Perception Isn't Everything (but is sure is a lot)

Nothing quite bugs me like hearing platitudes like "perception is everything." While I appreciate a pithy one-liner as much as the next guy, I bristle when they over-simplify things to a level that makes progress harder, not easier.

Perception is not everything. It is one part of the picture. What we perceive in, say, an interpersonal conflict is real to be sure. But, it is not the entire picture of reality. Your perception of me is not all of me. My perception of some attribute or quality of yours is not the whole picture of you. Nor is it the whole picture of you and me.

Recently, I was on a project team formed to produce a few short-term and quick-hitting results. During the process, another member accused me of making a power play. I was said to be wrestling the leader for control. My teammate said the team’s progress was slowed by power battles - caused by me. That was his perception.

From my end, there was no power play. My intent was not to take over the leadership role. Nor was I interested in slowing the group down. Quite the opposite. After hearing his critique of my participation, I formed my own perception; that he was like a process policeman more interested in judging and labeling than understanding what I was trying to do. And, he surely was not giving me the benefit of the doubt. In other words, I was guilty until I could prove myself innocent.

I saw the situation this way: I perceived that I brought in a new idea about how we might proceed faster than we had been. I thought it was a better, more efficient and more effective approach to the problem. My mistake? I didn’t realize that it might be perceived as an attempt to derail the process we had been using. I also did not foresee that it would actually derail the process, which it did. And, I didn't introduce it properly. From my vantage point, that is very different from a power play.

So we had one perception on his end. Another on mine. Which one is "everything?" The answer: Neither.

Leaders who look at situations from only the perspective of one party's perception (even if it is their own) are missing a lot of information that would help solve the problem. What is needed is an inquiry process that brings in data from many vantage points.

Think of it as a Compass Perception Strategy, CPS for short. Seeing the situation from the north will bring one perspective. Looking at it from the East, as well, brings another set of information. From the west and south, yet two more groups of data are brought in. Now you have four vantage points, not just one.

And, notice that you have more than two vantage points. Especially in interpersonal conflict between two people, it is tempting to use just the perspectives of the parties involved. But, too often this sets up a debate or argument akin to he said she said, they said we said. You did this and then I did that.

The research on how people engage in conflict and, especially how they resolve it through retribution (and justify their actions) shows that neither party fully considers the whole picture. Each person remembers what the other person did to provoke them. But, they have remarkably limited recall of how they retaliated, or…in typical corporate jargon, how they ”responded.” It takes special effort and skills to see a situation from more than your own perspective. If you run only with your point of view, you are sure to miss mine. And, vice versa. And then what do we have? Two perceptions pitted against each other.

Buddhist philosophy puts it this way: "Are you sure? Wrong perceptions cause incorrect thinking and unnecessary suffering." In organizations they also cause broken teams, missed goals and antagonisms that suck the life out of people.

Leaders must learn skills to facilitate problem solving using more than the limited perceptions of the people involved. They must learn to go beyond their own, inherently limited, perceptions, too, not matter how much their perceptions have worked for them in the past. To do less is to miss the chance to address the whole picture - and solve the real problems.

F,F,MO,DLB

Have you ever been in a situation when someone, undoubtedly to assuage some need of their own for less pain, less anxiety, a sense of control or a desperation to reach out however ineffective the means used, tries to pull you back into a situation you long since put behind you and have forgotten?

That just happened to me. A situation two years old was dredged up by someone I actually have a great affection for, in spite of the reality that the past situation and the decisions we made after it have made it implausible for us to be in touch with one another.

What were my reactions? I was surprised to get the email. I was eager to read it - until I did. Then I was this close - I tell you this close - to firing off an email that would blast this person for exhuming a situation we long since mourned.

Thankfully, I didn't go with my first, visceral, animalistic instinct to fight. I went with my (thankfully) quick-to-follow second, rational, conscious and values-based thought which was that this person (gender intentionally withheld) was obviously hurting and was using the only means (s)he knows, however ineffective, to meet his/her need for comfort and safety (and whatever else.)

So, what did I do? I decided to ignore it and let it be. Was this the right decision? I don't know. I'm a coach, not the all-knowing OZ.

What I know is this: My first reaction is not always on target, appropriate, likely to lead to me behaving as my best self or enhancing the relationship with the involved, or involveds. Sometimes it makes sense to think before acting. Most times, actually. Sometimes my second instinct, which is actually the first thought, is more rational and gentle and appropriate, given that most situations are not really threats to my person, safety, life path, success or self-esteem. My first actual conscious thought is often the one to go with. Clients working to override their (too-often ineffective) instincts in favor of a more effective (if slightly slower) approach, take note of that. I get it.

So, what did I do? I decided to F, F, MO, DLB. I decided to forgive (again) the situations that led to the unfortunate past and this very (albeit fleeting situation). I decided to forget (again) and remember that I had already suffered the pain, drawn important lessons and moved on and there was no need to strike back or respond, not least because the things (s)he was dredging up were irrelevant today. And, finally, I decided not to look back. Forgive. Forget. Move On. Don’t Look Back.

Forgive - this is a central theme for psychological, emotional and spiritual health.

Forget - enough to move on, after having drawn the wisdom from the past situation for use in future situations.

Move On - don't hold yourself or anyone else hostage to the past. We were all different then. We are wiser now.

Don't Look Back - today is now, yesterday is not now. Which one can you affect?

Forgive. Forget. Move On. Don’t Look Back. It is very hard to drive to your destination with your eyes on the rear-view. Peace out.

Targeted Behavior Change

Over the past year I have shifted the focus of my executive coaching work to targeted behavior change - helping successful executives be more effective, and even more successful.

It sounds simple. I mean, what can be challenging about helping people who have already established themselves as successes in their fields, companies and careers to be even more successful? The simple answer: What gets a man to a place does not necessarily keep him there. Put another way: The way I did it yesterday may not be what is needed today. I may need to learn, grow and act differently.

The choice for these up-and-coming-senior executives is between behavior that is comfortable and behavior that is effective.

Notice I'm not making any statement about the ends someone is trying to achieve. While I do hope that money and power are not the primary goals of the people I serve, I am not saying to the man who wants to have the biggest toys that he shouldn't them. It's not my job to level moralistic judgments. Don't get me wrong; I do not take clients whose ends or means to them are what is normally called immoral, or is illegal. It is just that I do not see it as my role on the planet to tell another man what he should do.

I let the people around him do that - and then help him choose what he will do. For instance, by asking the people he identifies as most central to his success what he's doing that causes problems, and inadvertently undercuts his success, we get a very short list of behaviors they think need to improve for him to be more effective, and hence, successful. He gets evidence from his natural environment, in flashing yellow lights, of what he can do to continue his history of success.

The trick is to recognize that by choosing to pay attention to what people are telling him, he cannot be tomorrow how he was yesterday. If he wants to reach his goals, he's going to have to improve the means he uses to get them. So, logically, that implies he will need to learn new skills - skills that allow him to act differently than he used to act. By acting differently, he will be more effective.

During the past year I have been challenged the same way. During the early weeks of my masters program, I thought I was coming across one way, offering information and ideas for the benefit of everyone involved in the conversation. I quickly learned that I was being received in a totally different way. In fact, because of how people were reading me, the information I was offering, the ideas I was sharing, were not getting through. My good intentions were not picked up on my classmates' intention-meters. In fact, quite the opposite. I was quickly outside the inner circle, dubbed a know-it-all more interested in his own aims than being a good classmate.

Hearing that feedback was like getting punched in the gut - hard. One of the main reasons I decided to pursue a masters was to be in a learning environment with professionals of similar values and interests. To end up outside that group, even while physically inside it, felt awful. If I didn't address the situation directly, it would lead to me getting a very different result than intended. Sure, I'd still get a masters degree. I would still achieve an important end goal. But, I would have done it with a lot less support from others, with no greater number of meaningful relationships in my professional (or platonic) life than before I began, and quite possibly no more professional options than when I began.

While I may have ended up with the degree, I would not have ended up with the other important outcomes I valued. So, my choice was simple: Change or stay the same. Use the same behaviors that led to the problem during the entire program (this option usually involves pushing the problem off on other people rather than being self-responsible for my effectiveness), or learn how to be more effective in the classroom with my professional peers.

You see where I'm heading with this, right? My options were to keep doing what I was going and getting sub-optimal results or change what I was doing to get better results.

Pick an example from your own world. Do you know a successful or up-n-coming executive whose behaviors are increasingly problematic? He (or she, by the way) will eventually be presented with the same dilemma: improve and continue his/her trajectory in the current company, change trajectories (a.k.a. stop moving up), or be invited to continue his/her career with another organization.

The consequences may be more extreme than those, too, if he/she considers the other people in his life, such as children, and a partner.

So, the trick is to make the best decision. And, I argue that the best decision is the one that increases interpersonal effectiveness. The optimal decision is the one that has us operating in alignment with what our better judgment thinks we should do and is well-received by others. The best decision is the one that uses short-term maturity to achieve long-term prosperity.

I'm not asking people to roll-over and just be how others want them to be. This is not about selling out or living by someone else's code. It is about deciding to use behavior that is more acceptable to the people you work with so that you get your goals achieved. It's about choosing the best means to the ends you want. After all, you wouldn't stay on a road that won't get you where you want to go, would you?

Better for Having Been Here

As my work becomes more focused on helping individuals grow into the fullness of their leadership potential, including eliminating problematic behaviors (something I have direct experience with - and will be writing about a lot in this blog in the coming months), the more my attention gravitates to the words and deeds of men and women commonly accepted as successful in their fields.

I am no patsie when it comes to equating success (which usually means financial success) and leadership; many a financially successful man has been found out to be a lousy leader. Most of the men and women my middle management friends work for would fit this category. And, we all know at least one man or woman in our personal, if not professional, lives who would not be considered a financial success, yet is a tremendous positive influence for the people around him or her. Most of the terrific teachers I've had over the years fit this category.

Today, Andre Agassi played his final match at Wimbledon, having decided to retire after this year's US Open in September. He lost to the emerging powerhouse of the sport, a 19-year old Spaniard, Rafael Nadal. Watching the match was like witnessing an archetypal battle played out live before my eyes. The elder in the denoument of his career, the one from whom so many up-and-coming players have learned by proxy - and have emulated, going tete-a-tete with a young challenger whose life, body and various intellects are ascending. Indeed, the elder ceded the space to the younger and exited with grace.

Listening to Agassi after the match, I was struck by one idea. When asked what he would like to be remembered for, he first payed tribute to the elders who he followed into the game, most notably Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe. What a wonderful and graceful start to his answer - essentially saying, I have risen on the shoulders of great forebears.

Next he said - and this was the goose-pimple-inducing thought, "I hope that I'll be remembered for having made the game better for having been in it. Because, I have certainly become better for having had it in my life."

I wonder how many executives enter the workplace thinking, I want to be remembered for having made the place better. I'll tell you this, from the evidence I hear day in and day out, executives in America's public companies are very often more focused on making the place more efficient and prosperous, not necessarily better. For clarity, better to me means having contributed something of lasting meaning and life-affirming value to the lives of the people involved - as defined by those people.

Agassi's idea is about legacy. It is about more than success. Naturally, we are more likely to hear this from a successful player because the ones who retire from the tour not having won any major tournaments don't often get quoted. But, my point is the legacies that endure, the legacies that are considered good and right decades after the person has stepped aside from the productivity that created the success, are those that had a high character component to them. Time is the great leveler, and those people who achieve financial success without simultaneously achieving character gravitas, or greatness or statesmanship, are eventually appropriately described as financial successes and not great leaders.

I love Andre Agassi's humility, his reverence for the game he was privileged to play, and his hopefullness that he brought to it not only entertainment, but character, too.

Time will tell if Agassi behaved in ways that prove he valued character as much as winning. It's one thing to hope for something, and quite another to act it out. I hope he proves to have been a true values-based leader. Because, we couldn't possibly have enough examples of people whose drive for success includes elevating the lives of the people they work and play with along the way. Success without character is just numbers.