 |
|
Even though the models and content of The Oz Principle® Accountability Training® are intuitive and easy to grasp, the proper and most effective way to utilize them may not be so simple—particularly as it pertains to correctly using the language.
Often times, upon my return to a client that has recently experienced the workshop, I'll inevitably get a question like, "Brad, people are using 'Below The Line' language around here in a manner that seems, well, a bit Below The Line.® It feels like finger pointing to me. Is that how we should be using it?"
The answer to such a question is "No!" We may all too often view someone that is trying to understand why a result was not delivered and immediately label them as being Below The Line. As is put forth in The Oz Principle, reasons are different than excuses. Of course, we need to be hearing the reasons why we didn't deliver. But, of equal importance, reasons cannot become the excuses that we hide behind when we fall short of a result. Remember, we either deliver one of two things—an excuse or a result. But, we do need to give fair play to the discussion around those reasons why we didn't deliver. Be careful not to confuse someone trying to own their circumstance by seeking further clarity as with someone who is sinking Below The Line and only offering excuses. This language should not be corrupted and used as an indictment. Rather, it should merely be used as a tool to understand where we reside relative to the Steps To Accountability.®
The mistake is made when we refer to Above The Line® as being "Positive, effective, or good." Likewise, we make the same mistake when we refer to Below The Line behavior as being "Negative, ineffective, or bad." The language should simply be used to identify where we are relative to our accountability of a circumstance we are faced with resolving. We know that if we are developing those stories to hopefully get us off the hook, than we are not focusing on achieving results. The language is simply a locator—it helps us locate where we are so we can be more conscious of where we need to be. The language of "Above The Line" and "Below The Line" is powerful and can be a game changer when used correctly.
Consider this example:
A successful sports medicine client striving to achieve its key results of growth, profitability, and expense management was faced with a seemingly impossible challenge. They received a call from their parent organization asking for $1.4 million USD in additional operating cash for that quarter. Due to their recent focus on EBITDA, they felt that they had cut back significantly in key, functional areas already. When the president of this organization received the objective from corporate, he didn't know where the additional money would come from. So he decided to put his team to The Oz Principle test. He gathered his direct reports and put forth the corporate request and then sat back and listened, and waited. He knew that they would immediately respond by going Below The Line and offering all the reasons why they couldn't deliver on such a request—and why they felt justified in their position. But the president waited; he wanted to see how long it would take someone to utter the effective words. He said it took eighteen minutes but finally someone said, "Well, let's get 'Above The Line' and focus on what we can do to try to affect this." The president shared that there was an immediate shift in the boardroom. Instead of focusing on what couldn't be done, these functional leaders began to awaken to a sense of "What else can I do?" They began pushing each other and collaborating to discuss where further expenses might be cut and where certain spending could be postponed—regardless of function or area. After five days of discussion and planning, they found their $1.4 million and proudly delivered the result to corporate. The president realized that a change had occurred within his team. He shared with us that had such a request been made only a few months earlier, prior to their experience with The Oz Principle, his team would have explained all the excuses why they couldn't deliver and would have felt completely justified why they couldn't. It should also be noted that with this new mentality, the company went onto deliver successfully on all three of their Key Results—the first time in over four years.
This is just one example of how the language can be effectively utilized to facilitate discussions to help lift us, and our teams, Above The Line. In short, use the language as a problem-solving process rather than as a tool to blame and call out others.
George Orwell once said, "If thought corrupts language, then language can also corrupt thought." Our thoughts around the language of accountability should lead us to facilitate solutions. Otherwise, when used incorrectly, the language ultimately will affect the thoughts, or beliefs, that others have in terms of how they should respond when faced with a difficult circumstance—often leading them to duck for cover and offer the excuses that get in the way of delivering results. It ultimately will get us nowhere.
|
|
Even though the models and content of The Oz Principle Accountability Training® are intuitive and easy to grasp, the proper and most effective way to utilize them may not be so simple—particularly as it pertains to correctly using the language.
Often times, upon my return to a client that has recently experienced the workshop, I'll inevitably get a question like, "Brad, people are using 'Below The Line' language around here in a manner that seems, well, a bit Below The Line.® It feels like finger pointing to me. Is that how we should be using it?"
The answer to such a question is "No!" We may all too often view someone that is trying to understand why a result was not delivered and immediately label them as being Below The Line. As is put forth in The Oz Principle, reasons are different than excuses. Of course, we need to be hearing the reasons why we didn't deliver, but, of equal importance, reasons cannot become the excuses that we use to hide behind when we fall short of the result. Remember, we either deliver one of two things—an excuse or a result. But, we do need to give fair play to the discussion around those reasons why we didn't deliver. Be careful not to confuse someone trying to own their circumstance by seeking further clarity as opposed to someone who is sinking Below The Line and only offering excuses. This language should not be corrupted and used as an indictment. Rather, it should merely be used as a tool to understand where we reside relative to the Steps To Accountability.®
The mistake is made when we refer to Above The Line® as being "Positive, effective, or good." Likewise, we make the same mistake when we refer to Below The Line behavior as being "Negative, ineffective, or bad." The language should simply be used to identify where we are relative to our accountability of a circumstance we are faced with resolving. We know that if we are developing those stories to hopefully get us off the hook, than we are not focusing on achieving results. The language is simply a locator—it helps us locate where we are so we can be more conscious of where we need to be. The language of "Above The Line" and "Below The Line" is powerful and can be a game changer when used correctly.
Consider this example:
A successful sports medicine client striving to achieve its key results of growth, profitability, and expense management was faced with a seemingly impossible challenge. They received a call from their parent organization asking for $1.4 million USD in additional operating cash for that quarter. Due to their recent focus on EBITDA, they felt that they had cut back significantly in key, functional areas already. When the president of this organization received the objective from corporate, he didn't know where the additional money would come from. So he decided to put his team to The Oz Principle test. He gathered his direct reports and put forth the corporate request and then sat back and listed, and waited. He knew that they would immediately respond by going Below The Line and offering all the reasons why they couldn't deliver on such a request—and why they felt justified in their position. But the president waited; he wanted to see how long it would take someone to utter the effective words. He said it took eighteen minutes but finally someone said, "Well, let's get 'Above The Line' and focus on what we can do to try to affect this." The president shared that immediately there was a shift in the boardroom. Instead of focusing on what couldn't be done, these functional leaders began to awaken to a sense of "What else can I do?" They began pushing each other and collaborating to discuss where further expenses might be cut and where certain spending could be postponed—regardless of function or area. After five days of discussion and planning, they found their $1.4 million and proudly delivered to corporate. The president realized that a change had occurred within his team. He shared with us that had such a request been made only a few months earlier, prior to their experience with The Oz Principle, his team would have explained all the excuses why they couldn't deliver and would have felt completely justified why they couldn't. It should also be noted that with this new mentality, the company went onto deliver successfully on all three of their Key Results—the first time in over four years.
This is just one example of how the language can be effectively utilized to facilitate discussions to help lift us, and our teams, Above The Line. In short, use the language as a problem-solving process rather than as a tool to blame and call out others.
George Orwell once said, "If thought corrupts language, then language can also corrupt thought." Our thoughts around the language of accountability should lead us to facilitate solutions. Otherwise, when used incorrectly, the language ultimately will affect the thoughts, or beliefs, that others have in terms of how they should respond when faced with a difficult circumstance—often leading them to duck for cover and offer the excuses that get in the way of delivering results. It ultimately will get us nowhere.
|
|
Experiences Change Beliefs
From the outset of the American Revolution, there was an overwhelming belief that the colonists would be quickly dispatched and brought yet again under King George's rule. Knowing that the hope for victory was waning among many, General Washington understood that he had to act deliberately to combat the growing feeling of imminent defeat-he had to create an experience. Within weeks, Washington began an extensive room addition on his beloved home, Mount Vernon. The intended effect was soon realized. Every time his fellow countrymen walked past the renovation project, they were repeatedly struck with the realization that Mr. Washington was not only intending to keep his home but he was ultimately planning on winning the war so that he could continue to enjoy that home. Because of that one experience, a critical belief was formed that consequently changed the attitudes of many a citizen.
Experiences are the Foundation
We often say that culture changes one person at a time. However, as business leaders, we forget that culture is also changed one EXPERIENCE at a time, over time. At the foundation of culture change lies this understanding of experiences and beliefs and their impact on how we act to ultimately achieve our key, organizational results-a model we refer to as The Results Pyramid.TM Simply put, the various experiences we create for others impact the way they think about us, the team, or the organization as a whole-what we term "beliefs." These beliefs impact the actions people take which in turn lead to our results. Like Washington, effective leaders understand that in order to change existing beliefs that are incongruent with a desired result, we have to create multiple, or even dramatic, experiences...
Our ability to achieve key results or to adopt needed beliefs may take hundreds of experiences. But we need such deliberate and conscious leadership to champion the cause of culture change. A "champion" of a cultural initiative is not a self-proclaimed title; rather, it is assigned because of what your people are saying about you. Ultimately, they deem you a champion because of the experiences you're consistently creating for them.
A Deliberate and Conscious Focus
As we lead culture change in our respective organizations, a question that needs to be foremost in our minds is, "How do I become more conscious of the experiences I need to create today?" One way to get the most out of your training is to take time to identify needed beliefs and determine which specific experiences you'll focus on to adopt those beliefs. As you ponder the beliefs you want your team, peers, supervisor, or direct reports to hold, ask yourself, "How am I going to do that?" The answer to that question becomes simply the experiences that you will need to create. In George Washington's case, it was a room addition. In your case, it might be much more simple.
