Nemawashi (根回し) Laying the Foundation

In some recent reading and studying I was doing on the topic of engagement, I came across the Japanese concept of nemawashi- or the laying of the foundation. Given my interests in the whole area of engaging organizations I found this concept especially compelling.

Nemawashi (根回し) in Japanese culture is an informal process of quietly laying the foundation for some proposed change or project, by talking to the people concerned, gathering support and feedback, and so forth. It is considered an important element in any major change, before any formal steps are taken, and successful nemawashi enables changes to be carried out with the consent of all sides.

In the reading I have been doing about creating truly engaged cultures, although this foundation is mentioned, it is not something that we spend a tremendous amount of time on. We tend to talk instead about systems and processes and technology.

At its most simplistic I see in the concept of nemawashi many elements that would appear to me to be fundamental to both leadership and management. You might recall that in previous blogs I have talked about building the foundation for engagement and the skills and attributes associated with it- I ventured that skill sets like:

• Setting clear expectations
• Giving and receiving feedback constructively
• Taking appropriate corrective action
• Recognizing positive results
• The ability to coach

are all critical as foundational to effective management and I wondered whether or not these elements have a degree of universal applicability. Others pointed out to me quite appropriately that in order to be highly effective management skills must be accompanied by leadership attributes:

• Clarity of vision
• Integrity and honesty
• The ability to execute
• Charisma or presence

I agree with them. The interesting area was the amount of agreement I got that these skills are not being taught consistently, nor are these "attributes" being cultivated in any kind of a systemic way in most organizations. Most companies still rely on some form of corporate "social Darwinism" for leaders to "emerge". What is our opportunity cost for that kind of a model? When we don't implement coaching models until mid-career or later what did we give up in turnover, lost productivity, and just general dis-engagement? I suspect rather a lot.

As we watch the financial markets "melt down" and Congress reject the bailout plan it seems to me that this "foundation" is clearly shaken. People point out that theoretically at least the CEO's and leaders running these organizations were the "best and brightest" with advanced degrees from some of the finest schools in the country if not the world. It would seem to me that as I read the blogs and watch the news embedded in a lot of the anger and the losses people are experiencing is most profoundly the loss of trust and faith in our financial and government institutions and our leadership. It will take something very different to get it back.

Perhaps now is the time to examine our Nemawashi and begin to rebuild our own organizations on an old fashioned foundation of mutual respect, trust, information, and clarity.

I wonder, now would seem to be a very good time.....

Are You Building Your Lighthouse?

In my mind a lighthouse is a guide or a reference point that allows people to find their direction while reducing their "danger". It is not a map, or a set of instructions, it is a guide. So I ask the question are you building a lighthouse for those you care about to guide their way?

I look at it from several levels. I recently posted a question on LinkedIn on where are we are teaching the important skills people need to live and work in our complicated society. Interpersonal and communication skills, teamwork and "playing well" with others, leadership, and followership. In many cases people told those skills need to be developed in the home or on the playground, that waiting till someone enters the workforce is too late.

I also heard from graduates and employers that we are not teaching skills like giving feedback, setting expectations, taking corrective action, and similar skills in our top management skills with any consistency. And what about coaching, which is different from these others skills?
I asked another question about whether or not these skills are "universal" as applicable in all cultures as in the West. Most agreed that these along with a series of "attributes" that we call leadership are desirable even if in some cultures they would be more aspirational than immediately transferable. How about building and giving trust, where do we teach that?

I don't know about others who have had the opportunity to hire and train employees and "emerging" managers, but I have encountered a few who didn't come to the job with this "toolkit" in hand.
A colleague recently said in discussion that he found the Gen Xer's and Millenials to be unreceptive to mentoring. I mused that maybe they had never experienced it and didn't know how to accept it or ask for it rather than rejected it.

I am pondering a theory that we need a three level approach to "Coaching":

• The most currently applied model is "executive coaching", which as it implies is working with someone at a senior level to prepare them or "rehabilitate" them and increase their effectiveness in a management or leadership role. This is generally one on one, expensive, and limited to a select population. Enlightened entrepreneurs are embracing this technique as well as they move from "founder/owner" to CEO.
• Some organizations have "leadership" academies or programs for mid level managers who have been identified for potential advancement. I have participated in developing and implementing these programs with a degree of success, especially when you combine "training" with ongoing reinforcement from their immediate supervisor and management chain of command.
• The last level is aspirational. It is what I call a true coaching culture. The skills sets of front line management: setting expectations, giving and receiving feedback constructively, taking appropriate corrective action, recognizing positive results, and generally "blocking and tackling" for your team are foundation skills for everyone in the organization. Additionally, senior managers including the C level are spending time coaching and interacting with "emerging" leaders as mentors and coaches. It is embedded in the culture.

I think if you create this culture you have created the essential foundation for engagement. It doesn't remove the need for vision, strategy and leadership; but it provides one Hell of a foundation to build on.

I like to think I began building my "lighthouse" with my children years ago and I have built a few others I hope, only time will tell.

If you are ready to build your lighthouse, we would like to assist you. The Business Case for Engagement says it all, commitment is simply better than compliance.

Building A Foundation of Trust

Over the last few months I have had an opportunity to "virtually meet" some brilliant and amazing people using LinkedIn and other social networks. I have gotten to explore some interesting topics of my own and respond to a number from others.
I have long believed that people need to be managed "holistically", that is we need to appreciate and try to understand them in their entirety rather than just their "work" persona to effectively engage them.
I have also pondered throughout my career how we expected to create customer engagement without first creating engagement with our employees. I have read volumes about measuring engagement and increasing shareholder/stakeholder value, but not nearly as much about building those relationships with our employees. I have to ask myself why we think we can leave them (employees) out of the equation? It is also interesting to me that although much of management practice is based on withholding trust by retaining control, limiting information flow, etc.; we expect trust to flow our way by virtue of our role or status.

Two of my colleagues that have particularly made a profound impression on me have both emigrated to the U.S. from different cultures. They have learned a new language and a new way of interacting to be successful in this market. Both are very committed to building a bridge across cultures, not as a commercial enterprise, but as a moral obligation. While they don't know each other, they both resonate with a similar value structure.

We have started to work together to use engagement as a leadership model and as a vehicle to build that bridge. We have also discussed that the foundation for engagement is trust based relationships.
In my mind trust based relationships share some common characteristics:

• Mutual respect for others as people
• Clear and honest feedback
• A view of plenty rather than scarcity when it comes to success and rewards
• An absence of fear in the work environment
• Information that flows freely and efficiently
• Integrity
• Leadership by example

I recognize that my list isn't all inclusive, but I like to think that the major elements are there. I would be curious to get your feedback on two things:

• Is true engagement our opportunity to build sustained cross cultural collaboration?
• What is missing from my foundation?

I look forward to your thoughts.

A New Look At "Engagement"

Some of my latest reading on engagement has continued to intrigue me on this topic. Marketing professionals have been talking about "engagement" at the customer level for some time now, but I have recently read a couple of pieces that explore it in a new way.

The new Peppers and Rogers Group article discusses it in a way that feels more real to me- an integrated model that says that you will only really achieve true engagement when you build engagement with your customers on a solid foundation of engagement with your employees.
Intuitively that makes sense to me. If our employees are the cornerstone of our "brand" they must be as passionate about the brand as your Marketing folks or the agency. The brand must be embedded into the culture. When they talk about the two newer levels ; best practices and products, and pride of association they include the internal "stakeholder", the employee, as well.
They also talk about the foundation for engagement- the foundation is trust. How interesting? With all of the new technology and processes it still comes back to trust, which means relationships as the key.
As you know, we are deeply committed to this concept of engagement at the employee level- we call it moving from Compliance to Commitment(tm).

The other interesting reading I have done talks about two kinds of engagement as it relates to customers- emotional engagement and behavioral engagement. At its most simplistic, emotional engagement is when people are drawn to you. They remember your commercials, they can remember your mission statement or brand position.

Behavioral engagement is a little bit more real. Do they buy your products and services? They not only know your mission statement they buy your products and services. Do employees "live" the brand or just wear your logo wear?
In a reverse kind of a way this reminds me of WalMart. Other than the happy people on their commercials I don't meet too many people who admit that they actually shop there. They are the retailer everyone loves to bash. Small towns fight court battles to keep them out of their boundaries. Yet, somehow they manage to remain the largest retailer in the world. Is this an example of behavioral engagement- I wonder?

In the employee context we take attitude surveys, measure turnover, hold picnics, and measure "morale". Are we measuring emotional or behavioral engagement on the part of our employees?

The take aways I have from my reading are simple:

• You will not have true engagement with your customers without engaging your employees
• You will never have true engagement with your employees with out building and nurturing a foundation of trust.
• They have yet to invent a technology that builds trust. You have to do it the old fashioned way, person to person, one at a time.

My article on the business case clearly demonstrates the "numbers" for an engaged workforce and the financial competitive advantages that highly engaged versus non-highly organizations enjoy. In the final analysis then I would caution organizations to check their "foundation" before they invest in technology or process to improve financial performance.

After all these years it still comes down to trust.