In a work context, starting a new role and having a new boss can be daunting events. They result in similar challenges, so I’m going to treat them as roughly equivalent for the purposes of this conversation. When starting a new role, we need to understand our expectations of the organisation and what our management expects of us. Understanding the role’s requirements requires asking and getting clear answers to a series of questions. For example, are we expected to deliver as an individual contributor, or as part of a team? What are the timelines required for delivery? What format do the deliverables take? Who else depends on the output – in other words, what stakeholders do we need to build relationships with? A key question to sum up the others is, “What does success look like?”.

When working with a new manager, we need to understand, in addition to the deliverables, how they like to be kept updated. Some people like to receive detailed powerpoint-based updates every week. Others prefer to get a bulleted email with no more than ten items. Yet others want verbal updates once a week and then monthly or quarterly summaries. Regardless of their preferences, every manager will expect us to show up for our checkpoints fully prepared.

From our point of view, we might have certain things that we expect if we’re successful. We may want to get a particular rating at the end of a performance cycle, a pay rise, or the chance of promotion based on how well we do in the current role. We may specify that we need support to obtain a new certification or get assistance in clearing roadblocks to progress.

From a customer services perspective, a company that promises an experience or a quality of service it fails to meet will soon find itself pilloried on social media. Failing to live up to espoused company values will result in similar reactions from both staff and customers; Disney’s lacklustre response to recent Florida legislation is an example of this kind of effect.

In a personal context, failing to keep our promises is a sure way to damage relationships, whether they are social or familial. When we commit to something and fail to turn up, our family, friends and neighbours feel disappointed and, potentially, hurt. In my marriage, I’ve discovered that agreeing to something and then forgetting about it is one of the fastest ways to frustrate my wife. We all have loss-aversion hardwired into our brains – being promised something that doesn’t materialise causes us to react negatively. As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m very careful not to commit to something with my kids if I am not 100% that I can deliver on it.

So how do we set and manage expectations successfully? It boils down to communication and commitment. We need to be very clear about what we need and understand the other person’s requirements clearly. As stated above, that means asking appropriately detailed questions and taking note of the responses. Playing back what we’ve heard to the other person lets them know we’ve heard them and gives them the opportunity to correct any misapprehensions on our part. Asking clarifying questions to deepen understanding can be necessary depending on the nature of the commitment. And then showing up and delivering is the final piece – a practice that many of us struggle with in different aspects of our lives. Boiling it down further – find out what is required, then do what we say we’re going to. Another practice that falls into the category of “simple, but not easy!”.

At work, “busyness” is often celebrated but can be the antithesis of productivity. Getting things checked off a list feels like progress, and it feels good to make progress. However, ensuring we’re doing the right things at the right time takes more effort and focus. It requires dedicated time to think.

When I look at my calendar, which I suspect is not atypical for a mid-senior level manager in any large enterprise, it is full of back-to-back meetings. I regularly have multiple conflicts in a day that have to be untangled. As a result, I will frequently have to choose between two meetings to attend. Meetings are scheduled so that they are usually starting at the “top of the hour” and finishing at the “bottom of the hour”. In other words, each meeting fills the half-hour or hour-long slot it has been scheduled to with no space between.

Our limited brains, specifically our prefrontal cortices, do not cope well with this kind of schedule. There is no time to organise thoughts before or after meetings because we go straight from one context to another. In addition, we will never have time to reflect during the day unless we intentionally make parts of our calendar inaccessible to others – something which requires deep intestinal fortitude to maintain in a meeting-heavy culture.

Once we’re in a meeting, it is often unclear why we are all gathered. This is because meetings are rarely run with any clear structure or agenda. Only a few attendees will speak in many cases – usually the most senior and/or most opinionated. The result is that many people, often with great ideas, will never get to share them or think them through out loud with others. If someone does bring up a topic for discussion that is unpopular or not fully thought through, they may become targets for hostile questioning or commentary. This causes people who are uncertain of their status to disengage. Many of the worst meetings I’ve attended have had many individuals multi-tasking while one or perhaps two individuals “lecture the crowd”.

So in two major areas of corporate life, scheduling and meetings, it is increasingly difficult to think. It sometimes feels like we’re discouraging independent thought. People will be less likely to bring ideas forward because they will not have the confidence or a safe platform. The result for companies that have this kind of culture is reduced innovation and productivity.

Back to my original question – what can we do to enable our staff to think? We can encourage our teams to block out time on their calendars for focussed work, including thinking. One way to build this into the culture is to demonstrate the behaviour ourselves by creating protected spaces on our calendars. As described in Nancy Kline’s book “Time to Think”, we can establish thinking partnerships between team members. And we can make meetings safe spaces to think aloud by encouraging everyone to speak without interruption for an allocated period and by using constructive, open-ended questions to help people tease out their thoughts.

Developing insight with others is a critical part of my coaching practice and many others. The idea of “manager as coach” does not sit entirely well with me, but the idea of being a manager who encourages other people to use the gifts they have been given is. If you are a leader or a manager of people, I believe it is your responsibility and mine to help others make the best of their skills. That includes exercising their ability to generate insights at work. Structured thinking is like any other exercise that requires practice. A large part of our job should be to ensure that our people can practice and develop insights that will benefit them and our organisations.

For me, the most recent of these occurred reading Robert Sapolsky’s incredible book Behave, a study of human and animal behaviour. Sapolsky is a neuroendocrinologist, and professor of biology and neurology, among other seriously impressive credentials. I don’t mind admitting I approached his latest book with some trepidation. Scientific writers are not often the most accessible to the general population, and I’m the very definition of a generalist.

Despite its impressive academic weight, this is a book that eases you into a significant and wide-ranging area of study. It is interspersed with humour, connectivity of thought, and high levels of detail. I’m about 10% of the way through, and while I can’t say it’s an easy read, it is more accessible than I thought it would be. It has also caused me to feel my mind expanding as I’ve read it – although that may just have been lightheadedness 🙂

One of the first “Whoa!”s for me was in Sapolsky’s acknowledgement of the breadth of the subject and the limited views that most scientists have of the field. He calls out the relationship between the evolutionary timescale of animal and human behaviour, the impact of genetics, the biomechanics of the body, and the neurobiology of the brain; he then connects it to the impact on our psychology. Clearly, no single scientific discipline has the answer to why we behave the way we do.

Another “awesome, mind blown!” moment was reading the appendix that describes our neurobiology. While I have a science degree, I have not studied science in any detail since I left college, despite having a layman’s interest in many areas. Reading the description of potentiation across neurons, the axonal hillock and the cascade across billions of connections genuinely made me say “Whoa!” out loud. His description of this enormously complex topic built up in stages to give me, an uneducated reader, the feeling that I was almost able to grasp a significant truth about how complex our brain activity is.

That feeling of connection, of insight, is a powerful one. It can lead to action, or we can lose it in the noise of a day. I’ve developed an interest in capturing these insights so that we can act on them more often. To further my understanding in this area, I’m in the process of completing a course in brain-based coaching through the Neuroleadership Institute and am working with several coachees. It is a fact that you can often see the moment of insight expressed in someone’s face. That moment powerfully connects coach and coachee and can lead to insights for the coach as well.

These moments don’t have to be caused by learning something in a completely new area. They can arrive when we find out that something we’ve believed for a long time is wrong – those insights can be life-changing, for good or ill. Danny Kahneman has said that he loves to find out he has been wrong about something because it allows him to learn something new. That’s a view on learning to aspire to, in my mind.

I’ve meandered a bit from where I started, but the point I wanted to reach is this. We need to recognise the insights that we arrive at, in whatever form. We can then choose to act on those, leading to more “Whoa!”s in our day. For example, in management and leadership circles, we often talk about continuous learning, and these moments are the reward our brains give us to keep learning. So I’ve started to think that we should include “Facilitates Insight” as part of the job description for managers because these insights are significant drivers of growth for our staff.

The more we expose ourselves to different ways of thinking and living, the more we give ourselves the chance to experience these bursts of amazement. And that wonder is one of the things that makes us uniquely human.

Before we even start a conversation where we may give feedback, we should understand our motivations and intent. Are we genuinely looking to help the other person improve at something, or are we just annoyed with them and looking to vent? The reason intent is important is that it shapes how we approach the conversation. If we are truly interested in what the other person needs, we are thinking about delivering feedback to have the best chance of being heard. This requires us to prepare for these conversations, whether they be as part of a performance cycle with a staff member or a discussion with a loved one.

We have to understand where the other person may become defensive, which could shut down the conversation. This can be difficult to avoid, but if there is a basis of trust and the other party understands our intent, we have a higher chance of a successful outcome. That said, honest, useful feedback can be painful, but being told we’re great all the time doesn’t help us improve. When we receive difficult feedback openly, it can cause us to re-examine our behaviours, approaches, and thought processes.

I have been through many performance reviews in my working life and have also received a lot of personal feedback. The best kind of feedback has been direct and not couched in “softening” words. The worst feedback has either been completely anodyne, wrapped in the “sh*t sandwich” format or obviously intended to hurt.

When we’re giving developmental feedback, it must address the issue that needs to be corrected. Being afraid to hurt someone’s feelings can often cause us to reduce the clarity of the message. For that reason, it is important to be able to separate the behaviour (temporary and changeable) from the person’s identity (less malleable and potentially emotionally reactive).

Depending on the seniority of the individual, and their relationship to us, it can also be helpful to use questions to help people arrive at a feedback point. I spoke recently with an experienced executive coach who likes to take a non-directive approach in her coaching practice. She uses questions to help her clients understand their own focus areas and help with decision-making.

In a work context with more junior staff, feedback may need to be much more directive. The person receiving feedback should be clear about what the issue is that is being addressed and how you would like to see them address it.

With all kinds of feedback, it is important to acknowledge when the revised behaviour or outcome has been observed, not just the first time it happens.

My preference for giving corrective feedback is to do it in a one-to-one setting. I subscribe to the “praise in public, correct in private” school of thinking, which not everyone agrees with. I have had colleagues who suggest that it is better to “execute one in public to discourage the others”. This may work for you in your organisational culture, but it doesn’t align with my leadership style. This may also be a function of where I sit on the agreeableness spectrum – which doesn’t stop me from delivering sometimes painful feedback in private.

Good feedback helps us rethink our positions, our capabilities and our blind spots. Giving useful, sometimes blunt suggestions for improvement is actually a kindness. Be kind – give the gift that helps people grow, even if it causes a temporary sting. The alternative can be stymied growth and underperformance. Oh, and when you find people who are willing to “cross the chasm of discomfort” and give you direct input on performance, treasure them. They are hard to find and worth their weight in gold.

I’ve had to admit to failings many times (usually multiple times daily) in my personal life. Practicing this has made me better at it, but I can still fall into the bad old habit of deflecting or justifying when my wife finds the immersion has been left on. I may have even, on occasion, suggested that one of my daughters was responsible (particularly if I’m not sure that it was me). One of the things that made it easier was identifying why I react defensively when I’m wrong.

Defensive and deflecting behaviour manifests itself when we feel threatened in some way. We may feel that our status or reputation is under threat, or that we’re at risk of social rejection. Our limbic system kicks in to produce a response before our rational brain, and suddenly we’re in an entrenched position. “Your Brain at Work” by Dr David Rock provides some wonderful examples of how this limbic system hijacking can occur without us being aware of it.

In a work context, we often respond negatively (and defensively) when we (or the teams we’re responsible for) come under actual or perceived attack. This can be because of how the other party presents the issue; some workplaces are quite combative, and the suggestion of failure can be a weapon to use to gain an advantage.

A defensive response on our part can also be driven by insecurity. If we’re uncertain of our position, which can happen due to a lack of psychological safety, we may rush to justify what has occurred.

What happens in both professional and personal situations if we rush to defend our position? We shut down dialogue, and close off opportunities for learning. We lose the ability to hear what may be a valuable lesson or point from our interlocutor. We can also damage our standing in leadership circles, or hurt a personal relationship.

What should we do to short-circuit the threat response? While it can be challenging, due to the speed of the amygdala-driven response (believed to be about 10x faster than the neocortex gets access to information), we can recognise the signs that we’re responding emotionally rather than rationally. When we feel threatened, our bodies get ready for “fight, flight or freeze“. Our heart rate elevates, our faces feel flushed, and our hands may form into fists. We may feel sweaty or clammy. Our voices rise, our vocal cords tighten, and we can feel the hair on the back of our necks stand up. These are all signs that we’re reacting rather than thinking.

The mere noticing of these symptoms of emotional hijacking can give us enough time to respond more thoughtfully. One of the first things we can do is acknowledge the point that the other person has made. It doesn’t mean we agree with them (yet), merely acknowledging the point that has been made. This then gives us the chance to clarify the issue being raised. We then have the opportunity to rationally and more calmly accept that we are wrong or to politely disagree while explaining our rationale. This rationale should not include justification if we are indeed wrong 🙂

While this approach won’t always avoid negative impacts to relationships or reputation, it will increase the likelihood of positive outcomes. Here’s to more practicing!

The duvet cover on my bed has poppers that hold it closed.  There are about ten of them. If one opens, they will eventually all open.  Last night, as I got out of bed to close four of those fasteners, it occurred to me that they are a bit of a metaphor for life.  If you ignore the small things you know you should take care of they can expand to become more problematic.  In this case, ignoring one open popper will result in feet being tangled and general discomfort. From a “duvet cover of life” perspective, it can result in more than a potential trip hazard getting out of bed.  Ignoring small, but necessary things can result in less desirable outcomes.

William McRaven also thought about bed, but at the start of the day.  In his book, “Make Your Bed” which I read a few years ago, he talks about the importance of starting your day by focusing on the small stuff – literally making your bed first.  You start your day with a minor accomplishment, and at least you’ve accomplished that much.  If your day turns out to be a bust you’ll still come back to a well-made bed. It’s the reason I spend the time cleaning the house before we go on holidays, despite the time pressure – there is something relaxing about coming back to a house that is in order, after the chaos of travelling with our family.

We have a family tradition at this time of the year.  We go to a country house that is open to the public, where they have a “Green Santa”.  Unlike his traditional counterpart he doesn’t give presents – he gives each child who visits his Narnia-themed grotto a pine sapling and a shaker of wildflower seeds. As the children are leaving, he suggests that they sprinkle the seeds where they go. It’s the reason I used to unexpectedly have cornflowers and poppies show up from time to time in the back garden.

To stretch the bed metaphor in a different direction, let’s think of ideas as being seeds. As managers, leaders and mentors, we plant ideas – we sow seeds – in the minds of the people we interact with.  When I’m speaking with school children about technology and the need for more women in STEM careers, I know I’m not getting through to all or even most of them.  I’m not expecting immediate interest in signing up for degrees in STEM.  Some seeds will fall in fallow soil, some will land in fertile seedbeds and germinate, growing into plants that dwarf my thinking on the subject.  I’ll never know.  The seeds I plant may never grow. I’ll never know that either. Our job as managers is to encourage the right growing conditions to allow for seeds to germinate.  We do this by establishing cultures of openness and safety; encouraging growth by allowing for failure; by exemplifying the behaviours we want to see in our organisations.

To put this post to bed (yep, I went there), small things matter. Apart from the cumulative effect of ignoring the things we should do, we build unproductive habits by doing so.  Read Admiral McRaven’s book – it’s an accessible, short one.  And I love the idea of seeds in the mind – a bed of a different kind, where all of us grow.

Organisational culture can be tough to define, but it can be even more challenging to create a sustainable, high-performance culture. Ben Horowitz describes culture as “What you do is who you are” – the title of his new book. Having worked in several large organisations over the past 25 years, I agree entirely. It’s not what we say that builds culture, and it’s definitely not what we think. It’s what we do.

I’ve written this before, but when I was a college student doing my B.Sc., I was amazed at how quickly a single bacterial colony could take over an entire agar plate. Culture established in the right medium becomes dominant, squeezing out other cultures. In an organisational context, to my mind, values make up the substrate that drives principles. Principles, in turn, drive behaviours. (I’ve written in a previous post about the point at which mission, principles and goals meet to produce outcomes).

I like this view of a “culture chain”, but one of the senior executives I discussed this with believes that in his (globally recognisable) organisation the chain is shorter. In his view, values drive behaviours, without the need for a set of overarching principles. As he put it “if the values are compelling and simple enough for anyone to understand, you don’t need a stated set of principles to drive behaviours.”

Regardless of the existence of a set of articulated principles, consistent behaviours are what make the culture. The actions we take as managers and leaders (regardless of what we say) establish the norm in the team, department or group we lead. Anything we do that is inconsistent with what we say immediately causes a disruption in the culture (a disturbance in the Force, for the Star Wars fans out there). A kind of cultural dissonance, if you will. If we talk about a culture that values honesty and integrity, and a senior executive makes a demonstrably false claim, it causes ripples through the organisation. It also undermines trust.

Our job as managers, leaders and culture carriers at all levels is to exemplify the culture we want to build by the actions we take. Not only is it on us to act as we wish the organisation to behave, but it is also our responsibility to publically and visibly reward individuals who are acting in a culturally-congruent way.

Daniel Coyle, in his book “The Culture Code” emphasises one foundational element which is critical to establishing and maintaining high-performing cultures. We must create safety. In most cases, this isn’t referring to physical security – it’s to do with creating an environment where people feel safe to tell “truth to power”. An environment where failure is not punished automatically – a sure way to stifle innovation. If we want people to feel safe to try new things, we need to support an environment that tolerates “micro-failures”. This is how all of us learn the best lessons – by trying, failing and then trying again. It’s how we learned to ride a bike when we were kids, and it is still true for adults. If we don’t make it safe for people to fail, they will be afraid to try new things.

Coyle also writes compellingly about creating “belonging cues” – signals to individuals that they matter and are part of a team. In the book, he writes about the belonging cues that led to the success of the San Antonio Spurs, in large part due to the environment created by their head coach, Gregg Popovich (Bloomberg have an interesting article on his “5 Pillars” here.) Popovich sets a high bar for his players and is known to bawl them out – but has built a culture of belonging by bringing them together after games, win or lose, for food and wine.

The behaviours that Popovich and other successful leaders demonstrate are based on creating a culture in which values and actions align. Where people are willing to be vulnerable with each other (and someone always has to go first). And where we create safety through shared vulnerability; by doing hard things together, by not punishing failure but celebrating success. Together.

Strong organisational culture appears to be one of the predicting factors for success. Building that culture requires consistent effort, a clear set of values, and most importantly, completely congruent actions aligned to those values.

The above represents my view of how cultures are built – I would be delighted to hear how you build yours.

Why is “why” important? The old, dictatorial-style of management that was prevalent when I started working told us to “Jump!” without room for questions. Contextual information was seldom provided. This sometimes led to people being afraid to act, in case what they did was wrong. It also led to the wrong behaviours in certain circumstances. For some good examples of where having the right why can be vital to the success or failure of a venture, Simon Sinek’s “Start with Why” is a good read.

By providing our staff with a set of operating principles (per Ray Dalio, and others), we set the context for any actions to be taken. If we have as one of our principles that we will always act ethically, winning in the marketplace is grounded in that ethical framework. We won’t have to explain to people that defrauding customers to win is not acceptable.

By allowing for questions, we can firmly establish the “why” of the actions that we set to meet our organisational goals. For example, we may tell our team that we must deliver a product by a specific date and that the target is immovable. By providing a “why” (we need this product to remain competitive, and missing the date will result in losing critical market share), we help people understand why they should commit every effort to make it happen. Making room for questions enables people to understand the detail of the “why”.

By providing context (through operating principles and through consistently providing the “why” of our actions), we enable our staff to be more self-directed. In very hierarchical organisations, it is often necessary for junior members of staff to check-in constantly with managers or senior managers to ensure that the action they are taking is the expected one. This leads to delays in execution, frustration, and sense of disempowerment. In organisations that are focussed on improving performance, the context and why of the organisation are clearly understood. For example, at Zappos, the first principle is “Deliver WOW through service.”. This sets the tone for how staff make decisions – and staff are empowered to send replacement shoes, or stay on the phone with customers for as long as it takes to make the customer happy without having to defend their actions as long as they are in the service of Zappos’ core principles.

In their book “Extreme Ownership”, Jocko Willink and Leif Babin refer to this as Decentralized Command, something which is only achievable when people understand the context in which they operate. Staff understand their focus and the value of the work they are doing. I’ve recently been reviewing employee engagement survey feedback for a group of ~600 staff, and it is clear that there is always benefit in managers explaining the connection between the work that someone is doing and the overall objectives of the organisation – again, providing context.

When trying to understand what might be relevant to a member of your organisation who is looking for advice, or considering a career move, knowing their context is also vital. Listen, ask questions, and ensure we understand the needs of the individual before providing advice, and we are better positioned to provide something that is relevant and timely.

Finally, for now, I think we need to develop an understanding of our own, individual, why. David Allen, being interviewed by Tim Ferriss, described this as the topmost level of our horizons – the one that establishes our purpose in the world. To get to this requires a level of introspection that many of us struggle with, but it is the context from which all else flows.

He writes convincingly of the 10,000 hour “rule” for developing expertise.  This states that in order to develop world class expertise in a particular field, one has to apply focussed practice for around 10,000 hours  in order to achieve it.  In the case of many of the highly recognisable names, they had accumulated that level of practice by their late teens or early twenties.

So what do we do if we want to become expert-level (not necessarily world-class) at something later in life?  How do we accumulate the expertise when we are typically much more time-poor?

I came across an article recently on Becky Lynch, a WWE champion wrestler, who has had an atypical path to US wrestling stardom.  In 2018, at age 32 she was ..”named the CBS Wrestler of the Year, Sports Illustrated’s Women’s Wrestler of the Year, WWE’s Female Superstar of the Year, Pro Wrestling Illustrated’s Woman of the Year.”

I had never heard of Becky (born Rebecca Quin) despite the fact that she is one of the most famous Irish wrestlers in the world.  This isn’t surprising, since I’m not a follower of wrestling, but I was impressed by the success she has achieved despite multiple false starts and diversions.  One of the things that she said in the article with The42.ie was this:

I worked for it — that’s the difference. And I obsessed about it and I think about it non-stop. Anyone can say ‘I want to do this or that,’ but I was obsessing about it.

Last week I attended a talk by Rosemary Smith, where she discussed her career and some of the challenges of being a female rally driver and motor racing driver, starting in the 1960’s.  She’s still rallying today at 81. During the course of her successful career she rallied across Europe, the Americas and the Alps.  Her longest rally was around 17,000 miles. Apart from being a hugely entertaining speaker and a formidable person, she is also clearly obsessed with driving.  At age 79, as part of a Renault track event, she became the oldest person to ever drive a Formula 1 car.

Like Becky Lynch, she didn’t start out on her chosen path.  She was initially a dress designer, and only became a rally driver in her early twenties.

And, like him or loathe him, Conor McGregor fits the late bloomer/false starter mould as well – he was a plumber when he started his Mixed Martial Arts career at 20.   While it is difficult to hold him up as a role model, it is clear that he is driven by obsession to succeed at his chosen profession, and to be known.  And in this he has clearly made a mark – despite starting later in life than many who have practiced their skills for thousands of hours more than he has.

So what can we take from the above, small sample? (And yes, I know they’re all Irish sportspeople, but that is definitely by accident rather than design.)  Two things that strike me: 1) We’re never really stuck on a path, and 2) within reason, it’s never too late to become really good at something.

It requires a commitment to practice that most of us are unwilling to put in to get to superstar level, but even a modicum of regular practice will drive us from poor to good, good to great, and great to expert over time.

And being obsessive about something important helps.  If our desire is to become a better manager or technologist or communicator, or just a better person, start by picking just one thing to improve at and practice it at every opportunity.  Life is short, but it’s never too short for us to get better – we just have to recognise the opportunity and exercise the discipline to take it.

What are you going to obsess about this year?

So what can be done?

First of all, it helps to understand what they bring to the table.  Sometimes people who are tremendously gifted in one area are not terribly well-rounded in others.  In the most extreme examples, they may not have any sense of personal boundaries, or may display behaviours which are borderline disruptive. A classic symptom is that they contact you to vent or moan on a regular basis, without any particular structure. They may not have anything specifically work-related to discuss – sometimes they will want to discuss a family issue, or an issue with their commute, or even a problem with their pets. They can also obsess about their ongoing employment status, whether through fear of losing their jobs, or lack of progression.  I’ve had conversations about all of those things with individuals who could be categorised as a squeaky wheel.  During difficult conversations it can be very useful to keep in mind the value that they bring to the team and the organisation, so that we stay invested in the individual and don’t disengage.

Secondly, it helps to determine whether they single you out to offload their burdens onto.  It can be very enlightening to subtly question other leaders in your organisation to find out what kind of interactions they have with the individual in question.  If their conduct is universal, it may be necessary to address it head on.  If they develop a reputation for unproductive conversation with other managers it can impact their career progression, regardless of the value they bring.

Then you can start to think about the behaviours, and what might be causing them to act the way they do.  A lot of the time I’ve found that putting structure around any interactions they wish to have (ensuring they establish a reasonable, focussed agenda) can be helpful in getting them to focus on work-related topics.  It can also be helpful, particularly when there is a negative bias to their discussions, to try to help them see alternative interpretations.   This is not always easy, but over time can make a difference to the tone – reduce the squeaking, as it were. Additionally, it may be important to understand what has led them to where they are – be it perceived loss of status, loss of management responsibility, or less valued skill-set in a changing organisation.

If there are genuine work-related concerns, it is important to separate those out from the noise, listen empathetically, and then help guide them towards solutions.  It is very important that we take these concerns seriously – but once the conversation is done and the issue has been addressed, it is equally important to draw a line through it, so it doesn’t become a running or circular topic.  Managing squeaky wheels isn’t about appeasement – it’s about re-focussing their energy in more positive directions.

Sometimes, despite our best efforts, it can be difficult for us to get through to people who display this type of behaviour regularly.  For me, it was an individual who I managed for two years.  I discovered by recruiting someone else to act as a mentor that the problem was me.  The approach I took in trying to steer the individual onto a more positive, productive path just didn’t work.  I couldn’t find a way to get through to them.  By pairing them up with a mentor who had started from a similar background but was much further along in their career, I was able to get them the help they needed in a way that made sense to them.  The individual in question is now flourishing, despite, rather than because of, my best efforts.

Finally, I would say that it is always beneficial to acknowledge and praise positive changes in behaviour, however small.  We all like to be recognised for personal and professional development in a way that is meaningful to us.  And by understanding the causes of the behaviours and getting the individual onto a better path, we can set them up for future success, which becomes self-fulfilling.  In time, with luck, the squeaky wheel can become a highly valued, successful and above all positive contributor to the team and the organisation.

(One last thing – make sure the squeaky wheel isn’t you!)