Popular Articles

Sweet marketing music

Tanner Montague came to town from Seattle having never owned his own music venue before. He’s a musician himself, so he has a pretty good sense of good music, but he also wandered into a crowded music scene filled with concert venues large and small.But the owner of Green Room thinks he found a void in the market. It’s lacking, he says, in places serving between 200 and 500 people, a sweet spot he thinks could be a draw for both some national acts not quite big enough yet for arena gigs and local acts looking for a launching pad.“I felt that size would do well in the city to offer more options,” he says. “My goal was to A, bring another option for national acts but then, B, have a great spot for local bands to start.”Right or wrong, something seems to be working, he says. He’s got a full calendar of concerts booked out several months. How did he, as a newcomer to the market in an industry filled with competition, get the attention of the local concertgoer?

read more
by Barb Krantz Taylor
December 2013-January 2014

Related Article

Back Page

Read more

How to bust these five nasty habits of executive teams

Few leaders are nasty by nature, but the communications and decision-making process of complex organizations can bring out unpleasant habits and biases among leaders and their teams. These leadership habits fuel unproductive second-guessing and quiet resentments that slow down performance and erode profits.

By discovering any of these top five nasty habits among executive teams and replacing them with honest collaboration and communication, leaders will enhance decision-making, conflict resolution, teamwork, implementation and organization-wide performance.

No. 1: Faux collaboration

One of the biggest nasty habits of modern organizations stems from breaking down silos and encouraging collaborative feedback and decision-making. This requires a culture change as much as a change in mindset among leaders. When that doesn’t happen fully, it’s like taking down the buoys in a pool and expecting people to switch lanes, but they don’t.

For example, the CFO might comment on a human resources initiative, which the HR director has solicited and appreciates, but then unconsciously dismisses as irrelevant. The marketing director also believes the initiative impacts branding, and HR receives the input positively but continues to advance the initiative with little change. The input doesn’t translate to alignment and collaboration, and HR’s regular updates only fuel resentment and confusion. If the initiative falters, HR is left holding the bag.

Until leaders truly honor input and comment — and provide enough time in the process to translate that input into agreement on direction and strategy — collaboration will remain just a nice idea. Silos will continue to impede growth.

No. 2: Decisions by force

Traditionally leaders have been promoted and praised for taking a stand and breaking ties on difficult decisions. This can still be an effective leadership quality and is often a natural fallback when a situation is tense and time is short. However, there is a downside to this leadership style that becomes a nasty habit.

The best leaders know when to hold the line and when to concede to another leader’s expertise. They are comfortable not always being the smartest person in the room, and move seamlessly between will and humility appropriate to each situation. The alternative is to always lead with an iron will, never giving up ground and always having the last say on any decision.

This nasty habit can lead others to stop providing new ideas or alternatives in order to avoid conflict or wasted effort. Often the forceful leader doesn’t believe he or she is closed to feedback and new perspectives; it’s just that no one seems to offer any solutions!

Leaders whose personalities tend toward having the last word should practice stepping back and allowing others to lead the strategy. The team may still look to this leader for direction or confirmation, at which point the leader can provide feedback that supports an organization-wide vision as opposed to opinions on the details of planning or implementation. This shift will increase efficiency as well as innovation.

No. 3: Giving in (up?)

For leaders who tend to hang back from decisions in the interests of empowering their teams or avoiding conflict, this too can become a nasty habit that impacts top performance.

Maybe a forceful decision maker has worn down their resolve or they prefer decisions by committee. When it really counts, these leaders need to step up rather than give in or give up.

The value of such leaders taking a stand is a paradigm shift. The forceful leader needs to address the difference in opinion rather than assuming everyone agrees, particularly if the leader taking a stand is respected and thoughtful in the dialogue. This leader can also become a model for others to shift between empowerment and respectful force as appropriate.

By repeatedly giving in to louder voices, quieter leaders lose engagement and may eventually leave the organization or let the team spin its wheels — no longer taking responsibility for contributing to its success or failure.

No. 4: Revisiting decisions

Once a decision is made, it’s made. Yet, some leaders have the nasty habit of speaking up with questions or objections that should have come up long ago. The leader was included in early meetings but wasn’t fully engaged. Later when the project has a personal impact, this leader suddenly has multiple questions or complaints.

Rather than allowing late objectors (unless some shocking new information has come to light), teams need to commit to full engagement when invited to comment on new projects. Listen for the benefits and impact on each person’s role — and bring up timely questions — before the project is weeks or months underway.

No. 5: Career prejudice

Nasty habits can stem from a leader’s unexamined personality or career background. As we mentioned in the earlier nasty habits, if others have let the leader down in the past, decisions may be more unilateral than by committee. If the leader hates conflict, he or she will back off when things feel tense. Similarily, if the leader has ascended from a more technical role in the company, the leader may have a prejudice toward a particular department or function.

Rather than giving mind share and preference to one department or service, executive leaders should view all decisions in light of the full enterprise. Without that enterprise-wide view, some stakeholders and important considerations may be left out of the conversation.

To avoid the nasty habit of career bias, functional leaders should represent their departments, but focus on processes and projects that contribute to the whole enterprise.  By contrast, a vice president of business development may still have a functional role, but should act in full awareness and integration with other functions across the organization.

In this way, leaders allow others to swim in their lanes and gain true awareness of cross-functional strengths. They can collaborate, concede to another’s experience and engage fully in planning and implementation.

They can, ultimately, move freely within conflict and work toward resolution.  Leadership and high performance win. Nasty habits lose.