by Pat Lencioni

When I graduated from college and became a management consultant, one of the first things I was taught was how to answer questions from clients without giving away my age or lack of business experience. “Instead of admitting that you graduated from college last spring, just say that it’s been a while since you were in school.” The underlying message was that we needed to portray ourselves as having more knowledge and experience than we actually did.

That carried over into our work. When we went to clients, we were taught to have done plenty of research and to have formulated a recommendation, one that was backed up by solid data and analysis. We were expected to portray ourselves as being smart (and frankly, that meant smarter than the clients), and advised to do nothing that might demonstrate a lack of confidence or authority.

As a result, many of my colleagues, including me, came to dislike our jobs. And to be fair, it didn’t feel like our clients liked us much either. But that was the world of consulting, and unfortunately, in many places, it still is.

When I left that job and joined a ‘real’ company, I became a client myself, bringing in consultants to do projects for my organization. I suppose that it was somewhere during that time that I developed my current approach to consulting, one that we’ve been using in my firm for the past dozen years. It’s called naked consulting and, yes, it’s as intriguing as it sounds.

The essence of naked consulting is that clients are more interested in candor, humility and transparency than they are in confidence, authority and perfection. That’s not to say that competence is irrelevant; clients need to know that we have the knowledge and experience to help them. But once we’ve reached that level, the best way to differentiate ourselves from ___________________

ORDER PAT LENCIONI’S LATEST BOOK HERE:  “Getting Naked: A Business Fable about Shedding the Three Fears That Sabbatoge Client Loyalty

__________________

competition—not to mention help a client implement the ideas we’re recommending to them—is to be vulnerable with them.

Vulnerability is the opposite of, well, invulnerability. It’s about honesty and authenticity. And it’s about overcoming the understandable fears that cause us to say and do things that hurt our relationships with clients. Those include the fear of losing our clients’ business, the fear of being embarrassed or looking stupid in front of clients, and the fear of putting ourselves in a position of inferiority with our clients. I say these fears are understandable because no one wants to lose business, look stupid or feel inferior. Ironically, it is only by facing and overcoming those fears, and getting comfortable being naked, that we can earn the kind of trust that creates loyalty with clients.

What does being naked look like in practice? Naked consultants confront clients (kindly) with difficult information and perspectives, even if the client might not like hearing it. They also admit their weaknesses and willingly acknowledge their mistakes. Naked consultants also ask potentially dumb questions, and make potentially dumb suggestions, because if asking those questions or suggestions might help their clients, then it is worth doing.

Even before landing a client, a naked consultant will demonstrate vulnerability and take risks. They will give away their best ideas and start consulting to the prospective client during a sales call. In fact, they’ll do no real ___________________

ORDER PAT LENCIONI’S LATEST BOOK HERE:  “Getting Naked: A Business Fable about Shedding the Three Fears That Sabbatoge Client Loyalty

__________________

selling at all, foregoing that activity in order to find a way to help a potential client even if they never actually become a real, paying one.

If all this sounds a little counterintuitive, even crazy, that’s because it is, at least to many consultants and service providers. It puts them in a position of potential weakness and exposure, and increases the possibility that they’ll be taken advantage of. But to clients, that weakness and exposure is seen as honesty, generosity, and a demonstration of our humanity. And no matter how hard we may try to convince ourselves that clients expect us to be superhuman, in reality what they want more than anything else is for us to be, yes, simply human.

Which is what makes naked consulting so ironic, and difficult. In order to demonstrate our humanity, to do what will endear us to clients like nothing else, we have to do something that is unnatural for most of us to do. Here’s hoping that we can all find the courage to be unnaturally human.

by Pat Lencioni

Last year was a big year for the flu, and my family was certainly not spared from it. It was a long and painful Fall in our house, though we seem to be largely recovered, thank God.

Now, if you’re anything like me, when you get sick you find yourself yearning desperately to be healthy again. You pledge that when you get better you’re really going to appreciate your health, not take it for granted. And if you’re anything like me, when you do get better, you too easily forget how you felt when you were ill and eventually start doing the same things – eating poorly, working too hard, staying up too late at night, forgetting to take vitamins – that make you susceptible to catching the next flu bug that comes around.

I think the same thing happens in our companies: whether our sickness is an extended decrease in demand for our products or we’re struggling to fight off a serious competitive threat. As leaders, we understandably get desperate to get our business healthy again, and just when we start to worry that maybe it will never improve, the ’flu’ runs its course, things finally start to get better, and we feel a sense of relief.

But rather than appreciate our new situation, we are often all too happy to put the problem behind us, causing us to lose a sense of gratitude for having lived through it. FIND BOOKS BY PAT LENCIONI HERE     Perhaps, in a state of minor delusion, we congratulate ourselves for solving the problem, and even develop a measure of arrogance about the whole thing. Not only does this make us more susceptible to having those problems again in the future, it prevents us from seeing the valuable lessons we can learn during the process of being not well.

Well, I’d say that our economy is currently in the middle of a very long and very painful flu season, and virtually every organization is in some way infected. Our symptoms can be found in our financial performance, our strategic uncertainty, our sagging morale. As painful as this is and as much as we want it to be over, it is actually a good time to take a long look at the situation we’re in and ask ourselves a few important questions. What did we do to make us susceptible to this? How could we have diminished our symptoms had we known the flu was coming? What will we do differently once this passes?

FIND BOOKS BY PAT LENCIONI HERE

The key to doing this is two-fold. First, we have to resist the temptation to lament the problem. Wasting time cursing the situation only keeps us from seeing the underlying lessons. Second, we have to avoid the tendency to simply work more, spin faster and grind harder, because that is just a recipe for getting sicker. Instead, we have to slow down, come to gentle terms with the reality of our situation, and look for opportunities to change the way we approach our work. That might mean new products and services, a different strategy, better use of partners, or some other change that we wouldn’t have considered if we had never caught the flu in the first place. Whatever it is, by changing our perspective from self-pity to self-improvement, we’ll actually hasten our recovery.

Now I realize that this sounds somewhat clichéd and that it is a lot easier said than done. When revenue is down and the sales pipeline is looking a little dry, it’s not easy to look on the bright side. But that’s what makes great companies great: they do the things that are hard and simple.

So, as we prepare for the New Year, let’s make a special effort to stop and count our blessings, even during this time of relative difficulty. And let’s not forget that when all is said and done, this flu we’re living through, as painful as it is, may make us more resilient to sickness in the future, and actually prove to be a blessing in disguise.

FIND BOOKS, AUDIO CDS AND CORPORATE TRAINING MATERIAL  BY PAT LENCIONI HERE

by Pat Lencioni

Fame.

A few months ago, prompted by all the news about Michael Jackson’s troubled life and drug-related death and the similarities between him and Elvis Presley, I started to think about the dangers of fame. And when the travails of Jon and Kate (of the Plus Eight television show) became known, I sat down and wrote a first draft of an essay on that topic. But I got busy with other priorities and I set it aside. Well, with the recent revelations about Tiger Woods and his family, I decided it was time to finish that essay.

Now, I have no desire to indulge in any of these real life tragedies, and I have no right to judge the people involved—we all have problems. But I cannot help but think that their fame was related to, if not the biggest cause of, their problems. I get more and more convinced of this every time I go through the check stand at the grocery store and see how many famous actors, musicians, celebrities and athletes experience more than their fair share of suffering. In fact, I’ve decided that fame is actually a very good predictor of misery.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. Fame is ultimately a lonely proposition, fraught with supposed benefits which always prove to be temporary and which seem to crowd out the only thing that really matters, which is love. When people who achieve fame begin to feel the emptiness of their situation, they can’t help but wonder what is wrong with them. Troubled by this, they usually seek to fill their emptiness with greater gusto than ever, starting a spiral that leads them inevitably to misery.

And yet, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of this pattern, there continues to be a universal and growing obsession in our society with becoming famous. This is apparent when we consider the proliferation of reality TV shows, celebrity gossip TV shows, talent shows and 24-hour “news” channels, not to mention all those newsstand magazines at the grocery store. In spite of all the evidence of its harm, fame is as alluring as ever. This is so astoundingly, insanely illogical that it calls for an analogy.

Imagine that a trendy and extremely expensive new car hits the market and that it is known to easily flip over and cause serious injury, even death, to its drivers in far greater numbers than any other car. Now, imagine people doing anything they could—borrowing great sums of money, mortgaging their homes, cashing in their kids’ college fund—to buy that car. And when they are asked why they would do something so self-destructive, they look at you like you’re crazy and say “Do you know how many people wish they could drive this car? Besides, that won’t happen to me. I’m a better driver than everyone else!”

That’s pretty much what so many in our society do when they see the undeniable pain experienced by people who achieve fame and still insist that its benefits are worth the cost. They ignore the compelling stories told by the handful of people who have lived through the nightmares of fame and warn against its dangers, and pay attention instead to those fame-addicted celebrities who keep getting up off the ground and coming back for more misery (e.g. Celebrity Survivor, Celebrity Fit Club, Celebrity Rehab, Celebrity Boxing, you get the point).

As humorous and innocuous as this may seem, it poses a very real problem in our society, especially when young people start to believe that fame is itself a goal, an accomplishment worth almost any sacrifice.

So what are we, as a society, to do? We can start by exhorting one another to avoid the temptation of fame and encouraging each other to value those things in life which prove to be real sources of lasting peace and joy. That may seem like a monumental task, I know, but I have one idea about how to get things started.

I would like People magazine—and for that matter, all the other publications lining the aisles at the grocery store—to start printing a big disclaimer on its cover:

WARNING!  THE PEOPLE FEATURED IN THIS MAGAZINE ARE NOT TO BE ENVIED OR EMULATED. IN FACT, THEY SHOULD BE PITIED AND PRAYED FOR BECAUSE THEIR FAME REALLY IS A TERRIBLE BURDEN AND SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THEIR CHANCES OF BECOMING MISERABLE.

I’m pretty sure the folks at People won’t like my idea. But maybe we can all do our best to remember it whenever we pick up one of those publications and are tempted to wish we were like the smiley and beautiful people we see and read about. Instead, maybe we will decide to thank God for the enduring gifts He gives us. Heck, maybe we’ll even put that magazine back on the shelf.

by Pat Lencioni

Maybe it was just the kind of kid I was, but I’m guessing that most children are constantly reminded by adults to be more efficient. Maybe not exactly in those words. More likely it comes in the form of phrases like “don’t be late”, “use your time wisely”, “don’t waste money” or even “turn off the lights when you leave a room”.

And while it’s difficult to argue with a parent’s or teacher’s or coach’s motivation for instilling these principles in the youngsters they’re responsible for, there comes a time in life—especially in certain situations—when those very traits become problematic. One of those situations is the call to innovation or creativity.

I’ve become convinced that the only way to be really creative and innovative in life is to be joyfully inefficient. Again, maybe it’s just my personality, but I’m guessing it applies to most of us whose jobs or lives involve dreaming up or improving on new ideas. And this makes sense. Asking someone to be both creative and efficient reminds me of that quote from Einstein: “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” The two activities are fundamentally opposed to one another.

Efficiency requires that we subdue our passion and allow it to be constrained by principles of logic and convention. Innovation and creativity require us to toss aside logic and convention, even without the near-term promise of a payoff. Embracing both at the same time seems to me to be a recipe for stress, dissonance and mediocrity, and yet, that is exactly what so many organizations—or better yet—leaders, do.

They exhort their employees to utilize their resources wisely and to avoid waste and redundancy, which makes perfect sense. They also exhort them to be ever-vigilant about finding new and better products or processes, which also makes sense. And yet, combining these two perfectly sensible exhortations makes no sense at all, and only encourages rational, responsible people to find a middle ground, something that is decidedly neither efficient nor innovative.

So what are leaders, who want both, to do? First, choose their poison; decide which of these two characteristics are truly more important and live with the consequences. And when you simply have to have both, create skunkworks efforts which allow a small group of people to be joyfully inefficient. No guilt. No confusion. No hesitation. And keep them largely separate from their efficient peers, at least until they’ve developed their ideas and are ready to share them.

But whatever you do, don’t chide creative, innovative people for their inefficiency. And try to avoid throwing faint praise and backhanded compliments at them (e.g. “I guess you creative types just aren’t capable of hitting a deadline or staying on budget”). Few people have the self-esteem and courage to continue being inefficient when others are calling them out as being flaky, irresponsible and unreasonable. If we’re serious about innovation, we have to celebrate—yes, celebrate—the inefficiency of the people who we rely on for new ideas, even if it means they are late for meetings, they waste a little time or money and they leave the lights on when they go home.

by Pat Lencioni

When it comes to tapping into the competitive advantage of diversity, few companies succeed. Yesterday I was reminded why.

 Our firm was having a meeting to discuss important elements of our strategy and marketing efforts, when something really great happened—we got into an argument. Not a disagreement. A loud, contentious, uncomfortable and passionate argument.

 On one side of the battle was a pair of our team members who were arguing their point based on a very accurate and literal interpretation of something we had decided months earlier. On the other side was a group of team members that was even more loudly making their point (probably because I was a member of that group and I’m Italian and Irish) based on a more theoretical interpretation of that past decision.

 For a few minutes, our debate sounded more like a brawl, with team members calling each other out for their intellectual biases and blind spots. Fortunately, because there is a great deal of trust on our team, our argument never came anywhere close to personal or mean-spirited attacks, though an outsider who didn’t know us certainly would have thought it did.

 When the melee was over and we had arrived at a decision, a couple of things occurred to me. First, the conflict we had engaged in—as uncomfortable as it felt at the time—was a wonderful thing because it allowed us to get closer to the truth, which often lies somewhere between two divergent points of view (though this was not a new revelation for me, I am amazed at how much I still need reminders). Second, those divergent points of view were based, not on randomness, but on the diverse personality profiles of the people on either side; one side was comprised of our more rational and data-driven team members while the other represented our more emotional, intuition-dependent people.

  Which brings me back to the power of diversity, and the reason why it remains so misunderstood and under-exploited in most organizations: it requires conflict.

 The practical advantage of diversity boils down to this: a group of people with different perspectives usually makes better decisions and finds more creative solutions than those who have largely similar views, backgrounds and skill sets. This is true for all teams, whether they’re running a corporation, a church, a school or a movie studio. However, when a team cannot productively engage in conflict, not only does that diversity remain untapped, it becomes a competitive disadvantage.

 That’s because when team members with divergent points of view cannot openly and passionately advocate their positions, the team will not be able to properly understand and incorporate those ideas into a final decision. Instead, they will frustratingly agree to compromise, walking away dissatisfied with the outcome and resentful of their team members who they still don’t understand.

 This is the norm in virtually every organization where I’ve worked or consulted. And that’s because when we talk about diversity, the emphasis is usually on acceptance and tolerance and “getting along.” All of which, of course, are good things. The problem surfaces when those qualities prevent people from challenging one another’s points of view out of fear of being labeled close-minded or intolerant.

 And so the key to making diversity work is to teach people first how to appreciate one another’s differences, and then how to challenge them in the context of pursuing the best
possible outcome. When a company can do that, it will transform diversity from a slogan to a real competitive advantage.

by Patrick Lencioni

Lest anyone think that the current graduation speaker controversy at the University of Notre Dame is merely a matter of partisan politics and media hype, it is worth a closer look. What is happening right now in South Bend, Ind., is not simply a critical moment of truth for a vaunted institution; it is also one of the greatest case studies ever about organizational identity and core principles.

When Jerry Porras and Jim Collins published their classic book Built to Last almost 20 years ago, they made the case that enduring institutions succeed by adhering to a core ideology, a combination of core values and core purpose. And one of the best ways to tell whether an organization is serious about those principles — and not merely using them as marketing fodder on posters and in brochures — is to see whether the organization will stand by them even in the face of punishment and criticism.

One company known for its adherence to core values is Southwest Airlines. There is a legendary story about an unhappy customer who sent a letter to Herb Kelleher, the founder and then CEO, complaining about the jokes that a flight attendant was mixing into his pre-flight safety announcements. Keep in mind that humor is and has always been a core value at Southwest.

Most CEOs in Kelleher’s situation would have sent the customer a note thanking her for her input, reminding her that she was a valued frequent flyer, and assuring her that safety was indeed important to the airline.

They might also call the local gate agents at the offending airport to remind them to keep the announcements appropriate. But Kelleher took a different approach, sending the woman a letter with just three words in it: “We’ll miss you.” There was no way he was going to violate one of his company’s core principles simply to please a constituency that didn’t appreciate the organization’s culture. To do so would be to sell its soul.

This brings us to Notre Dame and the unenviable situation facing Father Jenkins, the school’s current leader.

The first question that Father Jenkins must answer is this: What is at the core of your institution, and what are you willing to be punished and criticized for defending?

There are two clear choices.

One choice is the central teachings of the Catholic Church and the school’s reputation of faithfulness to those teachings. The other is the school’s reputation among academia and the media as an elite educational institution open to all points of view.

As much as some people would like to believe that Father Jenkins can have his cake and eat it too, there is no avoiding the dilemma that one principle will have to take priority over the other. And regardless of which way he goes, he will be criticized; he’ll just need to decide whose criticism matters more.

A second question that Father Jenkins needs to answer is this: Are there any issues that, if a president or politician were to support, would justify rescinding his invitation? Or does prestige and intellectual tolerance trump all other values? A hypothetical might help Father Jenkins here.

Suppose that a U.S. president held views that were clearly racist. Would Notre Dame still invite him to speak? And would it defend that decision by touting his other good qualities and his presidential stature? I would guess not. Why? Because one of the central teachings of Christ and the Church is that all people deserve love and dignity, something that racism always violates. Or would it be because it was politically incorrect and would provoke an outcry — and rightly so — from the media and academia?

What about a president who had made it clear through his words and actions that he was completely indifferent to the plight of the poor and to those with AIDS? Would he be awarded an honorary doctorate in the humanities? I don’t think so. Why? Because those views would fly in the face of the teachings of Christ and the Church. Or, again, would it be because of the criticism it would provoke from the world?

All of this begs the question: Are racism and indifference to the poor worse than abortion? In the eyes of much of the mainstream media and many people in the secular world, probably. But in the eyes of those who are faithful to the teachings of Christ and the Church he founded, one could never make that case. Father Jenkins would certainly agree with this.

So why would he even consider having President Obama speak, let alone honor him with a degree, even after so many have expressed their horror?

For one, there is the pain of the criticism he would have to endure, something none of us should underestimate. Rescinding Obama’s invitation would provoke a backlash from the media and members of academia, some of whom are on his own faculty who would say it was inconsistent, even racist. After all, Presidents Carter and Clinton were both pro-choice/pro-abortion, and they were allowed to speak. Is Obama different because he is African-American?

Regardless of whether the other pro-choice presidents should have been invited, it is undeniable that Obama goes far beyond them when it comes to his views on life. He has vowed, as one of the primary goals of his administration, to destroy every restriction on abortion put in place over the past 30 years, including the ban on the barbaric and grotesque procedure of partial-birth abortion.   He has cast the deciding vote on two occasions to block the providing of care to babies who were born alive   after failed abortion attempts. He is threatening to force doctors, nurses and Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and to do away with their conscience rights.

He has dismissed the life of an unborn child by referring to it as a “punishment” that someone who makes a “mistake” shouldn’t have to endure.

Now, regardless of one’s personal views on the issue of abortion, it is an objective fact that when it comes to matters of protecting the lives of the unborn, partially born, and “mistakenly born,” Barack Obama is more radical than any president or mainstream politician in American history. This is why Father Jenkins’ decision is so momentous and will have such a profound and irreversible impact on the school.

He will either bow to the pressures of the secular and academic world and honor his invitation to the president, choosing to disenfranchise those who see Notre Dame as Catholic first and academic second, or he should even now politely and humbly rescind his invitation to the president and make it clear to the world that more than the need to please academia and the media, it is the adherence to the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church that is really at the core of the university. That would speak louder than any poster, brochure or half-time television commercial ever could.

—

Mr. Lencioni’s Op.Ed. also appeared in the National Catholic Register and was submitted to the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.

by Pat Lencioni

Sometimes when we’re in the midst of a major event or a crisis, we don’t notice big changes that are happening around us. And then, when things settle down and we get up off the floor, we look around and notice that some parts of life have fundamentally shifted. I think that is what’s going on right now in the way people see employment.

When I graduated from college and started looking for a job a little over 20 years ago, there seemed to be a new attitude emerging—one that had probably been slowly taking shape for 20 years before that—about the importance of finding deep meaning and fulfillment in a job. Gone were the days of simply looking for a secure job in a stable industry. The new movement encouraged young people to find their true passions, be unconventional, and blaze their own trails.

I have to admit that I was a big proponent—and still am—of helping people discover their talents and gifts and find an outlet for them in work is one of my favorite hobbies. I’ll also admit that I assumed that this new ascent up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs would never be reversed. But given the fundamental changes we’re seeing in the global economy, we may just be sliding back down Maslow’s pyramid a little, and maybe even staying there for a while. In other words, I think we’re going to start having lower expectations about finding the perfect, meaningful and custom-fitted job, and developing a new kind of appreciation for the old notion of work.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not happy about this. The thought of fewer people going to work with a sense of idealism and passion and fulfillment is a little disheartening to me. (I even wrote a book about it.) However, I believe some hidden blessings may come out of all this.

For one, this emphasis on finding a perfect job has created something of a sense of guilt or disappointment for so many people who, because of economic or educational limitations, weren’t in a position to land their dream job. They never became a roller-coaster architect or an author of children’s books or a rocket scientist. Instead, they did the best they could to find a relatively interesting job in a field that would allow them to pay the bills. Given everything that’s happening today, they’re going to be feeling better about what they’re doing, and happier than ever to simply be working. That’s a good thing.

And then there are the people who were industrious and fortunate enough to find one of those cool jobs, but who experienced their own disappointment when they came to the inevitable realization that designing roller coasters and writing books and building rockets didn’t turn out to be the party they expected it to be, and that a rewarding career is not the answer to all of life’s problems. The fact is, even rock stars and advertising executives and fashion designers experience the drudgery of work, not unlike bank tellers and plumbers and retail clerks; they just feel worse about it because they didn’t expect their work to become, well, work. Now they too can find a little relief and reset their expectations about the reality of having a job.

Finally, and most importantly, this shift away from needing a perfect job might just bring about a new appreciation for the simple gift that is work. This is something that my parents’ generation seemed to understand better than mine. To be gainfully employed, to labor with integrity in any way for the good of customers or co-workers or family, really can be its own reward. That is making sense to me now more than it has at any time in my career.

Let’s hope and pray that the job situation turns around soon so we can put this theory to the test.

by Pat Lencioni

When I speak to audiences about teamwork, one of the most frequently asked questions I get has to do with managing groups of people who are geographically dispersed, a.k.a. virtual teams. This surprises me a little because the topic, as well as the solution for addressing it, is certainly not very sexy. But with so many teams these days comprised of members living in different time zones and countries and continents, and with travel budgets likely to shrink for the foreseeable future, there probably has never been a greater need for people who don’t see each other very often to figure out how to work better together. The key is simply about avoiding three mistakes.

The first mistake that virtual teams make is underestimating the challenges of being dispersed. Because e-mail and voicemail and texting and instant messaging have become so second nature, we too often assume that a team member’s physical location makes little difference in the effectiveness of the team. This, of course, makes no sense.

After all, no family would say “well, dad lives in New York, mom lives in San Francisco and the kids are spread around the country, but thanks to my iPhone and computer, it’s no different than living under the same roof.” The simple but often overlooked truth is that without the daily interaction of breakfast or dinner or homework or late night conversations or doing the dishes, a family can’t possibly develop and maintain the strength that it needs to thrive during good times and survive during challenging ones. The same is true for teams who have no incidental conversations in the hallway or at lunch, or in the elevator, for that matter.

Once a team understands the disadvantage of not being co-located, then it will be more likely to take on the next mistake that virtual teams make: wasting the precious time that they do spend together.

Too many virtual teams utilize their quarterly or monthly in-person sessions engaging in social activities, somehow believing that this is how the team will bond. While social time is okay, if there is not a focused and organized attempt to build relationships in the context of the work that needs to be done, then the team will only improve its collective golf scores, or worse yet, its tolerance for alcohol. On the other side of the equation, too many teams go the other way, spending their sparse time together doing detailed operations reviews and addressing overly tactical matters, which is almost as unproductive as golfing. The perfect storm occurs when teams split their time between irrelevant socializing and mind-numbing detail, resulting almost inevitably in everyone coming to dread another useless trip to corporate.

What team members really need to do when they are face-to-face is develop their relationships by getting to know one another’s strengths and weaknesses, not in a touchy-feely way, but in the context of the goals of the business. And they need to establish clear alignment around the bigger picture issues like the team’s core purpose, values, strategic anchors and top priorities. Wasting time in the weeds wrestling with detailed ops issues is fruitless and frustrating when teams are not on the same page relating to these bigger issues. Strong relationships are critical to getting on the same page because it allows the team to debate issues passionately and productively, which increases the likelihood that everyone will buy-in.

Buy-in is especially important for virtual team members because when they get back to their offices, they will need to work with a high degree of confidence that their peers will do what they agreed to do for the good of the team. That is hard enough when those peers sit in the cube or office across the hall and have plenty of in-person meetings on a regular basis. When they’re in different cities, it is much more difficult, which brings us to mistake number three.

The last mistake that virtual teams make is failing to master an event that is one of the most loathed and underestimated of all corporate activities: the dreaded conference call. Yes, even in this age of improved video-conferencing, there is simply no good, reliable and affordable everyday substitute for the speaker phone when it comes to working with remote colleagues. Unfortunately, just as we’ve done with regular meetings, we’ve come to believe that conference calls are inherently boring and unchangeable, a sort of corporate penance. So we accept agenda items that are neither compelling or critical, and we make an unspoken deal with each other: “as long as you let me check my e-mail and balance my check-book and play spider solitaire and do busy work—all with the mute button on—I’ll keep coming to these meetings and offering my perfunctory input to let everyone know I’m still awake.”

What teams have to do—and I told you up front that this is simple and unsexy—is make a serious commitment to one another that they will maintain a high standard of behavior during conference calls, even higher than they would for an in-person meeting. That will mean eliminating outside interruptions, avoiding distractions, foregoing the use of the mute button, and indicating agreement or disagreement verbally to avoid passive approvals born out of misinterpreted silence.

Of course, all of this starts with the building of strong relationships, and the only way our teams are going to be willing to dedicate the time and energy to do that is if we understand the disadvantage of being virtual. If we can’t do that, we should probably just get used to more golf, more spider solitaire, and more time, energy and money wasted during trips to corporate.

by Patrick Lencioni

It seems like we’ve been preparing for this current recession for the past two or three years, constantly predicting it and staving it off as long as we could, all the while listening to the media tell us that it was just around the corner. And now that it is here—and it is here—we’re witnessing a new media-inspired cottage industry building up around the “down economy” and the bad times that are upon us and that lie ahead.

Every news story seems to have the addendum “in a bad economy” attached to it. I suspect that soon there will be a new “Recession Barbie” doll on toy store shelves, complete with a frown on her face and a copy of the job listings from the newspaper in her hands.

Well, so far I’ve resisted jumping onto the “down economy” bandwagon, not wanting to contribute to any self-fulfilling prophecy or culture of victimization that can make a bad situation worse. But after numerous requests, I’ve agreed to share my own perspectives about how leaders can survive and even thrive during difficult times.

The first thing we have to do is ask ourselves a fundamental question: do we believe things will get better? If we don’t, if we believe this is the definitive end to any upside in the economy and that it’s all downhill from here, then I’m afraid I have no good advice. Aside from moving somewhere that does have an economic upside.

But most of us would admit that this, too, will rebound. Maybe not the same way it has in the past. After all, there are some fundamental problems that we haven’t yet faced. But even in the absence of —

Get NY Times best-selling books by Patrick Lencioni here!

—

that, there is a good chance that we will experience an economic upturn sometime in the not-too-too-distant future. And if that is the case, our call to action is clear: use this time to invest in your organization’s future, especially when the investment is not a financial one.

The best place for an investment right now is in the general health of an organization. I’m talking mostly about improving the functioning of the executive team, and their clarification of and recommitment to the organization’s values and purpose. Doing this will require a little time and energy, but very little money. And it will yield significant returns now, and even more when the economy rebounds. How?

A wise executive team will take this opportunity during slow times to build greater trust and behavioral cohesiveness. This will benefit the organization by minimizing politics and infighting, that are common during difficult times, and it will allow the team to make better decisions about which programs and employees need to be retained and which shouldn’t. All of this will allow the organization to emerge stronger than ever when the economy turns around, and with a meaningful advantage over competitors.

That’s because most of those competitors will probably flail during down times, frantically searching for a tactical way to swim upstream and defy the current, leading to even more frustration and angst than is necessary. In the end they’ll simply be more weary and scarred and unprepared.

Of course, like so much of the advice that people are repositioning these days for a “down economy”, none of this is really new. Even during good times leaders should be investing in the health of their teams. But with so many shiny opportunities in front of them, they often fail to slow down and do what it is best for the long term. Now that there are fewer and fewer of those shiny opportunities, there is no good excuse. And that may turn out to be a good thing.

The “Down Economy” Bandwagon

It seems like we’ve been preparing for this current recession for the past two or three years, constantly predicting it and staving it off as long as we could, all the while listening to the media tell us that it was just around the corner. And now that it is here—and it is here—we’re witnessing a new media-inspired cottage industry building up around the “down economy” and the bad times that are upon us and that lie ahead.

Every news story seems to have the addendum “in a bad economy” attached to it. I suspect that soon there will be a new “Recession Barbie” doll on toy store shelves, complete with a frown on her face and a copy of the job listings from the newspaper in her hands.

Well, so far I’ve resisted jumping onto the “down economy” bandwagon, not wanting to contribute to any self-fulfilling prophecy or culture of victimization that can make a bad situation worse. But after numerous requests, I’ve agreed to share my own perspectives about how leaders can survive and even thrive during difficult times.

The first thing we have to do is ask ourselves a fundamental question: do we believe things will get better? If we don’t, if we believe this is the definitive end to any upside in the economy and that it’s all downhill from here, then I’m afraid I have no good advice. Aside from moving somewhere that does have an economic upside.

But most of us would admit that this, too, will rebound. Maybe not the same way it has in the past. After all, there are some fundamental problems that we haven’t yet faced. But even in the absence of that, there is a good chance that we will experience an economic upturn sometime in the not-too-too-distant future. And if that is the case, our call to action is clear: use this time to invest in your organization’s future, especially when the investment is not a financial one.

The best place for an investment right now is in the general health of an organization. I’m talking mostly about improving the functioning of the executive team, and their clarification of and recommitment to the organization’s values and purpose. Doing this will require a little time and energy, but very little money. And it will yield significant returns now, and even more when the economy rebounds. How?

A wise executive team will take this opportunity during slow times to build greater trust and behavioral cohesiveness. This will benefit the organization by minimizing politics and infighting, that are common during difficult times, and it will allow the team to make better decisions about which programs and employees need to be retained and which shouldn’t. All of this will allow the organization to emerge stronger than ever when the economy turns around, and with a meaningful advantage over competitors.

That’s because most of those competitors will probably flail during down times, frantically searching for a tactical way to swim upstream and defy the current, leading to even more frustration and angst than is necessary. In the end they’ll simply be more weary and scarred and unprepared.

Of course, like so much of the advice that people are repositioning these days for a “down economy”, none of this is really new. Even during good times leaders should be investing in the health of their teams. But with so many shiny opportunities in front of them, they often fail to slow down and do what it is best for the long term. Now that there are fewer and fewer of those shiny opportunities, there is no good excuse. And that may turn out to be a good thing.

Yours,

by Pat Lencioni

For some reason, I haven’t directly addressed this topic in any of my writings over the years. It’s not because I’m afraid to or that I find it uninteresting. I think it has more to do with having such mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I think the amount of money paid to so many high profile chief executives is bizarrely and tragically excessive. But my take on that excess is different than most. See, I honestly believe that the ridiculous salaries and compensation some CEOs receive is a function of pride more than greed.

I may be naïve, but I just cannot fathom how someone who already has five homes and enough money socked away to put seventy five kids through college can really want more. What is it that they need the money for? Anyone with that much of it must have already come to the realization that it can’t make them happy. That’s why I honestly believe that the pursuit of higher salaries, bigger bonuses, more lucrative stock options and fluffier golden parachutes is more about keeping up with the Jones’ than it is about money. CEOs know what their peers earn, and they want to compare favorably for the sake of their egos more than their bank accounts.

Regardless of the reason, the excessive payouts to executives—especially to the ones who fail—is just plain wrong.

On the other hand, I’m not in favor of addressing the problem through regulation and government involvement. Most fiscal matters the government involves itself in get worse, not better, and letting bureaucrats and politicians tamper with a free-market economy feels like a very bad idea to me.

And for those executives who lead their organizations to financial success, a healthy reward for their work can be justified. Running a company is a demanding and lonely job, and success should be rewarded. However, failure should not be, and far too much of the compensation awarded to chief executives is guaranteed and not tied to performance.

So what is our recourse?

Because of my belief that pride is at the heart of this problem, I think the solution must focus on reintroducing a healthy sense of shame—that’s right—shame, to the marketplace. CEOs should be made publically accountable for the amount of money they make, and the men and women who serve on the boards that approve their compensation packages should share in that accountability. What would that look like?

First, the CEOs of publicly traded companies should have their compensation packages made public. Yes, I realize that those packages are already available to anyone who takes a few minutes on the internet to look for it. But I’m thinking of something easier and more naked.

Perhaps, CEOs should have to explain their pay to their employees twice a year, justifying the money they make in light of their contribution to company success. And I’m not thinking of a formal board meeting where an employee would have to risk his or her hide to make a statement, but rather an on-line town hall with video coverage in which employees can anonymously and respectfully demand an explanation.

And maybe those same CEOs should be pressured to include their salary and compensation package at the bottom of their e-mail messages. For instance:

Fred Johnson
CEO, XYZ Corporation
Phone: 212-555-1212 e-mail: fred@xyz.com
Compensation: $2.5 million salary, 12 million stock options, $1 million guaranteed bonus

And wouldn’t it be interesting if whenever a CEO receives a ridiculous bonus after a dismal year, or a golden parachute as a reward for running a company into the ground, he or she should be forced to sit in the lobby of the company’s building for two weeks and endure the reaction of employees?

Finally, more industry analysts and television commentators should ask CEOs questions about their compensation. Because just knowing that they might have to publicly explain why they make so much money would give executives a reason to pause and reconsider if they would rather be known among their peers as getting the most lucrative deal or held in high esteem by employees, customers and shareholders for being responsible and humble.

But whatever we do—and I mean this—let’s do it with love and charity. If we simply demonize CEOs and create an ‘Us vs. Them’ atmosphere, we only contribute to the animosity and division that probably enabled this situation to come about in the first place. Even when we correct and hold pe ople accountable for changing their ways, we must do it out of love.

And that’s a pretty good note on which to wish all of our readers and friends and family a Merry and Blessed Christmas and Holiday Season!