We are all predisposed to work with and spend time with people who are like us, but this lack of diversity can be limiting in business decisions, reinforcing assumptions and creating cultures that miss opportunities. One area where this can have a massive impact is sales teams, who often ignore other perspectives as they appear to create obstacles.
Richard and Graham explore how diversity of thought can be achieved just by including colleagues in different roles, to help you see the world from different perspectives, and create better solutions.
This podcast is part of a short series on productivity, where we are exploring how you can Sell More, Save More and Do More, both personally and for your team
Managers are often frustrated by the lack of initiative taken by the people in their teams, while the team members are frustrated by the perception that they are not allowed to get on with what needs to be done.
Rob and Ricky explore how this common misunderstanding happens and look at how managers can create the sense of permission that their team members need to move forward.
This podcast is part of a short series on productivity, where we are exploring how you can Sell More, Save More and Do More, both personally and for your team.
We are looking forward to attending the Festival of Work, a fantastic new event run by the CIPD, and showcasing our game-based learning resource What Would You Do? (WWYD).
Running in London on June 12 and 13, the Festival of Work
combines the CIPD’s Learning and Development and HR Software and Recruitment
shows, with an added element focusing on the future of work.
It should be an informative and inspiring event for HR and L&D professionals – and we’re hoping some of them might like to drop by our stand and try out What Would You Do?
Based on concepts of peer-assisted learning and psychological
safety, the game aims to prepare managers for potential workplace situations
before they occur in reality.
We’re firm believers in the power of game-based learning, and we’ve witnessed the benefits for ourselves while introducing What Would You Do? to L&D practitioners.
So this blog takes a look at the reasons why game-based
learning is so effective in helping to solve business and management issues.
Read on to find out more.
Why use game-based learning?
It unlocks latent tacit knowledge and skills
All employees have knowledge that’s almost never
utilised. Game-based learning can unearth this hidden potential by bringing
people together to discuss everyday scenarios, and share knowledge and insights.
It brings
learning to life
Fed up with not getting ROI from your training
investment? When learning lacks practical application, it fails to stick. Gamification
brings teams together to discuss how the theory they’ve learnt in the classroom
would work in practice, test meaning and find a solution to common issues.
It removes
friction and improves collaboration
Gamification makes learning social, which improves collaboration,
communication and team work. It helps to break down internal friction and
barriers by increasing awareness of peers’ roles, ideas, perceptions and
experience.
It
removes silos and presents the bigger picture
Specialised teams (silos) can be susceptible to a lack of
communication, an insular perspective and unhealthy internal politics.
Game-based learning brings people together from different teams, increasing
collaboration and communication, creating continuity, and helping individuals
see issues from a wider viewpoint.
It creates
psychological safety
Gamification creates a safe environment for players to
share thoughts and ideas, and to discuss and debate issues in the interest of
playing the game. This means players can be more open, communicative and
creative without fear of failure.
It’s
engaging and fun!
Traditional training can be uninspiring and fail to
resonate with learners. Instead, when people focus on a game, they are so
engaged, they don’t even realise they are learning!
Find
out more about our game-based learning tool What Would You Do? by visiting stand
F11 at the Festival of Work on June 12th and 13th at Olympia London.
Coaching can help generally in the workplace, and not just when leading sales teams. From a management point of view, it’s a great skill or ability to have, regardless of the team you are leading.
Here, Richard and Graham look at how knowing the way
to coach properly can be invaluable in helping develop your people, including sales
teams.
The first thing to know about coaching is that many people misunderstand what it is. Mention the word and their first thought is possibly about a sports coach, shouting at their team from the sidelines, imploring them to do better. Or they see it in a negative context, imagining a formalised session with their manager in which coaching is a remedial tool to improve their failing performance.
Although
coaching can sometimes be about improving poor performance, equally it can be
about helping someone who’s good to get even better. It assumes that the person
has some understanding of their role, as well as a certain level of skill and
experience. Coaching should unlock the potential of the individual.
Coaching
helps give structure, focus and clarity to people who know they want or have to
do better. It helps them to move forward by using the knowledge and skills they
already have. This can be done by asking questions that cause a deeper level of
thinking. If a member of your sales team tells you “I want to get better at
sales”, narrow it down for them by asking “What aspect of sales do you want to
get better at?”. If, for instance they reply “Lead generation”, ask “What
aspect of lead generation?”
Once
the questioning has helped someone find their focus, a good coach will then help
them open up their thinking by asking more questions: “So now you know what you
want to do, let’s think of ways you could do it.” Get creative and try not to
tell them exactly what to do. It’s sometimes tempting for managers to say “When
I did your job, what I did was…” or “If you look at so-and-so, what they’re doing
really well is this…”. Instead, explore options and draw on what the individual
knows or is good at.
A
good coach encourages people to think for themselves, rather than telling them
what to do, which will limit their thinking.
The
next essential part of coaching is to ensure that the person is going to take
ownership of what’s been discussed. How are you going to make sure they will
put things into action, that they have bought into it? Check their motivation
and confidence. Ask when they are going to start? What’s the first action? What
specific things are they going to do?
Finally, always offer follow-ups: “What can I do? How can I be of help to you?” And remember, coaching doesn’t have to be formal. It can be as simple as a five-minute chat after a meeting, or in the canteen over coffee. If someone starts a conversation with you and you’ve asked them some questions which have helped with their thinking and their actions going forward, then you’ve coached them.
In
our work helping business teams to become more engaged and active with
learning, time and again the concept of cognitive disfluency comes up. The idea
that we process information differently depending on how much effort it
requires is a fascinating one, so we thought we’d take a look at it in more
depth here.
What is cognitive
disfluency?
Cognitive
disfluency is a term that was first coined by the psychologist Adam Alter, assistant
professor of marketing and psychology at New York University’s Stern School of
Business.
What
it essentially describes is the idea that people process information
differently, and that some of it is easy (fluency) and some of it requires
effort (disfluency). An example of how this works was shown in an experiment
that presented a printed question in two different typefaces – one hard to read
and one easy – and asked people to spot the mistake. The proportion of people
that noticed the error in the hard-to-read font was higher than the
easy-to-read one. Alter suggests that a harder-to-read font makes us put more
mental effort into reading, and we are therefore more likely to retain the
information.
On
a wider scale, fluent processing allows us to take in key information quickly
but not necessarily to retain it or even understand it in a meaningful way. The
whole experience becomes meaningless, less engaging and unsatisfying. Conversely,
we process disfluent information more carefully and deeply, and this naturally
results in us understanding it better. This is why the idea of cognitive
disfluency has been suggested as a great way to assist learning.
Why is cognitive
disfluency important in business?
Think of all the data and information that is presented before us – or our teams – within the workplace. Most organisations now offer their people key decision data in an easy (fluent) way, whether through dashboards, reports or search engines. While these tools can be invaluable, they can also make the data meaningless and hard to retain because they allow people to get to the specific number, target, forecast or performance data whenever they want to. This often means we don’t have to think about, generalise or extract the data.
So
why is that a problem? Well, if people don’t have that data with them when
making key decisions, or if they don’t have an intuitive understanding of the
information and what it means, they will be unable to incorporate it in their
decision-making. They will also be unable to learn from it. Data creates
knowledge, and knowledge creates understanding – but when there is too much
fluency in the information, it reduces this second step.
So should we make
information more disfluent?
A
lot of the data that we use day to day needs to be fluent. We need to be able to access and use it
quickly, so it should be easy to digest.
However, information that is easily consumed is also easily forgotten.
In almost everything we do there are a few key measures that tell us how we are doing against our goals and targets. Data such as production data, sales information or financial projections need to move beyond abstract numbers and become more intuitive, becoming much more central in our awareness, moving from organisation knowledge to personal understanding. It is this data that needs to be deeply understood so that it can underpin the decisions we make.
How should
organisations present their people with important details and data to ensure it
is meaningfully understood and retained?
It’s a good idea to look at the fluency of key data
or information within your organisation. If it’s being presented to people too
easily, make it more disfluent so they have to think about it. You can do this
by:
Asking for
reports that require some small amounts of manual work to create, such as
looking stuff up
Ask people to
interpret data, not just produce it
Change layouts
so people have to search a little, or read more carefully, to find things
But beware
A
word of caution, though: Disfluency should be used sparingly. We’re not
suggesting that you should make your people work hard for every piece of
information they need. After all, not all data needs to be retained or fully
understood.
In addition, too much disfluency can be draining. It
uses up more energy, increases complexity and heightens stress levels. Instead
of continuous disfluency, there should be brief moments of it when appropriate
for processing essential data and information.
Bringing the number to life is vital, whether you’re working in sales, managing a project, leading a team or running a production line.
If you understand and internalise the number, it allows you to monitor your progress and your tracking, intuitively know where you are and what you need to do, inform your decisions, understand how you need to react in real time, and see the bigger picture.
Otherwise, it’s just meaningless data to you.
Here, Paul and Rob discuss why many people are looking at the numbers but not really thinking about what they mean. They discuss the importance of bringing the number to life, and how we can do it.
What’s stopping us from bringing our number to life?
There is too much information at our fingertips.
Think of the wealth of reports, dashboards, BI systems and other technology that we can extract data from
It’s too easy.
We can easily look up the number we need at a particular point in time, and therefore we don’t need to retain the information in our head
The desire to measure everything.
You simply can’t retain every single piece of information put before you – which leads you back to relying on dashboards or systems
So, how do we bring the number to life?
Keep it simple.
If you have a wealth of data in front of you, focus on maybe the three or four core measures that really tell you something. Break down the number to give you something tangible about what you need to achieve each week/month
Engage with the data.
Too many people just input numbers into a system or sales platform without recognising the importance of thinking what those numbers mean. The idea of ‘cognitive disfluence’ is key here – the fact that we retain information and learn more if we actually interact with what we’re trying to learn
Start with the goal.
Instead of looking at the data and feeling that we have to do something with it, look instead at what you’re trying to achieve. What numbers do you need to pull out and understand to reach your goal?
Leaders. If you’re a leader, help your people to work with the data and think what the number really means. Give them the raw information they need and ask them to compile a report about some of the core data. You could break it down and ask different people to look at particular bits of the data. Ask them: Help me understand what’s in your figures and what does that tell you? Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Why has this bit changed? What does that mean?
In our work, we usually tell people that having focus is a good thing. But when it comes to sales, just being focused on the sale and nothing else is not so good. Sales is part of getting your service to your customer, but you can’t just be focused on that – you’ve got to have a bigger purpose as an organisation.
In this podcast, Richard and Graham discuss why some salespeople only think about the sale – and how such tunnel vision can impact on your customers and your colleagues.
Sales
people are, of course, very targeted and often very driven by what they need to
achieve. But having such a singular focus can mean you forget about the other important
things that sit around the sale.
If all you’re concerned about is getting that sale – hitting your targets, getting the number – then you disregard the other parts of the sales process that are really important. A company that’s all about sales creates an aggressive culture, with salespeople who are highly motivated and focused just on getting money from the customer. They’re not bothered about the end product that the customer gets, or the quality of service. And colleagues in other departments, particularly customer-facing staff, can often feel like a spare part, tasked with delivering impossible promises made by the salespeople just to win the sale, or sorting out complaints from dissatisfied customers who have been promised one thing and received another
Of
course, if your job is in sales, you need to be concerned with ‘the number’.
But you also need to consider the customer experience, your product, the health
and wellbeing of your colleagues, and your organisation’s culture and ethical
boundaries. Ask yourself: If I make the sale in this way, what does it mean for
the customer and for us as a business, and how might it impact on the other
departments?
Considering
the culture of your organisation is particularly important if you’re the person
setting the targets. Be mindful that the targets you set will drive a certain
kind of behaviour so make sure that the sales process you’re encouraging
reflects the culture of your organisation.
Over the last 15 years I have worked with many senior
leadership teams that are grappling with necessary organisational changes.
These are often to take advantage of market or political trends, consumer
demands, or to gain first mover advantage. Having said that, in one case a
number of years ago, it was because the senior team had been given the feedback
that the vast majority of people in the business were unhappy.
It was around this time that I became interested in the
subject of trust.
It seemed to me that the leadership team mentioned above just
wasn’t trusted anymore. Nobody believed what they said. Since then, I’ve seen
it time and time again. A leadership team that thinks if they make the right
noises for a while, people will get on board.
A lack of trust in all walks of life makes things very hard.
Do you like being around people you don’t trust? Of course not. It brings a
heightened sense of anxiety and caution to everything we do. If you are in this
situation on a daily basis or in your personal relationships, it makes life
unbearable.
My work over the last few years has led me to talk to teams
about the need for them to rebuild trust or ensure they are trusted before
embarking on changes, big or small, in their organisations. As ever around the
subject of change, some people get it but many don’t. Many assume that just putting
a good plan in place and some positional authority behind what they are saying means
that people will just come on the journey with them.
So, as I explored the topic further, I began to develop
something I call the ‘Trust Index’. Although rudimental, it was based on hours
of talking to people in organisations. This simple research helped me identify
three key factors that are needed to build trust:
Competence, honesty and
reliability.
I would then ask people in the organisation three simple
questions based on these factors.
1. On a scale of 1-10 do you think the senior team are
competent as leaders?
2. On a scale of 1-10 do you think they are honest with you?
3. On a scale of 1-10 do they do what they say they will do?
I’d then take all the responses and convert the answer to
each of the questions into an overall percentage. As I said, very rudimental! However,
it did give me a really good guide about how much people trusted their managers
and team leaders.
I then went back to senior teams that were being given a score
of 50% or less by their people, and suggested that they should think twice
before making any changes of significance in their organisations, and instead
wait until they had won back the trust of their people.
Recently, I came across something along the same lines as my
research, although rather less basic! While on a long train journey, I was
flicking through Ted Talks on my laptop when I saw one by Frances Frei, a
professor of technology and operations management at the Harvard Business
School.
She had been working at Uber following their recent problems,
and had noticed three things that were broken in terms of trust within their
culture.
Her talk is funny, informative and a great watch. She puts
things so much better than I had been able to with my simple research. She talks
about the following three things being needed to gain, maintain and rebuild
trust:
Authenticity, logic and
empathy.
Firstly, I was really pleased to see that my own limited research had given results that were similar to those Frances was talking about. However, as only one of us is a Harvard professor, I am more than happy to take and work on her three factors!
We’ve created this diagram below based on what Frances says in her Ted Talk:
So, why not ask yourself the following three questions, either in relation to the people you lead or the people who are leading in your company.
1. Authenticity – Are they seeing the real you?
2. Logic – Does it (whatever it is you are proposing) or do
you make sense?
3. Empathy – Do people see that you care about them?
If any of these three are missing, the whole
thing goes very wobbly and certainly means you don’t have the basis on which to
launch a programme of change.
Assumptions, beliefs and past experiences are going to shape how we think about the sales process and the customer. Added to that, we also have to deal with pressure from targets and our managers.This will all condition how you behave during the sales process.
In our latest podcast, Ricky and Rob first discuss the reasons why we typically talk ourselves OUT of the sale, before looking at ways of talking ourselves INTO it.
Reasons we might use to talk ourselves out of the sale include making assumptions that our competitors are better than we are or that the customer doesn’t want what we are selling. We’ll second-guess how the customer’s going to react and what they’re going to say. We’ll ask ourselves: Why do they want what I’m selling, and why do they want it from me? Am I good enough? Is my product or service good enough?
So, how can you turn that around and to talk yourself INTO a sale?
Firstly,
focus on all the great things you do, the great experiences you’ve had in the past,
and the wins. Play over the narrative that was in your mind when you did well in
that call, sales meeting or sales follow-up.
Get other people involved, if possible. Reflect on a sales meeting with a colleague or sales manager, look at the successful elements that you can draw upon and learn from. For the less successful parts, think what you might do differently next time.
Be self-aware. You will only improve if you can reflect and learn from what you do. Nurture a growth mindset in yourself. Ask: What can I learn from this?
Finally, during that next sale, don’t get caught up in the moment and in the pressure of having to make the sale, or the need to deliver targets or win a new customer. We might wonder if our product or service is good enough, or worry that we don’t understand the product fully. As sales people, we’ll focus our attention on the product’s weaknesses, which we may have to defend, but spend hardly any time on why the product is great. We need to think from the customer’s perspective, not our own, and see the world the other way round – after all, they are buying it for what it can do, and not what it can’t.
What you actually want is to get the right outcome for the customer rather than selling for selling’s sake. Just focus on building a great relationship, understanding your customer and what they need, and then positioning your product for them.
People very rarely like to talk about politics in the workplace. Perhaps we don’t even like to admit that it’s a thing. But the fact is that everyone in your organisation is acting in a political way.
That’s because workplace politics is about how we behave towards each other, and what our motivations are in doing so. It’s all about power, authority and relationships. This power can come from different sources: It could be based on someone’s role, experience, knowledge, professional or personal network, or charisma.
The
term ‘office politics’ usually has negative connotations, but is it really
always a bad thing? The answer is no – but it depends what kind of politics are
in play. Good politics is about doing things correctly and fairly in the
interest of the group and the overall vision, whereas bad politics is about
acting out of self-interest. Particularly during the process of change,
behaviour needs to be driven by politics – there needs to be somebody who is
able to engage people and take them on a journey. That’s what change leadership
is all about.
As
a manager of people who will behave according to their own politics, awareness
is key. Often change leaders involve people for the wrong reasons. It’s easy to
make the mistake of involving someone because of their position or their
relationship with you.
Recognising the political motivations of your people will help you to assign useful, productive roles to them which utilise their skills and experience and help achieve a goal that’s for the overall good. It’s vital for those times when you need to rely on people who can lead and get things done for the good of the organisation, its people and its goals. So what political game are your people playing? A useful way of identifying the political style and motivations of your team members is using the model developed by Simon Baddeley and Kim James, as shown in this diagram:
It
splits people into one of four categories: sheep, donkeys, owls and foxes. Once
you understand which category a person fits into, you’ll have an idea of how
they will approach things, and what kind of role they should take on a project.
It can be particularly helpful when implementing change and thinking about the
kind of people you can rely on to lead it successfully.
So
what kind of characteristics does each animal show, and what does this mean for
their role in the team?
Sheep
are politically naïve but act in the group’s interest, because they think it’s
the right thing for the organisation and the people. They are loyal and
industrious but need to be led.
Donkeys,
like sheep, are politically naïve – but the difference is that they act out of
self-interest.
Owls
are politically aware of the situation and the environment but ask how to do
things for the overarching goal and the people. Loyal to the organisation, they
possess integrity, and are respected by colleagues.
Foxes
are also politically aware but act out of self-interest, putting themselves
before others and even before the organisation. But there’s no doubt that they can
make things happen, even though they are doing it for their benefit. There’s
nothing wrong with sending a wily fox into a difficult situation as long as you
are prepared to manage them closely. Foxes are useful, but make sure you’re
aware of their motivation, how they are likely to behave and the opportunities
they may want to seize for themselves.
Dealing
with these different personalities as a manager can be difficult, but the first
step is to recognise who fits into each category, and to understand who should
therefore be placed in a key role for a specific project, and who needs to be
carefully managed. Owls are clearly prime candidates, although they may as well
be unicorns as they are so hard to find! Perhaps you may like or require the
ambition and drive of foxes.
The
role of a leader is not to get lost in politics or to turn a fox into an owl.
It’s about recognising which political ‘animals’ are in your team, and being
aware of how best to manage them.
Baddeley, S. and James, K., 1987. Owl, fox, donkey or sheep: Political skills for managers. Management Education and Development, 18(1), pp.3-19.
