Inspired leadership: Four elements effective leaders should master

Confessions_Ep#9_InspiredLeadershipAre leaders born or made?  In this week’s new episode of our Confessions podcast, “Inspired Leadership,” our guest, Steve Schloss, Chief People Officer at the United States Golf Association (USGA), says the answer is… both.

Tune in to hear Steve’s perspective on the qualities that make an effective leader, and the four core leadership disciplines— conscious leadership, connected leadership, informed leadership, and influential leadership—that he believes executives need to master in order to be truly successful.

Business Chemistry’s lead researcher, Suzanne Vicksburg and the Deloitte Greenhouse™ Experience national leader, Kim Christfort will join the conversation to provide their own insights and opinions.

Be sure to keep your ears open for more stories and thoughts from today’s leaders in our next episode, and check out Deloitte’s award-winning Resilience podcast and M&A’s Trends podcast series. Find both on Deloitte.com, Stitcher, or Apple’s podcast app

Want to learn more about which Business Chemistry type might best describe you? Learn more about the 4 Types and share your thoughts with Dr. Suz on Twitter @drsuzbizchem.

en_badge_web_genericavailable-on-itunes-logo

Confession: Talk all you want, but listening is a key leadership skill

teaser_EP#8Download Confessions Episode No. 8: “Flexing for Success” with USGA’s Chief People Officer Steve Schloss

Effective leaders are big, bold, outspoken individuals who inspire confidence and loyalty through the sheer force of their dynamic personalities. Or, are they?

In this week’s episode of Confessions, we talk with Steven Schloss, Chief People Officer of the United States Golf Association, who says that while extroverts may come across as the more obvious leaders, their more reserved colleagues shouldn’t be overlooked.

“I’ve often said to people that if you want applause, you can talk all you want, but if you want results, you have to listen,” said Schloss.

Listen to this week’s episode, “Flexing for Success,” to hear his view on the value of introspection.

en_badge_web_genericavailable-on-itunes-logo

 

Building Strong Teams–Confessions Episode 7

teaser_EP#7_2In our previous podcast episode of Confessions, we discussed the importance of smart risk taking with Mark Buthman, CFO Emeritus at Kimberly-Clark Corporation. In that discussion, Mark revealed an interesting fact about himself—he doesn’t possess the normally dominant Business Chemistry® traits of a CFO.

Whereas most CFOs identify as Drivers or Guardians—driven and/or analytical personality types—Mark is an Integrator and team builder. It’s a trait that would help him recognize the value of cognitive diversity within teams.

“One of the risks in finance, and [on] any leadership team—there’s a lot of analytical, decisive leaders around, but that doesn’t make for such diversity,” Buthman said.

Want to learn more about which Business Chemistry type might best describe you? Learn more about the 4 Types or share your thoughts with Dr. Suz on Twitter @DrSuzBizChem.

en_badge_web_genericavailable-on-itunes-logo

CFO encourages risk-averse team to take a chance on success

teaser_EP#6Confessions Podcast Episode 6:  There are times when a business team and their leader don’t see eye-to-eye. In this episode of Business Chemistry’s® Confessions podcast, we hear how one very successful CFO encouraged his team to step out of their comfort zones and take more calculated risks to find success.

Smart Risk Taking” features Mark Buthman, CFO Emeritus at Kimberly-Clark Corporation, who was a square peg in a round hole; someone, who believed in the importance of risk taking while leading a risk-averse group of finance professionals. Buthman tells us why he believes taking risks is important to achieving both personal and professional growth, and how he instilled this belief in his team.

Want to learn more about which Business Chemistry type might best describe you? Learn more about the 4 Types or share your thoughts with Dr. Suz on Twitter @DrSuzBizChem.

available-on-itunes-logo  en_badge_web_generic

The Chemistry of Trust: 8 Ways to Build More of It

What if you could be the kind of leader whose team had increased energy, was more productive, collaborated better with their colleagues, and stayed with your organization longer? What if your people suffered less chronic stress and were happier with their lives?

In the Neuroscience of Trust, published in a recent issue of Harvard Business Review, Paul Zak suggests that you can be that kind of leader by increasing trust on your team. He proposes eight management behaviors to help you do so. In considering his ideas, I matched his suggestions up against the Business Chemistry types, knowing that different things make the various types tick. Here are the eight proposed behaviors and the types with which they’re most likely to be effective…

Induce “challenge” stress. Zak suggests that challenge stress, brought on by assigning teams difficult but achievable tasks, releases chemicals in our brains that increase social connections. This technique may be particularly effective for Drivers, who are more likely than the other types to report that they thrive in the face of challenging tasks. 1

Give people discretion in how they do their work. In other words, enable autonomy by allowing people to complete projects in their own way—if you trust your people, they’re more likely to trust you. When asked about autonomy, Pioneers and Drivers (particularly D-Scientists) say it’s more important to them than Integrators and Guardians do.

Enable job crafting. Job crafting means, in part, empowering people to choose which projects they work on. This technique may be particularly successful with Pioneers, who are the most likely type to say they thrive when they have opportunities to learn and try new things. Who knows better which work has the right level of “new” than your people themselves?

Share information widely. Zak suggests that lack of information about an organization’s direction can cause chronic stress among employees. Cultivating trust by sharing such information may be most essential with Guardians, who our research suggests experience the highest levels of stress, and are also the type most likely to say clear expectations are important to them.

Recognize excellence. A little recognition is likely to go long a long way for all types of people, but our research shows that Guardians and Integrators are more likely than Pioneers and Drivers to say that recognition is a key ingredient for them to thrive at work. Given that the work of these types can sometimes go unseen, acknowledging their contributions could be a particularly effective trust-builder with them.

Intentionally build relationships. Zak cites his own research suggesting that creating social ties at work improves performance. This may be particularly valuable with Integrators, who are the most relationship-focused type and also the most likely to say that working with people they enjoy is a priority for them. A little bit of focused attention to relationship-building can help in creating mutual trust.

Facilitate whole person growth. By whole-person growth Zak means helping people grow both professionally and personally, and that can mean different things for different people. While all the types put a high priority on a feeling of accomplishment, Drivers, particularly D-Commanders, are more likely than the other types to say advancement is important to them, while Guardians and Integrators prioritize work-life balance more than others, and Pioneers are the most likely type to say it’s important to know they’re making a difference in the world. When your people know you understand them and see them as people, not just employees, they’re more likely to put their trust in you.

Show vulnerability: As a leader, being vulnerable enough to ask for help when you need it is perhaps one of the scariest but most effective means of role-modeling trust. Doing so demonstrates to all types of people that asking for help is okay, that they can trust you enough to ask when they need it. By asking your people to have your back, you’ll show them that you’re going to have theirs. And isn’t that really what trust is all about?

Dr. Suz

Suzanne Vickberg, PhD (aka Dr. Suz)

Dr. Suz is the Greenhouse Team’s very own social-personality psychologist, which means she studies how people’s thoughts, behaviors and preferences are influenced by both who they are and the situations they’re in. She uses Business Chemistry to help teams explore how the mix of perspectives brought by their individual members influences their work together. Follow her on Twitter @DrSuzBizChem

1Research findings in this post are based on a study with 13,885 professionals of varying levels working outside Deloitte, in the US and elsewhere. Participants represent more than 1,200 organizations across various industries, and 115 countries overall. During the period of February, 2016 to November, 2016 participants completed the Business Chemistry assessment online and also answered questions about their career aspirations, career priorities, and the working conditions under which they thrive. For each question, respondents were asked to select their top three options out of a list of 10. The margin error for this sample is less than two percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level, for all Business Chemistry types.

Harvard Business Review Podcast: How Personalities Affect Team Chemistry

rec_glb_ho_1850_loHarvard Business Review has released a new podcast with Deloitte Greenhouse Experience National Managing Director Kim Christfort, who talks about the different personality styles in an organization and the challenges of bringing them together. Deloitte’s Business Chemistry system helps companies better understand personality styles and capitalize on their cognitive diversity. She and Suzanne M. Johnson Vickberg coauthored the article, “Pioneers, Drivers, Integrators, and Guardians” in the March-April 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Business Chemistry Featured in Harvard Business Review Spotlight on the New Science of Teamwork

1417 MarApr17 Cover_CMYK.inddPioneers, Drivers, Integrators, and Guardians

Every team is a mix of these personality types. Here’s how to get the best out of any combination.

by Suzanne M. Johnson Vickberg and Kim Christfort

Published in Harvard Business Review, March/April, 2017

Organizations aren’t getting the performance they need from their teams. That’s the message we hear from many of our clients, who wrestle with complex challenges ranging from strategic planning to change management. But often, the fault doesn’t lie with the team members, our research suggests. Rather, it’s often leaders who fail to effectively tap diverse work styles and perspectives—even at the senior-most levels. Business Chemistry can help.

A first step is to identify the work styles of your team members and begin to consider how similarities and differences are beneficial or problematic. How many detail-oriented Guardians do you have versus big picture Pioneers? What’s the balance of competitive Drivers with consensus-oriented Integrators? How are these diverse styles complementing or conflicting with one another?

Next, it’s time to actively manage those similarities and differences. Read our full article in Harvard Business Review for more detail on these strategies for doing so.

  • Pull your opposites closer. Often, the biggest pain points are in one-on-one relationships, when opposite styles collide. By pulling your opposites closer—having them work together on small projects, and then bigger ones if it’s working out—you can begin to create complementary partnerships on your teams. It’s also important to pull your own opposites closer to you, to balance your tendencies as a leader.
  • Elevate the “tokens” on your team. When a team’s makeup is lopsided, cognitive bias can creep in, often leading to “cascades” or momentum that carries the team in the direction of the most common viewpoint. Your goal here should be to elevate minority perspectives on the team without turning others off. This way you can benefit from all the perspectives represented, not just those in the majority.
  • Pay close attention to your sensitive introverts. While a cascading team may lose out on contributions from any style that’s in the minority, members who are most introverted or sensitive can be at greatest risk of being drowned out. So that you don’t lose out on the unique strengths brought by these types, make an effort to understand how the team’s ways of working are supporting them to make their best contribution, or not.

Dr. Suz

Suzanne Vickberg, PhD (aka Dr. Suz)

Dr. Suz is the Greenhouse Team’s very own social-personality psychologist, which means she studies how people’s thoughts, behaviors and preferences are influenced by both who they are and the situations they’re in. She uses Business Chemistry to help teams explore how the mix of perspectives brought by their individual members influences their work together. Follow her on Twitter @DrSuzBizChem


This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

About Deloitte

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of DTTL and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting.

Copyright © 2017 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

Six Workplace Trends to Watch in 2017

With the arrival of 2017, we’ve been spending time sizing up some of the many important developments, issues and trends in the workplace. And let us tell you: from tools, to employee experience, to team dynamics, workplace habits are a-changing. Teams are on the rise, the next generation of leaders are reshaping their work environments as I write, and the employer-employee contract continues to actively evolve.

Our analysis included published research findings, our own experience consulting to client companies, and ongoing monitoring of corporate commitments and published policies….With a bit of clairvoyance mixed in!

Color us *unsurprised* that Business Chemistry’s value had rarely been clearer. Continue reading “Six Workplace Trends to Watch in 2017”

Creating a psychological safety net for your team

“Can you describe a time when you were on a team that was really successful?”

That’s more than just a leading question in a job interview. Answering that prompt can begin to give us clues into why some team experiences–and outcomes–are just better.

I bet you could probably list some of the characteristics that define the highest performing teams—things like goal focus, dependability, and complementary skills.

But what if the key to high team performance is something far more basic and subtle?

Newer research1 suggests that what distinguishes top teams is actually “psychological safety.” Said another way, we do our best work when we feel safe enough to take risks and contribute without holding back. And in a truly psychologically safe work climate, people aren’t just comfortable expressing themselves, they’re comfortable being themselves—complete with quirks and peccadillos. It’s also important to consider what we’re *not* doing on a team we deem safe. Harvard business professor Amy Edmondson describes psychologically safe teams as ones where “people are less likely to focus on self-protection.”

When we’re not constantly calculating whether we’ll lose face by taking a risk, we can more easily lean into our desire to engage with others and to learn. Research1 supports that a psychologically safe team leads to better overall engagement and an openness to learning. Indeed, the safer team members feel with one another, the more likely they are to admit mistakes, to partner, and to take on new roles3.

So how could your team start to build more safety, interpersonally speaking?

Continue reading “Creating a psychological safety net for your team”