Archive for category Trust
From Vegas to Colombia: Scandals Impacting Government Leadership
Posted by Kristina Marzullo in Conflict, Federal Agency, Government, Leadership, Leadership Development, Management, Morale, Motivation, Trust on April 25, 2012
Scandal is nothing new to the White House. Many of us can recall several “mishaps” involving former presidents. This time, however, it’s the Secret Service. On April 11th, a dozen Secret Service agents and eleven military personnel were involved in an incident that involved partying at a local nightclub in Cartagena, Colombia, heavy drinking, and involvements with prostitutes while preparing for a visit by President Obama. Since that event, two supervisors who were involved in the scandal have been identified and removed from their positions. The case has been all over the news and has been causing quite a stir for the agency responsible for the well-being of the President of the United States.
Just as they did with the GSA scandal, lawmakers, citizens, government workers, and the media have been questioning the integrity, ethics, and accountability of the agency. So who is responsible? Who will ensure behavior like this will never happen again? President Obama has said that he has full trust in the Secret Service Director, Mark Sullivan, to continue the investigation and take the appropriate corrective actions needed. That’s all fine and dandy, but what about the trust that the American people, who are losing millions of their tax dollars due to these scandals, have lost for our government? Randy Conley, Trust Practice Leader at The Ken Blanchard Companies, says that leaders must purposely engage in four trust-building behaviors in order for individuals to maintain confidence with their leader. Those behaviors include:
- Demonstrate competence
- Act with integrity
- Care about others
- Maintain reliability
After reading many articles and watching several news stories about both scandals, I can’t say that those involved with the GSA and Secret Service events practiced these four behaviors. So what corrective actions can government leaders now take to ensure that debauchery such as this won’t continue at other agencies? After all, people do make mistakes. Even with the best of intentions, leaders make mistakes that impact the commitment, morale, and performance of the people who work for them. With investigations in both cases still underway, we’ll have to wait and see the effects that these scandals will have on the future leadership and behaviors of our government.
Want to learn three actionable steps leaders can take to self-diagnose, assess, and change unwanted behaviors? Take a break at 9:00am PST/12:00pm EST today to listen to best-selling author and consultant Chris Edmonds share insight on how leaders can avoid making some common mistakes.
The Boss Knows Best?
Posted by Kristina Marzullo in Coaching, Conflict, Engagement, Feedback, Leadership, Management, Morale, Productivity, The Ken Blanchard Companies, Trust on March 2, 2012
Today’s blog was written by guest blogger, David Carroll, Consulting Partner with the Ken Blanchard Companies and President of Carroll and Associates. David also writes for his own blog, Leadership Manager.
Organizations today are constantly undergoing change in order to stay competitive. These changes demand flexibility, fluidity, and innovation as well as a high priority on being “people-focused.” Customers and employees both must feel that the organization cares passionately about them. This only happens when organizations, and the organizations’ leaders, are trusted. All relationships, personal and professional, are based upon trust. However, trust means different things to different people. It is difficult to define what an environment of trust looks like…in fact it is easier to describe what a distrustful environment looks like: people withhold facts and information; managers set convoluted goals; management is not available; people talk behind each others’ backs. The list goes on and on.
I recently heard a frustrating story of a real-life situation that left an employee feeling demoralized and undervalued. The experience significantly diminished the level of trust he had with his manager. The experience began when an, the employee responsible for reviewing inquiries and sending proposals received an e-mail from a client about a project. The employee spent several hours researching and assessing the difficulty of the proposed project. He then followed-up with an email to the client asking additional questions to clarify any current work being done relative to the project. The client had very little information but was clearly very frustrated with the lack of progress on receiving a proposal. The employee notified his manager that due to the level of difficulty and the lack of clarity on the project that he recommended that the project should not be accepted. Although the employee attempted to explain the supporting evidence for his decision, the manager responded that the employee had not spent enough time researching the project and that he would do the research himself. The manager took two days to research the project and forwarded the research data to the employee late in the evening on the day before a scheduled call with the client. During the call, the client struggled to answer any questions brought up by the manager or employee and was unsure on what approach should be taken to resolve the issue. The client then asked if the organization would be willing to send a proposal and take on this project. The manager eventually agreed to accept the work and send a proposal…against the recommendation of the employee. The manager told the employee to generate a proposal that included a quote for a two weeks feasibility study. The feasibility study gave the agency a reason to back out of the project if it proved to be too difficult. The manager told the employee to tell the client that the agency couldn’t start work for at least a couple of weeks…hoping that the client would find somebody else to work on it. The employee reluctantly did was he was instructed. The feasibility study was conducted and it was determined that the project was beyond existing technology to complete.
How often do situations like this occur? Unfortunately, more often than some would like to admit. Events like this result in wasted time, energy, productivity, and trust. Some managers may say they want to build an empowered work force, but get in the way of their own best intentions. So how can they create an environment of trust…one that fosters empowerment? They must demonstrate trust for their staff and be trustworthy themselves. Blanchard’s Building Trust program illustrates for us what a trustful environment looks like by teaching us exactly which behaviors build trust using the ABCD Model. The model guides individuals to identify aspects of their relationships that need repair, as in the example above, or need to be further nurtured in order to build and maintain trust.
Are you currently experiencing a lack of trust with one of your co-workers, managers, or direct reports? Learn how you can utilize the ABCD Trust Model within your agency.
“My Performance Sucked”: Leadership at the NFL Playoffs
Posted by Kristina Marzullo in Feedback, Leadership, Motivation, Performance, Teams, Trust on January 25, 2012
Today’s blog post was written by guest blogger, Doug Trainor, Consulting Associate with The Ken Blanchard Companies and Co-founder of Leadership Vanguard.
I know that many of you reading this might be Baltimore Ravens fans. For those folks, I’m sorry about the playoff loss on Sunday. I hope you will bear with me despite the fact that the leadership I am writing about comes from Tom Brady, quarterback for the Patriots. After the Patriots win in the AFC Championship game Sunday, Brady was being interviewed and the reporter mentioned how great Brady played, leading his team to a fifth Superbowl while he was quarterback—and tying a record doing so. To which Brady responded, “I sucked today—fortunately the team did better than I did.”
Is that leadership? Yes! I think we need more of that type of leading in organizations across America—both public and private sector. So please tell someone you were a poor performer today! It may sound a bit funny but there is something to it. A lot to it, actually. The first thing is candor. We need candor to make our agencies and departments better. Leaders address reality—even when it is tough to do and with upcoming budget pressures and the sometimes extreme political dialogues we hear on TV—candor will serve you well with those you lead.
The next quality Brady displayed with his comment was accountability. He took personal accountability for his performance and he did it publicly. When leaders do this it builds credibility with those they lead and with the customers they serve. It can be a powerful way to increase the trust in your organization. A side benefit is that makes it easier to give difficult feedback to people around you when you admit your own failings. Something that makes feedback easier? Who couldn’t use some of that?
Last, but not least… it promotes humility. Humility is a leadership quality that will serve you well in every way. Not thinking poorly of yourself; but realistically. And realizing our teams are the reason we succeed in our leadership roles and giving credit where it is due.
Are You Happy With Your Job?
Posted by Kristina Marzullo in Government, Leadership, Motivation, Performance, Productivity, Relationships, Roles, The Ken Blanchard Companies, Trust on September 14, 2011
They say that if you love what you do, you’ll never work a day in your life. This statement is true for some but unfortunately, there are several federal government employees that are less than satisfied with the work they do on a daily basis. A study released by the Partnership for Public Service and Deloitte focusing on job satisfaction of federal employees reported that those who have been on the job for three years or more are less satisfied with their jobs versus those that have been in their role for less than three years. In addition, effective leadership and employee relationship and interaction with their supervisors had a major impact on the individual’s level of satisfaction. Pay, training, and opportunity for advancement also played a significant role in on-the-job fulfillment.
Trust is a key influencer of job satisfaction. When employees lack trust with their immediate supervisor, motivation and productivity decline and performance falters. So how can leaders improve trust with their direct reports? The Ken Blanchard Companies has researched how trust impacts work relationships and has designed the TrustWorks! ABCD Trust Model. The model is comprised of four elements of trust that leaders should take into account when working with the people they lead. The Trust model can assist leaders with increasing the level of trust or repair relationships where trust has been lost.
The four elements are Able, Believable, Connected, and Dependable.
- Able is about demonstrating competence.
- Believable means acting with integrity.
- Connected is about demonstrating care and concern for other people.
- Dependable is about reliably following through on what the leaders say that they are going to do.
Do you fully trust your supervisor? How can your leader improve your level of trust?
Here are 8 ways your agency can enhance the trust between you and your leaders and coworkers.
The Future of Flexible Work Schedules
Posted by Kristina Marzullo in Commitment, Leadership, Telework, Trust on October 7, 2010
The work environment that most Americans are familiar with is one that requires them to be at the office for a set amount of time each day, regardless of whether they get their work done or not. Sure, some of us have a well defined flex schedule and can work from home if necessary but how would you like to work on your terms? How would your life change if you had the opportunity to work when you want, how you want, and where you want? That is exactly the type of work environment that Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson are piloting with the Office of Personnel Management.
Ressler and Thompson created a work environment called Results-Only work Environment (ROWE). ROWE is a management strategy that focuses strictly on the results that employees produce, not the presence they have at the office. This allows employees to create a sought after work/life balance.
A results-only work environment promises the following benefits:
- Allows you to set your own work schedule
- Puts you responsible for results
- Promotes a healthier, less stressful lifestyle
- Autonomy and accountability
- Environmentally friendly – no commuting
- Increases productivity and efficiency
- Retain and attract top talent
OPM’s John Berry was so impressed with this new workforce flexibility program that he announced that he was implementing a pilot program with 400 of the agency’s employees. If the pilot is a success, OPM will expand it within the agency and encourage other Federal agencies to execute the program government-wide. The program’s intent is to increase employee performance and morale and empower them to get the job done.
The Ken Blanchard Companies defines empowerment as the creation of an organizational climate that releases the knowledge, experience, and motivation that reside in people. It is what leaders give to their people. Self leadership is what people do to make empowerment work. The ROWE program does just that by giving managers a new way to lead their direct reports and entrust them to take full responsibility to get their work done on their own time.
But is this new flex schedule right for everyone? The creators of ROWE have reported an average increase in productivity of 35%, and a 90% decrease in voluntary turnover rates. The pilot being tested at OPM is being evaluated by Deloitte. A full report on their findings is scheduled to be published in February 2011.
What advantages/disadvantages would you expect if your organization implemented a ROWE work environment?
You can click here to learn more about how to create a motivating and empowering workplace.
Hey Boss, I’ll be working from home today.
Posted by Kristina Marzullo in Government, Ken Blanchard, Leadership, Management, Morale, Productivity, Relationships, Telework, The Ken Blanchard Companies, Trust, Virtual on August 26, 2010
The Telework Improvement Act 2010 was approved by both the House and Senate. This is great news for eligible federal government workers who wish to work from home, unless their managers don’t fully feel comfortable with the idea. According to the 2009 Telework Report, one of the biggest hurdles in fully implementing the Telework Act is management’s resistance.
What is causing this resistance among managers?
Managers aren’t necessarily opposed to the actual Telework Act. The issues that are keeping them on the fence are making sure their employees are getting the work done, that they are accessible, and that they are adhering to the telework policies. These are common concerns of managers who have never led virtually before. What they don’t realize is that these issues are expressed behaviorally to their direct reports as “lack of trust.” Low levels of trust have the direct economic impact of high turnover, absenteeism, low morale, stifled innovation, challenged decisions, inefficiency, and often damaged customer relationships.
How can leaders quiet their fears about telework and build morale and trust with their employees? One way is by learning some important principles about leading virtually.
Ken Blanchard encourages managers to adhere to these three disciplines of leading virtually.
- Discipline I: Focus Attentiveness— Attentiveness means knowing the goals, motivation, needs, and experiences of team members and recognizing when changes occur. Since working effectively in a virtual environment requires high levels of independence, leaders must consistently communicate their desire to connect with the personality and experiences of those with whom they work.
- Discipline II: Foster Community—Most of us are unaware of how much we connect to an organization and a team by being on-site. We pick up cultural clues and norms by observing behavior, dress, language, behavioral norms, and communication patterns. Effective virtual leaders work diligently to connect team members to the larger organization by actively facilitating collaboration, creating the team culture, and helping virtual workers unite to build community spirit.
- Discipline III: Accelerate Development—It is too easy to lose track of the development needs of people who work virtually. Virtual leaders need to stay focused on team members’ career and personal goals and find ways for them to develop. This increases satisfaction, builds loyalty, and creates a more valuable employee.
How are you keeping the lines of communication open and building trust with your manger or direct report when you’re working from home?
Change is A’Coming to Rocket City
Posted by Kristina Marzullo in Change, Collaboration, Communication, Conflict, Direction, Government, Ken Blanchard, Leadership, The Ken Blanchard Companies, Training, Trust on August 19, 2010
An article in Government Executive magazine announced that Huntsville, Alabama is becoming the next stomping grounds for several government agencies. This transition kicked-off with the expansion of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in 2005 when the Missile Defense Agency learned that they would be relocating their agency from a Washington suburb to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. Since that announcement, several agencies have followed in the MDA’s footsteps. A few of the MDA’s neighbors now include:
- 1700 positions from the AMC and USASAC
- 180 positions from SDMC
- 400 positions from the Aviation Technical List Center & Rotary Wing Platform
- 113 positions from the 2nd Recruiting Brigade
When the BRAC transitions are completed in September 2011, approximately 4700 positions will be relocated to Redstone.
All of this change has led to increased stress levels on the organizations and people involved. The transition has required employees to wear multiple hats while leaders have been implementing several training efforts to get others up to speed.
Leading people through change is an ongoing challenge in any agency. So how do BRAC or other leaders maximize high levels of productivity and morale and ensure a successful transition?
A U.S. Department of Education project originally conducted by Gene Hall and his colleagues at the University of Texas suggests that people are faced with change express 6 predictable and sequential concerns.
- Information concerns
- Personal concerns
- Implementation concerns
- Impact concerns
- Collaboration concerns
- Refinement concerns
Resolving concerns throughout the change process builds trust in the leadership team, puts challenges on the table, gives people an opportunity to influence the changes process, and allows people to refocus their energy on the change.
At the Ken Blanchard Companies, new work by Pat Zigarmi, Judd Hoekstra, and Ken Blanchard on the Situational Leadership II and Leading People Through Change programs provides guidance for diagnosing concerns and then using the appropriate change leadership strategy to address those concerns.
Watch this video of Ken Blanchard discussing the reality of change.










