performance issues. But when the questions are about how they work together, how well the manager knows the person and his or her challenges, what other work related things they talk about ... the manager often gets quite silent. He realizes that all they do with this direct report is work, talk about work and complain about the work that doesn't go well. They realize there is not really a "foundation" to their working relationship. There is only work and that's all they talk about. And that's (maybe ...) OK as long as things are going well.

But when they don't, the lack of genuine relationship, the lack of trust or mutual respect makes it very difficult to get out of the negative spiral. Without a solid personal foundation based on other things than "work" (which can cover KPI, job role and responsibilities. payment, benefits), difficult situation often turn sour.

As someone in a recent session shared at the end, "I realize that I need to start working on trust and respect right from day one, not when something starts to go wrong."

Building trust ... where to start ?

A fellow facilitator recently contacted me to ask for ideas about an exercise around trust for a team session. And she specified that it shouldn't be childish or goofy (her words) like the famous "trust fall" exercise since this is a senior executive team.

Trust is a word we often use lightly. A key point to understand is that trust exists only at the level of two people. An easy way to think about this: if A trusts B and A trusts C, then this does not mean that there is trust in the team A, B, C. In fact, it is possible that B and C don't trust each other. So you cannot put 8 people in a circle and say "let's now build trust in this team". It starts at the level of the different pairs.

When I work around trust, I always start with the pairs. The trust between pairs will become the trust within the team as a whole.

My favorite exercise is the "hot seat". Each person takes turn sitting in the hot seat, and the others, one by one, give feedback about this person. Round one follows the "I appreciate that you do/say this or that and I suggest you continue doing it" structure. Round two is "I think it would be great for the team if you could start/stop doing/saying this or that". The person receiving the feedback can only say "Thank you" and not react in any other way. If done consciously, this can go quite fast and it is typically well received by all participants. There is sometimes laughter and sometimes genuine reflection and appreciation.

You won't build trust in a single session. But there is a way to get started.

Teams are more complex - and powerful - than you think

Look up any clipart representation of the word "leadership" and chances are you will come across something looking like the first picture. The leader is always shown in the middle, with his or her team members in a neat circle around. And the secret to being an effective team leader is shown through the different arrows. These represent the trust the leader creates with each of his members, how he or she communicates with them, what targets or goals they are given. That is the neat representation of team leadership.

The reality looks more like the second picture. Of course the relationships of the leader, still shown in the middle, with each of the team members is important. But in reality, there are not 8 but in total 35 connections and therefore relationships going on in this team. So as a team leader, you may excel in the 8 relationships you are a part of, but the reality of the team, and how it performs, is much more complex. You may have a trustworthy relationship with each of the people in the outer circle, but does that automatically mean all these team members have an equally trusting relationship with one another ?

There are two ways to look at the second picture. The first is to say, "Wow, this is way too complex to even try to do anything about it". The second is to say "Wow ... look at all the potential there is in this team if all 35 connections and relationships are working optimally".

Way too much leadership tools, blogs and books focus on the person in the red in the middle. The real power of teams lies as much in the other 27 connections and how well these sync. I continue to be amazed how little effort leaders put in the actual development of their team, in other words, in the 27 relationships that make up the team connections. So here is a question to you: what can you do, as the leader in red in the middle, to optimize these 27 connections that you are not directly part of ? I am interested to read your thoughts !

Building the wrong kind of trust

A lot has been written about developing trust with your team members. Trust takes time to build and can be destroyed in a minute with a careless remark. In Asia, trust is maybe even more critical when leading a team. We know all that. Nothing new here. But I have seen senior leaders attempting to build trust with their team yet at the same time destroying the very foundation of that team.

Here is what I have observed more than once. The leader sits down with Tom, one of his direct reports, to review an important project. "Great job Tom, I am really happy I asked you to be in charge of this project. We are on track and the client is really satisfied. You have definitely confirmed your capabilities". So far so good ... great expression of trust in what Tom has done so far. And then the conversation continues ... "Now, for the next step, you will need to work with the marketing manager Susan. You know she can sometimes be a bit reluctant about launching under the circumstances we are in. You may want to spend some extra time to convince her. But at the same time, I trust Susan that she will lead the marketing campaign successfully."

What has happened here ? The leader has created great trust between him or herself and Tom. Tom probably walks out of this meeting really pumped and motivated. But what about Tom and Susan ? The leader gave some advice about how to approach Susan, and also added that he or she trusted Susan with her part of the project. So all should be set and done between Tom and Susan, right ? Unfortunately, trust does not work that way. Trust is dyadic, a difficult word to indicate it can only exist between two people. I can trust A and I can trust B, but that does not mean that A trusts B or that B trusts A.

Developing a team requires not just trust between the leader and the direct reports. There is much more potential for value - as well as downside - in the trust relations between the team members. If the leader talks to Tom about Susan, when Susan is not there (and doesn't this happen all the time ?), then what does this do to the relationship of trust between Tom and Susan ?

Trust between your team members is as important as trust between you and each of them. As a leader, you cannot "manage" this trust, but what you say - and what you don't say - to each of your team members influences these trust relationships to a large extent. Something to think about for your next one-on-one.

What if they have no idea ... ?

A key principle in coaching is to let the coachee - quite often the subordinate - come up with ideas for making progress on a particular issue him or herself. This goes a long way towards ownership and accountability: acting on one's own ideas and suggestions is more meaningful than doing what the coach or boss suggests. In workshops where young managers are practicing their coaching or feedback giving skills, they often share "Well, I tried to ask them for their ideas, but they said they don't have any."

Well, thinking and developing ideas is one thing that separates humans from animals, so when someone says they "cannot think" or they "don't have any idea", they are looking for a quick way out of what is for them an uncomfortable situation ! In some countries in Asia, in Thailand in particular, many people have not been brought up in family or educational circles with a focus on developing their own ideas. You will need to help them learn again ... or rather learn for the first time. Here are three tips I have found to work rather well.

1. Give them some time. Don't stare them down or have them sit in front of you "until an idea comes out". Give them anything from five minutes ("I am going for a break and will be back in five minutes to give you some time to think") to one day ("Let's talk about your ideas again tomorrow at 9 AM"). This releases the pressure of having to come up with something right now or else ....

2. Ask them for three. If you ask for one idea, this is often interpreted as if there is somewhere one correct answer, that you expect them to come up with. This increases the pressure and often blocks people from sharing anything. Asking for three or five sends the message that there is no single perfect answer. 

3. Approve right then and there. Experienced managers often have the tendency to take someone's idea or suggestion and modify/improve/complete it. This sends the message that the manager anyway knows better or more. Refrain from this temptation. Approve their idea, or part of their idea, and encourage them to implement it and get back to you in x days to discuss the result. The ownership and learning will be far more powerful.

We all know how to think but sometimes, a bit of help is needed !

Where's your heart at ?

I am very luck that I speak Thai rather well. When I deliver a workshop with a team in Thailand, I make sure that some English jargon or particular expressions that are used in the slides, are well understood by the audience.

Just last week, I had an interesting experience. I

wanted to make sure that the group thoroughly understood the expressions "Putting yourself in their shoes" and "Coming from your gut", two idioms we use in English and easily understand the figurative meaning. When I asked the group for the Thai equivalent, they translated as something that translates back into English as "Putting their heart in our heart" and "Coming from the heart". Very interesting how these expressions - with shoes and guts in English - both come back to the heart.

And I again came to realize that this is one of the keys of working with teams in Thailand. There is no secret formula, but too often I see foreigners struggling with finding a connection with their team. They say all the right things, try to motivate, do fun stuff, communicate, communicate, communicate, and learn a bit of Thai language. Yet despite all this, many still say that they are not getting the performance or engagement that they want out of their team.

So maybe the secret is in adding a bit of "heart" to things. Sharing your feelings. Asking others about theirs. These things are often looked upon in the West as personal, private and not really belonging in the workplace (or at least, they are not things for the manager/boss to bring into the workplace context or conversations). Yet, in Thailand, with so many things going to and coming from the "heart", getting comfortable and adapting your style by adding in a bit more "heart" will definitely go a long way.

Do you relate ?

The Mindgym (www.themindgym.com) just this year issued a very interesting white paper on leadership. Now, there are hundreds of articles on leadership ... every day ! So what is special about this one ? The first key difference is that this list of 7 key talents of exceptional managers is based on a  review of the literature in the field, so it is rooted in research and not just about someone coming up with a nice thought in the shower.

The 7 key talents of exceptional managers (the Mindgym)

Secondly, the analysis looked for the link of these leadership qualities and actual financial performance of the companies these managers work for. The result ? These are not just 7 nice 'soft skills' to have ... Companies where the majority of managers are evaluated as demonstrating these 7 skills (through 360 degree reviews) have a financial performance that is on average 25% higher than those where managers do not demonstrate these skills.

The reason "relate" is in the middle of the visual is powerful. "Relate" is the ability to develop, maintain and - where needed - repair relationships with colleagues and team members. Not just being friendly or friends with everyone, but having relationships of mutual respect that are the foundation of delivering what is best for the organization. Of all the 7 key talents, "relate" has a multiplier effect. Those managers that possess all the 6 skills on the circle, as well as relate, will do great and be respected by peers and team members at the same time. However, the opposite is true as well: a manager can excel in the skills of execute, innovate, coach and so forth ... yet when he or she cannot "relate", the effect is equally destructive.

So is the capability to relate to others the golden grail of being a successful manager ... ? Something to think about when you plan for your team's training program !

Trust ... between others !

I recently had an interesting conversation with a business leader about the importance of creating trust with the people working with you. This director has a real coaching mindset, and sees it as his job to help his direct reports with their professional development. He always comes back to the issue of trust, how you create it by what you say and do with your team members ... or how you lose it by doing the opposite.

This exchange made me think ... This expat manager will be the leader of the team for maybe 4 years, and will then be posted at another assignment. His successor could be very similar, or very different from him. So what will happen with all that trust that he has built up, over 4 years, with each of his direct reports ? Will the team transfer all this trust to the successor ? Probably not. At best, the successor will start with a blank page and maybe some credit based on his or her experience. At worst, the successor could start with a handicap. And what happens next depends on what the successor does with the team. 

Should a team start from scratch every time a new leader shows up ? Obviously not ! So what is missing ? What is missing is the extent to which trust has been built up BETWEEN team members, and that is not something you can dictate. This level of trust depends obviously a lot on how the leader works with each team member, individually and collectively. But it is not sufficient. Trust is not something that by capillarity or osmosis affects everybody that comes in touch with it. Trust exists between 2 people: A can trust B and B can trust C, but that does not mean that A trusts C automatically.

Developing trust with your team is great. Developing and nurturing trust BETWEEN team members is what ensures that the investment pays off even after the leader has moved on. Action Learning is one method that creates this level of trust: team members build on others' ideas, ask questions and collaborate to put in place the solutions they created. The level of trust that is built up within a team working like this, remains for a very long time !

When are you not building your team ?

I recently came across another blog describing all the fantastic things that happen in a team building setting. Some of what I read really disturbed me ... A few extracts about the benefits of a team building exercise:

" - on creativity: team building activities help your employees to have fun and relax. They forget about work pressure for some time. This improves creativity.
- on motivation: employees interact in a different setting outside the work environment and this helps them to loosen up a little and winning competitions boosts their confidence levels. It also helps employees to gain trust and work as a team.
- on communication: the communication capability of your employees improves a great deal as they participate in team building activities. When your employees experience improvements in all of the above areas, their productivity automatically increases.

"

Wow ... So work is full of pressure, trust is missing and communication is a disaster. But we'll all go out for a team building exercise (typically outsourced to HR or a third party 'professional') and then all this tension will disappear and your team comes back ready to rock and deliver stellar performance !

You do not build a team once or twice a year. You build a team every single time you interact with any or all of the team members. In the meetings you have. In the one-on-one discussions. Or the project work. If work is boring and people are not having fun, you'd better do something about that. Or if people stab each other in the back, and put spokes in each other's wheels, you'd better not wait for the annual team building retreat to address these issues. In fact, if anything, all the 'good stuff' that team building supposedly brings will be looked upon as fake and just some gold dust that management wants to spread around.

Be aware that there is no single moment that you do NOT build your team, by whatever you do or say, or what your team members do and say together.

The tasteless sandwich

A few years ago, someone came up with a magical "sandwich" approach to give for-improvement-feedback to someone: say something nice, say what you really need to say, and finish up by saying something nice again. This became known as the feedback sandwich. And it became really popular.

The idea was that for the person receiving the message, it felt better to hear it smothered between two nice things, and the receiver would be more motivated to improve. But the sandwich did not become popular because it worked ! It became popular because it made the manager feel better about himself, and created the impression that "delivering" the feedback message was easier.

Giving someone straight feedback remains so difficult for so many managers. Someone recently admitted that he was not comfortable looking his subordinate in the eyes when giving feedback ! Others fall into the other extreme and pride themselves in being at ease telling anyone anything straight into their face ... whatever the consequences.

Giving feedback is not about delivering a message. We have email for that. The challenge with giving clear feedback - around needed improvements - is that for it to work, it needs to turn into a dialogue, into a real conversation. Not smothered in between layers of "positive" messages that have nothing to do with what needs to be addressed. You cannot prepare for or script out what will happen. You don't know what the other person will reply or argue or disagree with. It is exactly this unpredictability about how the discussion will turn out that you need to become comfortable with.

Creating a sandwich, or sugarcoating, or adding sweet topping does not make the feedback process more effective. It only destroys the taste, and the message. Practice dialogue instead.

Developing team trust ... for real (and safely)

When you Google for "team trust", you very likely come across this image or a variation on it. Of course, team trust is all about falling down blindfolded and having your "trusting team mates" catch you safely. Duh ... ?

Team trust is about challenging each other, building on others' ideas, clarifying disagreements, finding the best solutions. You kind of know when trust exists in a team, and you know (from the sidebar conversations and after-the-meeting discussions) when it doesn't. But how do you develop trust in a team ?

I ran an interesting experiment with a team in a manufacturing organization. 7 Thai professionals worked together to solve a cross-functional issue, by using the Action Learning principles of asking questions to deeply understand the issue before to come up with solutions. The team worked each time for nearly 3 hours, for 4 sessions each time with 2 weeks in between. Only asking questions. And listening to each other. And building on ideas. Before the first session, and after the last, I measured the level of "team psychological safety" (look up Amy Edmondson from Harvard University for more on this topic). Team psychological safety is similar to team trust, "a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking". Research has shown that this positively impacts how a team learns and performs.

The difference before and after was significant. There was a 20% positive jump in two areas that team psychological safety looks at: appreciation for each others' competencies and skills, and the absence of negative impact of making a mistake. This was after only 4 sessions. And in addition to the assessment, it was confirmed through a debriefing session with the team members. Definitely a solid foundation on which to continue to build trust.

Trust does not happen over night. But it can be accelerated by leaving your team to work together, and sticking to the Action Learning principles. And you can actually measure the change in trust levels.

What's in it for them ?

Khun Y had joined the manufacturing section of the organization 2 years ago. He was fresh out of university, but his management was impressed quickly by his ability to learn, to correctly analyse performance issues, and to carry out improvement plans.

One day Khun Y applied for an internal job at the engineering section. The company promotes internal mobility so all vacancies are circulated openly. The engineering manager was very excited, and convinced that Khun Y was the right person for this engineering job. The manufacturing manager saw this potential move as a loss for his department and tried to convince the engineering manager to change his mind. When that didn't work, the manufacturing manager offered a promotion with significant salary increase to Khun Y. Since the move to the engineering department entailed a promotion, the manufacturing manager reasoned that giving a promotion to stay would work. Khun Y decided to stay in the manufacturing department.


Situation: win (manufacturing) and win (Khun Y) versus lose (engineering).

Three months later, Khun Y resigned from the company and joined an equipment design and construction company. He received a salary even higher than his just-increased salary in the manufacturing department. His exit interview form stated as reason for leaving "found another job" (like nearly all exit interview forms).

Situation: double win (Khun Y with 2 salary increases in 3 months) versus double lose (manufacturing and engineering).

The organization will never know the real reason for Khun Y's departure ... Was it because he wanted more money (that is what they actually think) ? Or because he in fact looking for another manager after 2 years with the manufacturing manager ? Or because he was looking for a job with more variation (engineering versus production) ?

Morale of the (real) story: if you don't know your people and what they are looking for, you will - now or in the near future - end up losing them.

Managing your team: the basics

I often come across entrepreneurs who successfully grew their idea into a real business, and they realize their one-man organization has grown to 20,  50 or even more people. They can no longer do everything themselves. They have grown their team but they cannot afford to hire managers whose only job it is to manage others, as they are still very much relying on each individual’s contribution to help grow the top line and keep the bottom line in check. They need to start to act as managers themselves.  But where to start … ?

Based on my experience and what I have seen some entrepreneurs struggle with, here are the basics to put in place. These are the basics only, but they are often incomplete.

1. A few basic indicators visible to everyone

No need to have walls full of charts. A few indicators (start with one !), critical to the business, that employees get to see regularly and understand. And for which it is clear their effort contributes to the indicator moving in the right direction. Ideally, the indicator shows both company performance and the direction of their variable compensation.

2. A regular one-on-one meeting with each key player

This can be informal, over breakfast or lunch, but it must be clear it is a working meeting, and it takes place every 2 weeks at a minimum. This is the opportunity to clarify what is going well and what is not going well, to be clear and explicit when there are performance issues that need to get addressed (or else …). No need for an agenda or minutes, but do come prepared knowing what needs to be discussed or what needs to be followed up from the previous meeting. This is also where the personal relationship between the entrepreneur and the key players are developed and maintained.

3. A regular team review

This is where everyone is together, and the priorities of the company – including the indicators described earlier – are reviewed. This is the team working together, helping each other out. Individuals who are lagging are not put on the chopping block in front of everyone, that’s one of those things that doesn’t go down well in Asia. Those issues are addressed in the one-on-one meetings (by you !). The team meeting focuses on the team effort and synergies to be found.

This is not a list in which to pick one or two … These 3 elements are linked and need to exist together. You can’t have only individual meetings (where talk often moves to whining about the people that are not in the room) or only indicators on the wall (without a team review of the progress).

These are rather simple steps, that don’t take up too much of time, and they go a long way in giving direction, basic structure and follow up to your management team.

Introducing the team Trust-o-Meter

The Thai women volleyball team recently became champions of Asia and the pride of the nation (at least for a while). The Bangkok Post interviewed Wilavan Apinyapong, team captain for seven years. She does not talk about hard training or the star players, but about trust, saying that her managing style is based on establishing trust among the players. "As a team leader, we have to make followers believe in us an that contributes to fellowship. When the foundation for trust is loosened, the followers may not accept your leadership."


Trust is also one of the key ingredients for a successful team Patrick Lencioni describes in his best-seller "The five dysfunctions of a team". In fact, he describes it as the foundation, the first condition that needs to be fulfilled if a team is to become successful. The four other conditions of a successful team are constructed on the basis of trust.

Why is trust so important in a team ? In a team with a solid trust level, team members feel free to ask questions, and even make mistakes, as they are not concerned they will be looked down upon or gossiped about by other team members (research by Amy Edmondson). And asking questions, looking for feedback, and making mistakes are the hallmarks of a team that learns. Learning so that tomorrow's challenges are addressed more effectively than today's. A team that is stuck in routine and does not try out new approaches is standing still. A team that is learning grows and enhances its capabilities to deal with future challenges.

Trust in a team should not justy be addressed in the "blindfolded-person-crosses-obstacle-course-guided-by-team-mates-vocal-instructions" during the annual team building exercise. Trust (or the lack thereof) happens in the everyday interactions and exchanges between team members.


How is your team doing ? How high is the trust level ? Send me an email and I will send a simple Trust-o-Meter test for your team: 3 minutes per person, Thai/English completely anonymous, for teams up to 15 people. A snapshot of the overall level of trust in your team, and the spread of the results, can give you a good indication of where your team stands, and how solid your team's foundation is.

Did Fergie get it wrong ?

Sir Alex Ferguson recently retired after 26 years as coach of Manchester United and one of the most successful reigns as coach, with numerous trophies and even a statue to prove it. He has become some sort of an icon for what a leader is supposed to do, and is the subject of a Harvard Business School case study. The October edition of the Harvard Business Review continues the adoration with a long article where Ferguson shares the "secrets of the worlds' greatest coach". He is now the new role model that business leaders should look up to.

His resume as coach is impeccable. But is he really such a great leader, and an example for leaders business ? A lot is written about his management style. But what about the team he has left behind ? Isn't a great leader supposed to leave behind a great team ? It is too early to say how the new season will work out for Manchester United, but the start has been everything but impressive. Now, this is not because the new coach tried to change things around. In fact, it is quite the contrary: David Moyes tries his very best not to change anything to the winning formula that Sir Alex has left behind. But for some reason, things seem to be anything but smooth.

Was Sir Alex a leader who put his team in front, who created trust between his players, delegated and made the players commit themselves fully ? Or was it all about himself; making every decision, micro-managing and seeing his solution as the only possible option ? I was never in the dressing room so I can not tell for sure.

Steven Jobs has left an impressive legacy of innovative products and services (I'm using several of them). But has he left behind a sustainable company and a strong team at Apple ? Or was it really all about him ? Here again, we probably need to wait for a few years, but if the only thing Apple can come up with is bigger/smaller/thinner/thicker/different colored versions of its existing products, the company's innovative image and luster will quickly fade.

A great leader should be judged by the results, but also by how his team or company (or football club) fares after he is no longer at the helm. When a team continues to excel during 2 or 3 years after the charismatic leader has left, then the claim of greatness - greatness of creating an enduring enterprise - can be made. Otherwise, we maybe were enjoying a one-man show.

David Gill, the former CEO of Manchester United, is quoted in the introduction to the HBR article, as saying "Steve Jobs was Apple; Sir Alex Ferguson is Manchester United." So what is Apple when Jobs has passed away ? And what is Manchester United when Ferguson retires ? Good questions indeed.

Blind(folded) trust ?

At a recent workshop in a hotel, a large corporate group next door was organizing a seminar. At the end of the seminar, there was a trust building exercise where participants were blindfolded and, using only the verbal instructions from their team members, were to finish an obstacle course. This was to symbolize how we should trust our team members to achieve the goals. Great fun of course and hearing from the excited shouting and laughter, the levels of trust were skyrocketing !

So then what happens the next day in the office ? Of course, participants will be sharing/posting/liking loads of pictures about the great seminar. But I mean, what will happen about trust ? Will people talk about the learnings from the trust building exercise, or more about the choice at the buffet ? Will they refer to the lessons from the blindfold exercise next time there is a conflict between departments ? Will they look back at the pictures when contradictory department goals lead to tensions ? Will there be even the slightest learning about trust that will help to move the team to the next level of performance ? You know the answer.

You don't need obstacle courses or blindfolds to build trust. Or a hotel and a trainer. In fact, creating these completely artificial circumstances are pretty much a guarantee that the link with the work situation is non-existing. Trust is created when people dialogue with each other. One on one or in small groups or in larger groups. At work. Asking questions, really listening to what others bring into the conversation, building on ideas and working on a project within a team. Addressing issues when they arise. It takes a bit of time, yet it is simple. We really make it complicated by pretending an out-of-work play will have any impact.

It's great to have fun once in a while. But if you count on blindfolds to develop trust in your team, you'll be tripping and falling flat on your face !

Creating trust with teams in Asia

In an earlier blog I wrote about the importance of creating trust in order for people to express their opinion on a work related subject when asked for it. But then, how do you create trust ? There are a lot of references out there about the importance of creating trust at work and how to go about it. But what is specific or different in Asia ? Two main differences stand out in my experience.

1.       The working relationship extends into the private sphere, and so does the trust

In Western countries, trust (at work) is limited to issues … at work. Honesty and transparency are critical for a trusting relationship. Straight talk when needed, and listening skills are other key ingredients. These traits need to be demonstrated by the leader at work.

In Asia, the personal and social relationships are important in addition to the work relationship. For Asians, contexts at work and outside of the workplace intermingle, and it is important to interact with your team members beyond the pure work related activities. This means participating in social events, even if they seem not really necessary or a worthy investment of your time. But also attending personal events of your closest team members, like weddings (when invited !) or unfortunately also funerals of relatives (even when not invited). Affective trust is a precondition on which trust at work can be built.

 

2.       Praise in public and correct in private

One of the key requirements listed for creating trust is the importance of telling things as they are, straight and honestly. In Asia, managers need to take into account the importance of face (or more importantly the loss of face) in a team. Try to address issues in private rather than putting someone in his place in front of the entire team. This is not the same as "hiding the issues": everybody in the organization will know when the boss has put someone in his place, even if the meeting was behind closed doors. Public loss of face equals loss of trust in the relationship.

So my advice for (in particular expat) managers is to take the time to build up a ‘social’ relationship with your team members, and to keep the tough but necessary discussions out of the public sphere. It is tempting to focus just on work because there is so much to do and the quicker things get done the better. In the long run however, a good bond with your team members will create a better working performance.