scott warrick jd, mlhr, ceqc, shrm-scp scott … · they believe no one can do anything as well as...

2016 G. Scott Warrick 1

COACHING THE SUCCESSFUL LEADER: THE LEADERSHIP PYRAMID

by

SCOTT WARRICK, JD, MLHR, CEQC, SHRM-SCP Scott Warrick’s Consulting, Coaching & Training Services

[email protected] (614) 738-8317 Cell

WWW.SCOTTWARRICK.COM

Link Up With Scott On LinkedIn

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.scottwarrick.com/

http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottwarrickconsulting


MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA

As most everyone realizes, in just about any profession, if anyone wants to progress in their chosen field of expertise, they must, at one time or another, supervise or manage people. They must become a “manager.”

As a matter of fact, as these newly promoted managers progress further and further up the “corporate ladder,” they will actually use less and less of the technical skills they have worked so hard to acquire in their chosen professions and will instead use more and more managerial skills.

Actually, this transference from technical skill to managerial skill will continue as long as managers advance in their career. Eventually, one day in the future, that individual will realize they are using only a small portion of their original technical knowledge in exchange for being almost completely consumed in managerial duties.

In other words, when someone is promoted from a technical position into management, whether they realize it or not, they have in essence had…

A CAREER CHANGE!

Such a transfer of skill usage from “technical” to “managerial” as these young professionals progress in their careers can be illustrated as follows:

Technical Skills

Used

Managerial Skills

Used

Career


Managers are entrusted with the authority and responsibility of managing the company’s resources. This will help to ensure that the organization makes a profit. Business must make money, or it ceases to be a business. That much everyone knows. (Of course, the same is true in the public sector, since public sector managers are expected to get the most production they can out of their employees in order to ensure the best use of their capital dollars. The only real difference in this aspect between the public sector and the private sector is that in the public sector we call it “retained earnings.” In the private sector, we call it profit. If and organization fails to make a profit or have retained earnings, they might cease to exist.)

Of course, common sense should be enough to tell anyone that the more efficiently and effectively an organization’s resources are used, the more efficient, productive, and profitable the organization will become as the firm strives to attain its goals.

In a nutshell, that is the manager’s job: To manage the company’s resources in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

Therefore, the obvious question to ask at this point is, “What are these resources?” Basically, there are three different types of business resources that exist which make it possible for any organization to operate. These three resources include:

Humans Capital Equipment Each of these three resources are vital to the success of any company. As a result, managers must be properly prepared to effectively and efficiently manage each of these three resources as they attempt to properly direct their departments from a Knowledge Worker standpoint, as opposed to the Industrial Worker standpoint. Good leaders realize if the company mismanages of any one of these resources in today’s business climate, their organization could easily face disaster.

However, it is also important for managers to realize that in most organizations…

65% to 75% of the budget is LABOR!


Embrace “Emotional Intelligence” (Slow Down, Think & No Assholes)

IT ALL BEGINS WITH EI/TOLERANCE


The Pitfalls of Low Emotional Intelligence What Are Typical Traits Of Low EI?

Cannot Control Their Emotions and Ego

They base their decisions and reactions on emotion and not logic.

They “Rush To Judgment” without investigating the facts.

Their “reactionary approach” destroys trust. They cannot communicate in conflict situations due to their uncontrolled emotions.

Dismiss Any Opinions That Disagree With Theirs

They cannot admit their own mistakes and will not accept feedback, so they cannot improve.

When things go wrong, they blame everyone else

rather than trying to correct the situation.

Others “clam up,” so “Critical Decision Making” disappears.

Little Or No Empathy For Others

Very self-centered.

Adopts a “my way or the highway” mentality.

Unable to see where others are coming from.

Reward Bootlickers

They LOVE people who agree with them …

So they surround themselves with bootlickers.

Groupthink is the norm … with disastrous results.


Micromanage Others

They believe no one can do anything as well as them, so they build very little trust or capabilities in others.

They Either Suppress or Escalate Conflict. They Do Not Resolve It.

They therefore enable “Bullying” behavior.

BOTTOM LINE:

EMOTIONAL CHILDREN ARE INTOLERANT OF ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM

In the end, Emotional Children create a very combative environment that kills trust.


TOM’S SCORES


PENNY’S SCORES


PENNY’S SCORES TWO YEARS LATER


PENNY’S SCORES


Ensure Execution of Goals (Engage Employees & Develop The “Bell” )

Which is MORE Important:

Your People or Your Copiers?


Develop & Inspire Your People. (Motivate & “Walk The Walk”)

Learn From The Level 5 Leaders:

Jim Collins’ “Good To Great” Jim Collins has done something very unique in his book “Good To Great.” In this book, Collins examines in depth how certain companies have been able to make the “leap” from being just a “good” company to one that is a “great” company. In defining what makes a “good to great” company, Collins set out some very specific criteria. In short, Collins defined a “good to great” company as one that had outperformed the New York Stock Exchange by at least 3 times for a period of at least 15 years.

In order to better understand how astonishing such a performance truly is, only 11 companies in the history of the New York Stock Exchange have been able to meet these criteria. Of the thousands of companies registered with the NYSE, only 11 companies have earned this “good to great” distinction.

In order to put this amazing accomplishment into perspective, if you invested $1 in a mutual fund of these 11 “good to great” companies in 1965, holding each company at the general market rate until the date they began their 15 year “transformation run,” while simultaneously investing $1 in the general market stock fund, your $1 from the “good to great” fund taken out in January 1, 2000 would have multiplied 471 times, compared to only a 56 times increase in the general market. 1

1 “Good to Great,” by Jim Collins, page 3.


A breakdown of the performance of these 11 good to great companies is as follows:

COMPANY 15 YEAR RATE OF RETURN YEARS

Abbott 3.98 times the market 1974-1989

Circuit City 18.50 times the market 1982-1997

Fannie Mae 7.56 times the market 1984-1999

Gillette 7.39 times the market 1980-1995

Kimberly-Clark 3.42 times the market 1972-1987

Kroger 4.17 times the market 1973-1988

Nucor Steel 5.16 times the market 1975-1990

Philip Morris 7.06 times the market 1973-1988

Pitney Bowes 7.16 times the market 1973-1988

Walgreens 7.34 times the market 1975-1990

Wells Fargo 3.99 times the market 1983-1998

These good to great companies outperformed some of the most prestigious companies in the world, such as 3M, Boeing, Coca-Cola, GE, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Motorola, Pepsi, Proctor & Gamble, Wal-Mart and Walt Disney. 2

Of course, the whole purpose of the “Good To Great” book was to determine “why”? Why is it that these companies had such remarkable performance? What set them apart from their competition? What made them outperform such mega-companies as Walt Disney and Wal-Mart?

At the beginning of this project, Jim Collins made it very clear to his staff that he did not want this book to be another “management” book. Too many times whenever a company gets into trouble, it blames everything on “the leadership.” Collins said that blaming the leadership for poor results, or giving all the credit to the leaders when things went well, is the same type of logic used in the Dark Ages whenever something happened: “God did it.”

• Why did we have this flood? God did it.

• Why did we have this plague? God did it.

• Why did we have such a great crop? God did it.

2 “Good to Great,” by Jim Collins, pages 5-6.


• Why did we have an eclipse? God did it.

As a result, throughout the Dark Ages, very little scientific discovery or advancement occurred because they already knew the answer to everything: God did it.

Collins said that focusing all of the success or failure of a company on the leadership is the same as saying “God did it.” Collins believed if he came to that conclusion in his book, no real progress would be made. Everyone would just keep looking to the leadership of an organization and at nothing else. It would be “God did it” all over again. 3

However, after years of research and analysis, Collins and his staff kept coming back to one solid factor that ran through all of the “good to great” companies that could not be ignored:

LEADERSHIP

As Collins and his team looked at the issue of leadership in the “good to great” companies more closely, they discovered that the leaders of these companies had several traits in common. These traits distinguished these leaders from their counterparts at other companies, which made the most crucial difference in how their organizations performed. What traits did these “good to great” leaders possess?

Humble Ferocity

• Words used to describe these leaders included “self-effacing, quiet, reserved and humble,” as well as “assertive, intense, fiercely resolved, willful and fearless.” Even though these terms seem at odds with each other, these “great” leaders were able to remain in touch with their employees while attacking the challenges of the business head-on.

Ego Directed Toward Company … NOT Towards Themselves

• Not one of the “Good to Great” leaders were larger than life “celebrities” who rode in from the outside to “save” the company. Actually, 10 of these 11 CEOs actually came from inside the company.

• They were all more concerned about the success of the company than themselves. They were not concerned with their own fame and fortune, but their primary concern was for the organization. They channeled their “ego” needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. Of course, don’t misunderstand these leaders. It isn’t that they lacked ego or self-interest. In fact they were incredibly ambitious … but their ambition was first and foremost for the organization – not for themselves.



• They did what was best for the company, even at the expense of their own ego. They surrounded themselves with good capable people. Other companies that were used as comparison organizations to the “good to great” companies failed to do this. Egos got in the way of getting the best people in the door and good succession planning. In the comparison companies, many times after the CEO left, the company faltered and sometimes even failed entirely. Why? No “heir apparent” had been put into place because the chief rooster could not take having another capable rooster in the barnyard. Astonishingly, in over three-quarters of the comparison companies, Collins found that the executives had actually “set up” their successors to fail, intentionally hired “weak” successors or both.

Mirror vs. Window Accountability

• When the company did poorly or made a mistake in the “good to great” companies, the CEO took the blame. He looked to himself and into the “mirror.” He held himself accountable. When the company did well, the CEO gave the credit to his people. The CEO looked out the window and gave the praise to everyone who worked under him. The comparison companies did just the opposite. Whenever things went bad, the CEOs looked out the window and blamed others, and if things went well, they looked into the mirror and took the praise.

First Who, Then What

• They put their good people first…which meant if they saw someone with talent, they hired the person. In many instances, these CEOs didn’t even know what position these people would hold. They only knew these new hires had talent, and the CEOs were not jealous of having other people around who could rival others with their abilities. Getting the “right people on the bus” was the most important job. Everything else would follow if they were able to attract the right people and build relationships.

Collins classified these “good to great” leaders as “Level 5 Leaders. In other words, they were all Emotionally Intelligent adults who, in spite of having great power, were able to remain in control over their egos and emotions rather than the other way around.


MEET LEVEL 5 LEADERS WHO IS A TOLERANT,

EMOTIONALLY INTELLIGENT COMMUNICATOR?

“GOOD TO GREAT” v. “NOT SO GREAT”

Darwin Smith Al Dunlap

CEO of Kimberly-Clark CEO of Scott’s Paper Consider the comparison of Darwin Smith, CEO of Kimberly-Clark, and Al Dunlap, CEO at Scott’s Paper. In 1971, Darwin Smith became CEO of Kimberly-Clark, a stodgy old paper company whose stock had fallen 36% behind the market over the last 20 years. Smith, who was previously the company’s mild-mannered in-house counsel, was not sure the board had made the right choice when he was promoted into the CEO position. One executive pulled Smith aside after his promotion and reminded Smith that he lacked many of the “attributes” most CEOs possessed. Still, Smith was determined to prove he was deserving of the job. Smith was a man who carried no airs of self-importance. Smith was just as comfortable around plumbers and electricians as he was in the board room. He spent his vacations rumbling around his Wisconsin farm in the cab of a backhoe, digging holes and moving rocks. Smith never tried to cultivate a “hero” status for himself. He was simply a humble, mild-mannered, approachable and ferocious executive. Smith worked his way through school at Indiana University by attending night classes and working during the day at International Harvester, an agricultural products manufacturer. On one occasion, Smith lost part of a finger at work, but still went to class that night and was at work that next day. Nothing was to get in his way of getting an education. 4

4 “Good to Great,” by Jim Collins, page 18.


When he first took over at Kimberly-Clark, Smith called all of the employees together and had a moment of silence. After one minute of silence, Smith announced that that moment of silence was for Scott’s Paper, who at the time was a mammoth paper company ... much larger than Kimberly-Clark. The employees cheered and went “nuts.” Smith then made a bold and risky move: He decided to sell all of the mills and throw all of the company’s resources into selling consumer paper products, such as with Kleenex and Huggies, where it would compete head-on with the industry goliath Proctor and Gamble. One board member said that was the “gutsiest” move he had ever seen a CEO make. 5 However, the business media did not think it was a “gutsy” move. They said Smith’s move to sell the mills “stupid.” The Wall Street analysts immediately downgraded Kimberly-Clark’s stock. Still, Smith never wavered and 25 years later, Kimberly-Clark owned Scott’s Paper and beat Proctor and Gamble in six of eight product categories. 6 On the “other side of the street,” Al Dunlap was hired as CEO of Scott’s Paper. Regarding his 19 months at the helm of Scott’s, Dunlap was quoted in “Business Week” as saying:

“The Scott story will go down in the annals of American business history as one of the most successful, quickest turnarounds ever, [making] other turnarounds pale by comparison.”

According to “Business Week,” Dunlap personally accrued $100 million for working 603 days at Scott’s Paper, which equates to $165,000 per day, largely by slashing the workforce, cutting the R&D budget in half and putting the company on growth steroids in preparation for sale. After selling off Scott’s and collecting his millions, Dunlap wrote an autobiography entitled, “Rambo in Pinstripes.” Dunlap wrote in his book:

“I love the Rambo movies. Here’s a guy who has zero chance of success and he always wins. Rambo goes into situations against all odds, expecting to get his brains blown out. But he doesn’t. At the end of the day he succeeds, getting rid of the bad guys. He creates peace out of war. That’s what I do, too.” 7

In the end, it became quite clear that Dunlap was looking out for himself, while Smith was looking out for Kimberly-Clark.

5 “Good to Great,” by Jim Collins, pages 19-20. 6 “Good to Great,” by Jim Collins, page 20. 7 “Good to Great,” by Jim Collins, page 29.


Collins writes in his book that throughout his research, he saw several talented but egocentric leaders like Dunlap who led their organizations into eventual doom by failing to put the company first over their own ego. Another example of such a leader, according to Collins, was Lee Iacocca.

In the 1980’s, Iacocca saved Chrysler from disaster. Iacocca was directly responsible for accomplishing one of the greatest corporate turnarounds in American business history. Chrysler, a company that was bankrupt, rose to the point that it outperformed the general stock market by 2.9 times halfway through Iacocca’s tenure.

However, it was at this point that Iacocca diverted his attention from running the business of Chrysler to making himself into one of the most celebrated CEOs in America. He was a regular on the talk show circuit, like the “Today Show” and “Larry King Live.” He personally appeared in over 80 commercials and even entertained the idea of running for President of the United States. He then wrote his autobiography, “Iacocca,” and then spent time promoting his book and himself around the world.

During the first half of Iacocca’s tenure with Chrysler, its stock soared. However, during the second half of his time at Chrysler, while his own personal notoriety and stock soared, Chrysler’s fell 31% behind the general market.

However, a few years after Iacocca left Chrysler, its stock fell even further. No clear successor was groomed to take Iacocca’s place, so a void of leadership loomed large. In the end, Chrysler “fell” to the Germans, Daimler-Benz, and for several years was no longer an American-owned company. 8



Longaberger Headquarters Dave Longaberger

Founder and CEO of Longaberger Baskets Dave Longaberger, 1934-1999

Dave Longaberger was never one to accept limitations. He struggled to get through school, and went through fifth grade three times, yet he was determined to graduate. He stuttered badly as a young man, but took a job as a door-to-door salesman to overcome that affliction. Dave started The Longaberger Company with a vision that Americans would still appreciate the handcrafted quality of the baskets his father had woven for years.

But if you had asked Dave what he considered his greatest accomplishment, the answer would have been no surprise to anyone who knew him. “What gives me the greatest pleasure is having the ability to make a difference in peoples’ lives.” Longaberger’s company mission statement, To Stimulate A Better Quality of Life, is a reflection of his proudest accomplishment and continues to this day.

Dave’s entrepreneurial skills date back to the early 1960s when he purchased a local diner in Dresden, Ohio, complete with two booths, two tables and eight stools. Later he acquired a defunct grocery store and reopened it so local residents wouldn’t have to drive 15 miles or more to purchase a loaf of bread. Through those early business ventures, Dave discovered three key elements he claimed were essential for success:

• Listening to others,

• Having trust in others and

• Maintaining a sense of humor.

In 1976, he started the Longaberger Basket Company.

“People appreciate personal service and high quality,” said Dave. “That’s what Longaberger is all about. Our associates come to your home to help you understand the unique heritage of our products, and we work hard in Dresden to ensure those products are of the absolute highest quality.”


Dave made it a practice to stay in touch with his employees, even as their numbers grew to over 8,000. Dave was known for his friendly demeanor and unpredictable sense of humor, and he encouraged others to keep a lighthearted attitude as well. “Every day should be at least 25 percent fun!” was one of his most widely quoted principles.

In short, if you want to go as far as you can in your career, and if you want to build the best relationships you can in your person life, you need to focus on building your Emotional Intelligence skills, which includes your “Tolerance” for others, their differing opinions and their ideas. That means controlling your EGO and EMOTIONS.

Resolve Conflict (EPR Skills & Build Trust)


WHY DO MOST LEADERS FAIL?

TRUST1. You Know I Do Not Mean You Harm

2. You Know I Am Able To Help You


WHAT IS TRUST? Trust. It is located in the center of our Communication Model. It has been placed there because it is around trust that everything else revolves.

But what exactly is “trust”? We have to define our terms, because if you can’t define it, then how can you teach it? And if you can’t teach it, then how can you replicate it? You can’t.

“Trust,” according to Steven Covey, Jr. in his book, The Speed of Trust,” occurs when:

• You know that I do not mean to cause you any harm and

• You know that I am capable of helping you.

Without trust, you couldn’t take a pill. You couldn’t fill up your car with gasoline. You couldn’t shop at the grocery store. You couldn’t eat a meal. You couldn’t go to sleep. In short, you could not live.

In this regard, trust is like “air.” You don’t notice it until it is gone, and you will die without it.

“TRUST” is as vital to our survival, success and happiness as “AIR.”

Actually, if you really take a close look at what we are doing in these materials, every skill we adopt moves us closer and closer to building trust. “Honest Respectful Communication” and focusing on our “Common Goals” are all designed to promote respect and understanding with the one ultimate goal in mind: Building trust.

Trust is the cornerstone of everything we do in life. It is the cornerstone of every relationship and every successful act of communication, which makes it the cornerstone to an EFFICIENT and COST EFFECTIVE organization.

Unfortunately, far too many of us place little value on building trust with others in both our personal and professional lives. Most “leaders” discount it as being “trivial” or as a mere “soft skill,” which is exactly why we used to crash 80% more commercial airliners than we do today. When there is no trust in a relationship, bad things happen.

However, building trust with others is a definite skill that any rational human being can master. Trust is so critical to one’s personal and organizational success that it is the center of building a team, dealing with unions, leadership, change management, customer service, and so on.

Trust IS air.

Think about it. In order to have difficult or highly emotional conversations with someone … conversations that might involve criticizing the other person in some way, there must be basis of trust. If you “trust” me, then you will understand that when I am delivering disturbing information to you, you will be much more likely to listen to what I am saying.


However, if you do not trust me, then you will think that I have some ulterior motive when I address this problem with you. You might think that my true goal is to inflict harm on you, or I really just wanted to get my way on some issue, and so on. When there is not any trust in a relationship, then you will not believe I have your best interest in mind when I bring up various issues to you. Instead, you think I am out to “get” you.

But if I have developed a basis of trust between us, then I am much better able to deliver difficult news to you. Why?

BECAUSE YOU KNOW I HAVE YOUR BEST INTEREST IN MIND

&

YOU KNOW I CAN HELP YOU

Both components are necessary to build real trust in any relationship.

For example, several years ago, I suffered a skull fracture. As a result, I needed surgery. Now, I knew my wife had my best interest in mind when I had this accident. I knew that she would never intentionally harm me and she wanted me to get better. Still, even though I knew my wife had my best interest in mind … THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD I WOULD EVER LET HER OPERATE ON MY HEAD! (I have enough problems up there already.)

While she might have had my best interests in mind, she is simply not capable of helping me here. As a result, I had to put my trust in a surgeon ... someone I did not know. Since I was not about to let a stranger cut into head without any level of trust, I decided to check him out. I met with him and got to know him a bit. I asked about other similar types of surgeries he had performed on other people … and how many of them lived. I challenged him on his suggestions and opinions, which he took quite well.

I also checked out his reputation in the surgical community. I saw that he was “Board Certified,” so I was also to some degree putting my trust in the state of Ohio.

As I got to know him better, I felt comfortable with him personally and his skill level as a surgeon. In the end, I let this physician operate on my skull and did not let my wife.


CONFLICT BUILDS TRUST & TEAM

“ANTS” (Automatic Negative Thoughts)

We have all been there. We are sitting at our desks, doing our work, and we hear from our boss, Mr. Dithers:

“Ah…Scott. Will you please come in here? We need to talk about some things.”

AUTOMATICALLY … A CHILL RUNS DOWN OUR SPINE!!!

We imagine the worst kinds of reasons for why our boss wants to see us. “What did I do? Am I in trouble? Am I getting fired?” Our minds race through the worst possibilities.

Rarely does it enter our minds that maybe … just maybe, the meeting could be to give us some good news. Maybe I am getting a raise … or maybe a bonus … or maybe I was just named “Employee of the Year.” (Yeah, right.)

Why do we humans go right to the most negative scenarios in such situations? Because we all have “ANTS” in our brains, or “Automatic Negative Thoughts.” It is how we humans are all designed. It is how we survived on this planet for so many years. It is how God wired us.

5,000 10,000 years ago, if Fred Flintstone, a human, saw a new animal that he did not recognize, was it a good idea to run up and pet it? Probably not. It would be much safer for Fred if he waited until he knew more about the animal before he did something like that. It was safer not to trust this new animal until Fred got a chance to learn more about it.

In short, Fred’s brain was keeping him safe by giving him a little bit of “anxiety.”

“Anxiety” or “apprehension” is essential to our survival. This is why we tend to look both ways before crossing the street or pulling out into traffic. This is why most of us don’t walk across high ledges of skyscrapers just to see if we can do it.

Again, one part of our brain that controls these ANTs is our basil ganglia.


The basil ganglia sets the body's “idle” or anxiety level. The basil ganglia are engaged whenever we experience anxiety and nervousness, which is triggered by our amygdalae when we sense “impending fear,” which can be a good thing. However, when the basil ganglia becomes too overactive, we experience panic attacks and a great tendency to predict the worst outcome in situations. We become gripped and immobilized by fear.

So, why do we have this negative reaction when our boss calls us into his office, but if our spouse makes this same request to “come out into the kitchen so we can talk about a few things,” we would not have any real nervousness at all? What is the difference?

Because we have not developed any real level of trust with our boss!

If there is not any trust in a relationship, our thoughts go right to the negative. That is how we are wired as humans.

ANTs also come from our own “projection” (how we view the world) and maybe even from “priming.” (“Priming” refers to how our thoughts, perceptions and attitudes are influenced by our past experiences.) Both projection and priming can intensify the level of apprehension we feel from our basil ganglia. Therefore, ANTs enter our thought process whenever there is a lack of trust in the relationship. There is no getting around it.

However, if someone I trust asks me to come and see them, then my thoughts are much more likely to go the positive. The negative affects of my own projection and priming are lessened. Our basil ganglia does not automatically respond with apprehension.

So, how do you typically build “trust”?

Although it sounds contradictory, “trust” is actually built primarily through “conflict” … that is, when conflict occurs in an honest respectful manner. When conflict occurs in that fashion, we call it “brainstorming.” If you have not created an environment where people feel safe to speak up, then no real sharing of ideas will occur.

Basil Ganglia

Basil Ganglia


Consider the previous example of me getting called into Mr. Dithers’ office.

What if Mr. Dithers spent time discussing various topics with me and disagreeing with me in an honest respectful manner across the next few months? What if Dithers starting asking my opinion on various matters, disagreed with me, and I saw that disagreeing with him was OK? What if Mr. Dithers actually used my opinions to help him brainstorm … to get his ideas rolling as well? I would soon see that I could disagree with Dithers. I would see that is actually what he wants to me to do and he thinks more of me when I do speak up and disagree with him. THAT builds trust and relationships because Mr. Dithers has proven to me that it is safe to speak up.

Then suppose that after two or three months of these types of conversations, Mr. Dithers then calls me on the phone and tells me, “Scott, I need you to come in here. I found some papers and we need to talk about a few things.”

Am I as nervous now?

No, of course not. Because Mr. Dithers has proven to me that it is safe to speak up and talk about things with him. That is trust building, which means we engage in honest respectful conflict.

Anyone who has ever seen the television show “House” has seen real trust building in action. Although you might not like his personality or his offensive style, Dr. House builds trust through conflict with his team of doctors. Diagnosing his patients is House’s primary goal … and he is not concerned with who comes up with the solution or who gets the credit. (Isn’t it amazing what can be accomplished when no one is concerned with who gets the credit?)

As a result, House and his staff brainstorm over all of the various symptoms the patient exhibits in order to diagnose the problem. They disagree. They argue. House makes his little snippy sarcastic remarks. All of this is “safe” to do because that is what is expected. Actually, if a physician does not engage House with his/her opinions and take such risks, disagree and debate with his/her peers, as well as with Dr. House, that doctor gets fired.

When I was a student majoring in Communication at The Ohio State University, my instructors referred to this concept of trust building as making deposits into the other person’s “Trust Account.” Stephen Covey refers to this concept as “The Emotional Bank.” They both refer to the same concept. They just use different terminology.

Actually, Dr. Covey uses an excellent phrase to describe how to build trust with another person:

You cannot TALK your way out of something you ACTED your way into.

What Dr. Covey means here is clear:

No one believes anything you say. They watch what you do.

In other words, don’t TELL me that I can trust you ... SHOW ME!


That is what Dr. House is actually doing. He never tells anyone that they will not be fired for disagreeing with him. Instead, he proves it. He engages them and rewards them for engaging in productive debates with him. THAT proves to those around Dr. House that they can disagree with him and that is OK. He doesn’t ever tell anyone that they can trust him … he shows them by his ACTIONS.

Why can one person be brutally honest with us while another person cannot? Because we believe the person we trust does not intend to harm us and is able to help us in some way. As a result, we refrain from becoming too defensive when this person broaches a sensitive issue with us. We know this person does not intend to harm us and does not have an ulterior agenda, so we listen to what they have to say.

The people in our lives whom we trust rarely tell us that we can trust them. Instead, they have proven it with their actions. They have made more deposits into our “Trust Account” with their deeds than withdrawals. We know we can trust certain people because they have proven to us that they are indeed “TRUST-WORTHY,” which means they are worthy of our trust. Thus the word … “trustworthy.” Hopefully, we all have people in our lives who can be very honest with us and tell us when we get out of line.

When we have a difficult conversation another person, we hope that we have built up enough trust in this person’s “Trust Account” so that this person knows that we do not mean her any harm and that we genuinely are interested in helping her. In essence, we are making a withdrawal from our “Trust Account” with this person. If we have not made enough deposits to this person’s Trust Account, then there will not be enough credit in our “account” to make this withdrawal. We will be overdrawn, so this person’s first reaction to our “offensive information” will be an ANT.

In short, if I believe you have my best interest in mind, I will then listen to you. That is trust. However, if I do not trust you, then I will question your motives. I will most likely believe that you are not looking out for my best interest, but you are instead trying to “stick it to me” rather than trying to help me. In the end, I will put up my defensive barriers and the communication suffers, which results in lowered productions, strikes, stalled contract negotiations, terminations, divorces, etc.

Honest respectful conflict builds trust because it proves that I can disagree with you and THAT IS OK. If such a relationship is not fostered, then real trust is not fostered, so very few people will speak up and tell you the truth. In fact, most people would rather “crash and burn and die” rather than speak up and voice their contrary opinions in an unsafe environment, as we saw happened with commercial airliners.


SCOTT WARRICK, JD, MLHR, CEQC, SCP Scott Warrick’s Consulting, Coaching & Training Services

1147 Matterhorn Drive, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 (614) 738-8317 ♣ [email protected]

WWW.SCOTTWARRICK.COM

Link Up With Scott On LinkedIn

Scott Warrick is an EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY and HR PROFESSIONAL

who combines the areas of law and human resources to assist organizations in “Solving Employee Problems BEFORE They Happen.”

Scott uses his unique background of LAW and HUMAN RESOURCES to help organizations

get where they want to go, which includes coaching and training managers and employees in his own unique, practical, entertaining and humorous style.

Scott Trains Managers and Employees ON-SITE in over 50 topics

Scott Warrick specializes in working with organizations to prevent employment law problems from

happening while improving employee relations.

Scott’s academic background and awards include:

Capital University College of Law (Class Valedictorian (1st out of 233)) Master of Labor & Human Resources and B.A. in Organizational Communication: The Ohio State

University

The Human Resource Association of Central Ohio’s Linda Kerns Award for Outstanding Creativity in the Field of Human Resource Management and the Ohio State Human Resource Council’s David Prize for Creativity in Human Resource Management

For more information on Scott, just go to WWW.SCOTTWARRICK.COM

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottwarrickconsulting

http://www.scottwarrick.com/CM/Custom/TOCSpeakingandTraining.html


scott warrick jd, mlhr, ceqc, shrm-scp scott … · they believe no one can do anything as well as...

Documents