How do you think in two dimensions?

How do you think in two dimensions?

The concept of Counterbalanced Thought.

Most successful organisations are founded on clear principles, a strong culture, and an uncompromising commitment to values.

These are all critical components, and few would argue over their importance.

However, there is also a well-known saying that “too much of a good thing can be bad for you”. So, can an organisation have too much self – discipline, clarity, or commitment?

Within every principle, decision or approach lies the danger of committing or executing to the extreme. This “at all costs” or “without due consideration” mindset can be blinding to issues or specifics that can ultimately cause damage. It’s one-dimensional thinking.

To manage this risk, a concept worth considering is the system of Counterbalanced Thought.

Fundamentally, this notion allows an alternative measure to sit distant from the main agenda, to be called on when it’s recognised that the common approach, previous directive, or normal rules may not apply in certain instances.

People should understand that they carry responsibility for implementing the normal. But they become more empowered once they also recognise that in extreme situations, or abnormal circumstances, a counterbalanced view may be required. It’s a simple way of explaining how to take responsibility for not doing the normal when the normal is not appropriate.

Counterbalanced Thought can be executed across all aspects of an organisation. For example, promoting integration, but not at the expense of intimacy. Promoting variety but not to the detriment of clarity. Promoting flexibility but not to the sacrifice of structure. While the primary intent is defined, the counterbalanced alternative is identified. It’s the counterbalanced alternative that needs consideration when implementing the primary intent.

The concept of Counterbalanced Thought provides another dimension to the thought process. It changes what would be one-dimensional to two-dimensional. The next obvious question is, what makes three-dimensional thought? I’m still thinking about that. Stay tuned…

Do you Report Up or Support Down?

Do you Report Up or Support Down?

In every organisation, the approach taken in establishing levels of authority is critical to a well-structured operation.

A common methodology is to place people with the most accountability at the highest levels of authority. This makes perfect sense. What is often overlooked, or implemented without due consideration, is how these people use their authority. In most organisations, “authority” means power, influence, a mandate to make decisions, and even more-so, overturn the decisions of others.

This traditional approach is flawed in many aspects. The way people with authority act and behave is fundamental to the success of an organisation and sets the tone for everyone to follow.

Defining actions that align to someone with authority is the first aspect to resolve. It shouldn’t be, the right to overturn decisions, undermine the role of others, instruct, or demand. But unfortunately, this is often the interpretation.

In contrast, those with authority should respect the roles and responsibilities of others, respect the decisions of others, provide advice, guidance, and assistance. This leads to a far more collaborative and respectful environment.

Once there is a common understanding within the definition of “authority” and why it exists, people recognise the benefits and embrace the concept, rather than bemoaning the concept of others having more authority.

The second aspect to resolve is how authority is imparted. Usually there are two concerns of people with less authority.

One is the concern of providing negative news or highlighting poor performance. To negate this, those with higher authority must show a want and willingness to receive bad news, so that assistance can be provided, and the issue improved.

Additionally, no one should be protected. Pushing negative news down rather than raising it to a higher level, is a common protective behaviour. Resentment builds when someone entitled to the privileges of authority, refuses to be held accountable for the poor performance of others, or refuses to raise it themselves for the purpose of self-preservation. Those with authority must be authentic in their role of being accountable for outcomes.

So, the question to be answered; Do flat structures work? What does “flat” actually mean? Does everyone have the same authority in a flat structure? I’d suggest not. Is no one accountable? This would be concerning. Do those that promote flat structures really have them? They may not be top heavy, but that doesn’t mean flat.

My advice is, rather than promote flat or worse still try to achieve flat, embrace a vertical structure, because we all know it’s the only way to operate effectively. Get the balance right throughout, not too heavy, not too light, at different levels of authority. And most importantly, rather than have everyone report up, insist that everyone support down.

Can you drown in shallow thinking?

Can you drown in shallow thinking?

Even though we’ve been talking about and recognising the benefits of diversity for decades, a great deal of shallow thinking continues to govern the conversation. Most dialogue centers around gender, ethnicity, and generational differences. Quotas still drive the decisions of many organisations.  There is advocacy for work environments to reflect society, insisting minority groups, however defined, be represented at all levels of operation. I find this thinking both confusing and concerning.

There should be no question regarding the benefits of diversity. Having a deep understanding of how to identify and implement it, and how to measure its value, are the questions to be asked.

There are some fundamental principles that govern diversity. Assumption and Bias, Majority-Minority, Us and Them, Power and Privilege, and Inclusion-Exclusion. Respecting individualism while acting and thinking in a non-bias way without assumption is fundamental.

So how do we identify diversity and what are the benefits? Improving what your organisation does, and how it’s done, should be the key benefit, and most recognise diversity of thought as the crucial element. Alternative views. Different ways to consider, approach and resolve issues. Fundamentally, there is more likelihood of choosing the best outcome, on the basis that more alternatives have been considered. Once this is understood, the next question is, what do we measure to ensure the benefits are there?

What we shouldn’t do, is pick a specific characteristic, (let’s say gender) use this as the measure and then assume if we have balanced representation, diversity of thought will be addressed.

Is there evidence that people with different characteristics think differently? Absolutely. There’s clear logic in that. However, equal numbers of males and females doesn’t guarantee diversity of thought. Furthermore, by assuming this, your assessment of each person’s characteristics is fundamentally bias. This is where shallow thinking is concerning. This is why trying to reflect society is flawed.

How can an organisation whose purpose is very specific, perform better if it reflects society when the characteristics of society are so general? The decision of who we choose to work in our organisations and the roles they play, must be based on something. It can’t be random, nor should it be based on a formula or specific number.

Addressing diversity by reflecting society, suggests to me a lack of understanding. For those that don’t have deeper regard, maybe this is the only option. The result? Rather than organisations rising to the top, they will drown in shallow thinking.

How and to whom should you be accountable?

How and to whom should you be accountable?

When it comes to leadership, a sound understanding of accountability is paramount. In senior roles, clear accountability is critical to organisational structure and performance.

Most organisations hold people accountable by having them report to someone more senior. I’m a strong believer in an alternative view. In my mind, the highest performing organisations allow people to hold themselves accountable. More so, the very best leaders are those who can hold themselves accountable and draw confirmation from those around them, rather than those more senior.  Accountability is something that must sit with someone. It’s something people carry. It’s not transferable, nor can it be effectively managed through someone else’s oversight.

The way people behave is very much driven by the way they are assessed. Creating an environment where people act in a way that satisfies those more senior, to whom they report, drives negative behaviour. Often these behaviours are isolating, confining, and focused towards satisfying one individual or small group. It forces people to protect or hide problems, filtering only positive information upwards, and influences people to behave based on how someone more senior would behave.

The alternative, and far more effective approach, is allowing leaders to be accountable to themselves by gaining confirmation from those around them. This removes the stigma of worrying about how something will be received or interpreted by those more senior. It encourages people to take responsibility for decisions, acting authentically to the problem, without fear of being judged. It brings problems more readily to the surface, for resolution rather than avoidance.

Many organisations talk positively about delegating responsibility. This alone is not enough. It’s how you deal with accountability that either restricts an organisation or allows it to prosper. The ultimate benefit in allowing accountability to sit with someone, is the gain in trust that results, and how it can empower people. The concept of reporting upward to someone is flawed. Having a more senior person holding someone else accountable, is undermining and erodes trust.

So, to all the aspiring leaders, I offer simple advice. Be comfortable carrying accountability, and don’t expect anyone else to hold you accountable for it.

Podcast: Horizons by Engineers Australia

Podcast: Horizons by Engineers Australia

Arthur Psaltis on Horizons – In depth interviews from well known and respected leaders from across industry.

After completing vacation work with Pritchard Francis, Arthur accepted a job offer as a graduate engineer. He left the firm after a few years to work for a large international practice, returning three years later as an Associate Director in 1994. By 1996 Arthur became a Director and in 1998 became Managing Director, with the firm comprising 8 people. Today, Pritchard Francis is 100+ people strong, with four offices in WA and NT. It is one of the larger consulting practices in WA and one of the most highly regarded practices in Australia.

In this episode you’ll follow Arthur’s career journey with Pritchard Francis from graduate engineer through to CEO, and shares his insight on lessons learnt along the way.

Listen now on EA OnDemand at the link below. Engineers Australia members can watch the interview for free. There is a small cost for non-members.

https://lnkd.in/gAFGsFn8.

Fools, Rules and Tools

Fools, Rules and Tools

How do you maintain consistency without too much constraint?

As organisations grow, one of the greatest concerns faced by leaders is losing consistency. Be it quality, service, or decision making. Irrespective of size, recognising that more people are responsible for more things without suitable supervision, suitable process, or suitable review, leads to fear that consistency suffers. And consistency directly impacts brand reputation.

Different businesses deal with this dilemma in different ways, be it manufacturing, processing or service industries. Professional services are slightly different, primarily on the basis that the product isn’t the same every time, and a multitude of unique decisions need to be made along the way to produce a positive outcome.

Some organisations fall into the trap of implementing a manufacturing style solution to maintain consistency. Freedom to deviate is restricted, decision making is limited to as few as possible and procedures are designed to constrain alternative approaches. All these mechanisms work effectively if the same product is produced over and over. However, these same mechanisms stifle innovation, diversity of thought, and creativity, the exact attributes needed in professional services.

So how do you produce consistency without constraint? It starts with a clear understanding of your product and service, and what makes it recognisable in the market. It is then imperative to define these things as non-negotiable items. Ensure all within the organisation understand these critical aspects and feel responsible for maintaining them.

Once these are defined, everything else should become optional, provided the non-negotiables aren’t compromised. Decision making can be delegated, alternatives can be contemplated, and approaches can be challenged.

With this environment identified, people within the organisation will either be empowered by this philosophy or avoid it. Those that challenge themselves and others, thrive with responsibility, and enjoy the freedom to make decisions, will flourish.

Establishing the right environment and matching the people to suit that environment then allows you to maintain consistency, without the negative consequences of constraint.

To summarise, don’t control things by just setting rules for everyone to follow. Achieve consistency by having the right people in the right environment. Deploy the right people with effective tools, rather than employ fools to follow rules.

Podcast: Crushing It In Construction

Podcast: Crushing It In Construction

Arthur Psaltis on Crushing It In Construction – Revolutionising the Onboarding Process

Since reading architectural journals at just five years old, it seems Arthur has always been destined for a career in construction – building on formative years as a graduate with Pritchard Francis, leaving to gain experience as a consultant and then returning to a directorial position and working his way to CEO.

With the company expanding fifteenfold since he took charge, Arthur has mastered the art of management and instilled values in his team that have led to incredible success.

In this episode Arthur shares his journey, the ins and outs of an employee-owned ethos and why he puts so much emphasis on welcoming new employees.

Listen now on Crushing It In Construction at the link below:

#45 Revolutionising The Onboarding Process With Arthur Psaltis (buzzsprout.com)

The four ‘ings’ of work

The four ‘ings’ of work

My children often ask me “what do you actually do at work Dad?” and to be honest, over the years I have struggled to answer the question with any level of clarity or conviction. For self-assurance, more than anything, I have tried to resolve this question in my own mind.

In principle, there are four aspects to peoples’ work, and as you evolve into varying roles, the weighting of these elements changes significantly.

We all usually start with doing. Because this is where we start, and it is normally how we and others measure our performance, it is easy to place too much weight on its importance as we grow. In fact, it can hinder our growth. While it is critical initially, as we evolve, we realise that doing can be limiting.

The second aspect of our work that is encouraged is thinking. There are two components to this. Thinking about how we can work more effectively ourselves, and hence improve the doing, and thinking about how we can improve other things around us. This element is very rewarding. We recognise our own value more, we see the positive influence on others and our environment, and this realisation leads into the third aspect.

We start to utilise our feelings. We want to feel valued and appreciated. We place more importance on relationships and trust. We want to influence the feelings of others. We start to recognise the importance of feelings and how directly relatable they are to performance and wellbeing.

And finally, once we have travelled this journey, we start sharing. We share our experiences, we pass on our knowledge, we educate and inform, we provide guidance, and through this sharing, we utilise the talents of others to replicate all the above.

In summary, do-ing is about achievement. Think-ing is about improvement. Feel-ing is about development and share-ing is about fulfillment.

So, what do I do at work? Not much doing, a bit of thinking, lots of feeling, and I am flat out sharing. How cool is that!

Performance measures for leaders. Learn how to teach.

Performance measures for leaders. Learn how to teach.

A close friend of mine is a primary school principal. I had the privilege of working with him for a number of years as chair on the school board. Recently, he mentioned something that resonated with me. He said “Arthur, they say the most important person in the classroom is the teacher, however they become the most important by ensuring everyone else in the room is more important.”

This statement captures so much of what many define as good leadership. It recognises that a role is more important than a title. Its message is focused on the performance of others, rather than the individual. It highlights the value of humility, of sharing and empowering. It identifies the importance of transferring knowledge and experience onto others.

When leaders consider their own performance, it is important to keep measures in perspective. Is the performance of a leader more important or less important than the group? Sometimes leaders become too focused on their own performance. It is relatively clear the performance of the group must be the true measure, not the individual.

Leadership phrases such as “make yourself redundant” or “make sure you’re the weakest link or the least capable” all carry similar messaging; however, the classroom phrase is more profound. It implies that for those in leadership roles, ultimate performance is achieved through the performance of others, and we should measure leaders who have wisdom, knowledge and experience by how willing they are to develop others around them, without need for recognition.

So, why do the best classroom teachers act this way? They only have students for one year generally, and then pass them onto the next teacher. The answer lies in what motivates people. Do they gain satisfaction and self-reward through their own performance or through the performance of others? Good teachers, as with good leaders, are motivated to see others develop, improve, and perform to their highest ability.

If leaders need direction on how to improve culture, and how to develop high performing teams, they should look no further than this classroom reference. It is no coincidence that my close friend has been a highly successful and respected principal for most of his career.

Podcast: Constructing You with Elinor Moshe

Podcast: Constructing You with Elinor Moshe

Arthur Psaltis on Constructing You – Excellence, Courage, Collaboration, Accountability, Integrity, Humility

Arthur is the Chief Executive Officer of engineering consultants, Pritchard Francis.

Although the better part of his career has been with Pritchard Francis, Arthur has had a dynamic work life. Today Pritchard Frances is 90 people strong, with 4 offices in WA and the NT, and is one of the largest consulting practices in WA and one of the most highly regarding practices in Australia.

In this episode, you’ll discover:

  • How to commit and display excellence
  • Why most people lack courage
  • The essence of collaboration
  • Developing a corporate culture with a positive association with accountability
  • How to assess your real integrity
  • Having humility in the face of growth; How to have a fulfilling career within an organisation
  • Triple E leadership lessons

Listen now on Constructing You at the link below.

Constructing You: Arthur Psaltis on Constructing You – Excellence, Courage, Collaboration, Accountability, Integrity, Humility on Apple Podcasts

How many P’s in Leadership?

How many P’s in Leadership?

While it may seem an easy question, leadership requires a few key attributes that change the obvious answer. My experiences and observations have taught me that there are three essential traits a leader must exhibit to be effective.

The first relates to energy and drive. A leader must be PASSIONATE. This characteristic is important not only for the individual, but also in how they influence others. Leaders who lack passion for their role are less likely to reach their full potential. This passion also contributes to effectiveness. Without showing passion, it is very difficult to yield influence.

Secondly, a leader must be PRINCIPLED. Clarity and consistency in actions and behaviours are crucial to gaining the confidence of others. This instils a sense of dependability and assuredness. It provides guidance for leaders in decision making, while building reputation and personal brand.

The last attribute is functional – a great leader must be PERSONABLE. In modern society dictatorial, demanding and commanding roles are unpalatable and usually ineffective. Collaborative, team oriented, and persuasive influencers draw the best out of others, while gaining respect. They exhibit empathy and engage sincerely. They build relationships either directly, or indirectly through their words and actions. They connect with people.

These are the three P’s in leadership – PASSIONATE, PRINCIPLED, and PERSONABLE. Does this mean everyone with these characteristics is a start-up leader? I’d suggest not. I know many people with these attributes that neither are, should be, or would want to be a leader. However, if you are in a leadership role or you aspire to be one, then it’s important to recognise some key traits that you not only must have within yourself, but portray at all times to ensure you remain as effective as possible. Display these three P’s and you’ll give yourself every chance of being a successful leader.

The Workplace and Mental Health – is it part of the problem or part of the solution?

The Workplace and Mental Health – is it part of the problem or part of the solution?

There are many issues of concern for society currently. In the workplace, none is more important than mental health.

When medical illness is directly attributable to the workplace, it is usually quickly addressed. Physical injury is now better controlled in most work environments, and relatively easy to identify and rectify. Mental health on the other hand is complex for many reasons. It’s arguably harder to recognise, concerningly easier to hide, and far more difficult in identifying a cause.

There are clear challenges in managing the mental health of people in the workplace. Unlike physical injury, not everyone reacts the same to circumstance. A trip hazard can be eliminated or appropriately managed. This method of rectification doesn’t exist with mental health. Our approach shouldn’t be to eliminate the occurrence of mental health issues in the workplace, but rather create the best environment possible to assist those in need. Zero tolerance is the benchmark for workplace injuries. For mental health it should be 100% tolerance.

Most people who suffer severely from mental health issues require professional help. Medication is not uncommon, but not the only factor in management. Once help is sought, and treatment is referred, people have the best chance of leading a better life.

The complexity with mental health revolves around an individual firstly recognising the issue, reaching a point of acceptance, seeking help and then embracing and acting on the advice. All these things are for the individual to address. The objective of the workplace should be to create an environment that allows, and even more so, encourages all of this to occur.

So how does the workplace achieve this? What process and procedures should be implemented? What actions should be taken? What training is required? All important and valid questions.

My experience has led me to an understanding that there is no specific set of procedures, actions or training that improves the workplace to a point where we can be satisfied mental health is well managed. But there are some principles we can instil in our people that provide the best opportunity for those with mental health issues to recognise, accept, seek help, and act.

Firstly, we must do everything possible to remove the stigma. This is most effectively achieved through leadership. Open dialogue and sharing personal experiences are the cornerstone to raising awareness and creating a sense of acceptance from all.

Secondly, the workplace should be perceived as a safe haven, even though there may be elements of work adversely contributing to someone’s state of mind. The key ingredient in addressing this is based on strong and meaningful relationships. Feeling supported, confident that you won’t be judged, and comfortable in sharing thoughts and feelings, all become critical in creating that environment.

Education for all, is the third critical principle. This involves looking out for each other, knowing what signs to look for when you suspect someone may be experiencing difficulties, having the right approach to engage with that person, or simply, knowing who to go to if you see a colleague in need.

Lastly, flexibility to create the right work arrangements. To assist in management of issues, people need flexibility within the workplace. That might be time commitments at work, workload or managing the demands of work in a controlled manner. The workplace needs, as best as it can, to accommodate each individual based on their specific requirements.

These four principles are the cornerstone of creating a work environment where people have the best chance of improving their mental health.

Rather than identifying causes within the workplace and then trying to eliminate them, let’s change our emotional mindset. We must encourage friendships, show support and understanding without judgement, and simply care for one another.

If we create these fundamental values and relationships, we will all be in a healthier state of mind.

The True Art of Leadership

The True Art of Leadership

Questions are continually asked in relation to what constitutes effective leadership. In many ways, there appears to be more answers than questions.

As with most things, the simpler the answer the more effective and truer it will often be. Without wanting to unnecessarily contribute to the multitude of opinions on this topic, some of the recent events that have happened domestically and around the world, have in many ways crystallised my thoughts and highlighted the relevance.

I believe the true art of leadership entails influencing people to accept decisions based on what’s best for everyone rather than what’s best for the individual.

Leaders should always make decisions that benefit the broader group. The phrase often used is “for the greater good”. Effective Leaders, however, have the ability to influence thought away from the potential negative impact on the individual and instead, help them accept the decision by recognising the overall benefit.

This approach is always more challenging to implement during difficult times. Weak, ineffective leaders turn to popular decision making, in which individual support can be simply garnered by personalising the impact, while cowardly or naively ignoring the longer-term effect on the broader group. Effective Leaders can implement sound decisions, however difficult it may be.

In fact, one could sensibly argue that highly popular decisions can’t be “for the greater good”.

If the decision is popular based on the benefit to individuals, then leaders should question its soundness.

So let’s not confuse popular decisions with great leadership. Let’s understand that effective leadership is difficult to undertake and can often lead to decisions that are difficult for individuals to accept. Let’s identify and commend those among us that show the true art of leadership.

Virtual Intelligence – will it render professions irrelevant?

Virtual Intelligence – will it render professions irrelevant?

Rather than talk about Artificial Intelligence (AI), I prefer to reference Virtual Intelligence (VI). Artificial implies fake or unnatural, whereas Virtual implies computer generated or simulated. Virtual suggests a replication of the real world. I believe the term VI better represents the transformation we are currently witnessing in the digitalisation of society.

What will VI mean to the professions and what impact will it have on those professionals and their careers? I believe the impact will be profound.

Many professionals believe their roles within society will forever be safe based on the presumption that judgement, creativity, instinct and experience will always prevail and never be digitally replicated. This misconception may be the undoing of many.

To understand this better, we need to clarify why these human attributes exist in the first place. Primarily, humans use these terms to explain their lack of processing power. People who perform at the highest level, use judgement or instinct to make decisions. Similarly, a person who generates something that hasn’t been seen or done before is defined as creative. So how can computers replicate these attributes?

The reality is that computers don’t need these attributes. Their processing power is infinitely higher than a human and continues to grow exponentially. Rather than be creative, a computer can generate infinite options to an open problem. By applying defined parameters, infinite options quickly converge on the best solution. Without the ability to generate every possible option the human relies on creativity alone.

So, will VI render the role of professionals irrelevant? In my mind this will ultimately be determined by how the client uses the technology. If the client perceives any level of risk or uncertainty in using the technology, then the client will expect the uncertainty and risk to be carried by the professional and hence their relevance will be maintained. If, however, the client is willing to accept that there is no risk associated with using VI, the professional will ultimately be rendered irrelevant.

Responsibility will transfer over to the client, virtual will become real and the only thing artificial will be the professional.

Newton’s 1st Law of Business

Newton’s 1st Law of Business

One of the key elements to a successful business lies within the laws of physics. Between Galileo and Newton, the Law of Inertia (Newton’s First Law) was developed to explain how bodies behave. Interestingly, while inertia is not directly measurable, it can be calculated, and it is critical in describing outcomes and fundamental in determining behaviour. The principles of this theory are overwhelmingly relevant in business.

We should not confuse inertia with momentum. Momentum is a measure of how quick you’re moving relative to mass. Inertia is how much force is needed to impart change, or similarly, how resistant it is to change. It’s inertia that needs to be monitored to ensure it’s not detrimental to your business.

While most businesses see momentum as desirable, consideration is needed towards the resulting impact on inertia. The momentum a business can experience may often hide the dangers of building inertia.

Using Newton’s 1st and 2nd Law as the analogy, business inertia can be explained. Bodies with large inertia require a great deal of force to move. Without the application of enormous force, bodies of large mass take a long time to slow down, speed up and more importantly, change direction. Large inertia can make organisations slow to react. With the same level of inertia, adding mass slows them down.

Hence, business inertia is an important characteristic in predicting outcomes and assessing behaviour.

Managing inertia, while maintaining momentum, is one of the keys to success.

So did Newton have a deep understanding of business? I’m not sure. Does his theory relate to business as much as it does to physics? Absolutely.

Accountability vs Responsibility

Accountability vs Responsibility

Managing a business and the people within it can be challenging to say the least.

Understanding your business and then communicating and implementing strategy effectively is critical to success.

One approach that can be effective in understanding, communicating and implementing, lies within the interpretation of, and understanding the differences between, accountability and responsibility.

Empowering people, establishing trust within a relationship, while allowing autonomy within roles are key attributes of a thriving workplace. Identifying and articulating the meaning of these two terms can create clarity for one role while defining and appreciating the roles of others around them.

In simple terms, responsibility should lie with the person doing the work. Accountability should sit with the person responsible for those doing the work.

When articulated in this way, the messaging becomes very powerful.

For those taking responsibility for their own work, there is a clear recognition that autonomy exists. Understanding that accountability rests with someone else establishes trust and authentic empowerment results.

For those responsible for people, recognising that accountability lies with them, but without responsibility for doing the work, provides powerful guidance on how they should act and behave. Handing over responsibility for the work in a genuine manner, while remaining accountable for the outcomes, is extremely effective in defining the role of those accountable for others. Importantly, this acknowledgement helps those responsible for work, to appreciate the trust bestowed on them by others.

While titles and management structures will vary significantly between organisations, the fundamentals outlined above provide clarity for most within the business. From those who take full responsibility for only their own work, through to those that remain fully accountable for the entire operation.

Defining these two simple terms succinctly and using them to provide guidance on people’s roles within a group goes a long way to establishing respect, trust and teamwork within the workplace. Characteristics that all organisations strive for.

Don’t underachieve for fear of failure

Don’t underachieve for fear of failure

Has society become too risk-averse?

Do people have expectations on safety, compliance and equalisation to the extent that trailblazing is frowned upon, while risk-takers and outliers are ostracised?

Conservatism is the antithesis of aspiration. Australians are ashamed of failure. Other cultures wear failure as a badge of honour, a sign of resilience, resourcefulness and strength.

Generationally, children are brought up in an ever-increasing protected and sheltered environment, where adversity, hardship and disappointment are avoided. Exposure to these experiences builds resilience. History has shown that through these experiences, true innovation and progress flourish. Are some of the essential qualities, that remain critical to people’s wellbeing, being filtered out?

When I speak to people, be it young people, business people or others, decisions and expectations are often set on the basis that they shouldn’t fail or carry any risk. Aspiration is often replaced with certainty. But with certainty comes conservatism, which can often lead to underachievement.

So as leaders, I believe it is critical that we encourage aspiration and risk-taking in others. Leaders should provide the experienced support, foresight and reassurance to allow others to manage and accept potential failure, and in the process build resilience.

Our advice should be “Don’t underachieve for fear of failure”.

Accepting potential failure is the prerequisite to overachievement. Resilience is the essential ingredient in realising it.

Don’t request the sacrifice, accept the offering

Don’t request the sacrifice, accept the offering

How do you get the best out of people? It has long been a question in business, with many varied opinions and points of view.

Is it through motivation, reward, incentive? Does it result from creating the right working environment? Is it all or none of these things? My feeling is we are asking the wrong question. We shouldn’t be seeking to draw the most out of people, but rather have them be willing to offer as much as possible.

Everyone has different expectations on what is normal acceptable effort. If we set our own measures on what we want out of our people, then neither party is content. There is either more to be offered, or there is a feeling that expectations are too high.

Alternatively, we can build relationships with people and make them feel committed and willing to contribute. We can show them how their efforts positively impact on others and the business overall. We can create a sense of belonging and have them recognise that what is good for the business is good for them.

This is what brings the best out of people. Achieve these things and the best outcome will be delivered. There will be no reluctant, unsustainable sacrifice, just a willing, ongoing offering.