Authors: Henry Cloud
It al depends on
who is hitting that putt.
If it is Jim Carrey, or Oprah . . . find a ride to Venus. You are probably just hanging on to a wish if you stay here. But if it is Jack Nicklaus in his prime, one of the best clutch putters in golf history, don’t sel your property just yet. We have a chance, and a good one. The difference al lies in who is hitting the putt.
The first factor to consider in assessing whether or not there’s hope for a certain scenario is to ask yourself, “Who am I dealing with?” Character, giftedness, and al of who a person is, the person’s makeup,
is
the future. As the saying goes, character is destiny. Maybe if the test were to make someone laugh, we could depend on Jim Carrey. But to make the putt, our destiny is in better hands with Jack. His makeup to bring the future we desire is dependable. His ability is proved, and he has the elements needed. He is more likely to come through than not. So we have a lot of hope.
(Now if the Martian test were to make us laugh or to make us cry, Carrey and Oprah would be back on the table.) You can quickly see how important someone’s makeup is to the question of hope.
This is often the biggest error that people make in determining whether to have hope or not. They forget to think about whom they are depending on to get it done. Instead, they look at what they want or wish to happen and forget who is holding the putter. The mistakes come in a number of forms when they place hope in someone they shouldn’t:
• The person who is not bringing results is real y “sorry” and promises to do better.
• The person who isn’t performing “gets it” and tel s you that she is real y committed “this time.”
• You want the best for the person and want to believe that he can do it “this time.”
There are a lot of different versions of this story, but the bottom line is this: We wrongly put our hope in some promise, belief, or wish that the person expresses, but ignore the clear reality of who they actual y are.
I don’t mean this in a negative or pejorative way at al , but in a reality-oriented way. The reality is that the person has not produced so far, and
unless something changes
, the future that you can expect is more of the past. Sorry or becoming committed does not make Jim Carrey a great golfer, or make Jack Nicklaus funny.
Recommitment does not make a person who is unsuited for a particular position suited for it all of a sudden. Promises by someone who
has a history of letting you down in a relationship mean nothing certain in terms of the future.
Now, none of this implies that they cannot or wil not change in the future, as we shal see below. But what it does mean is that up to this point, there is nothing different about them other than wishes to do better. And that is not a different makeup. If your car is broken or does not have a big enough tank to make the trip, even if it says it is sorry or is real y committed, that does not change the reality of the engine problem or the limited tank size.
So here is your diagnostic:
Look at the reality of the person
. Are they able to meet the demands of the reality that you are entrusting to them?
Some of the most hopeless situations have lots of hope when the right person is brought in. Tough business situations get turned around when the right leader is brought to the tough reality. The question is, who are you trusting? Does the person already in place have the character, the gifts, the experience, or whatever is going to be required to make the future better? You can sometimes have hope for very difficult or unknown realities if you know that your hope is in the right person. Things may be stal ed out, but if the right person is at the helm, you can stil have hope. That is what great leaders do: negotiate tough times. This is a key question that boards have to deal with al the time. “Do we stick it out with current leadership even though things are not working?”
During a recent leadership consultation, I was working with an executive team on the topic of who you can trust and who you can’t (see the next chapter). An executive raised his hand with this question:
“OK, I get it that there have to be reasons to move forward that are real and objective. But what about the person who somehow has that weird sixth sense to see things that no one else sees? They say we ought to go in a completely different direction, and it makes no objective sense, but they are right. There are people like that, you know. They come up with the idea that seems crazy, but it is the right one, and you should abandon everything that makes sense and go their way. It is irrational, but right. It happens al the time. Someone sees something that looks irrational to the rest of the herd, but they are
right.
There is no objective reason to believe it, but they are right.”
“Great question,” I said. “And one that actual y makes my point. While they may have ‘irrational’ reasons for tel ing you to turn left when the whole world is turning right, it
can
be very rational for you to fol ow them. The reason al lies in one question: who is the person who is tel ing you to do the nutty thing? Is Steve Jobs saying, ‘We can do a crazy thing that is exactly the opposite of what the rest of the world is doing—we can sel individual songs for ninety-nine cents each and be a computer business that goes into content distribution’? Hmmmm . . . . maybe someone should pay attention. Why? He is a proven innovator, someone who has the gifts, makeup, and experience to see a future that others don’t see. So when he has an ‘irrational idea,’ we listen.
“But if the one who is tel ing you to do something irrational has aluminum foil on his head, then maybe not so much. It is not irrational to listen to a crazy idea from a proven sane performer.
It is often irrational to listen to a seemingly good idea from a proven nonperformer
. He may sound good, but his record may prove otherwise. If that is the case, we wil stop listening to his thoughts.”
Sometimes the one in place is the right one to have hope in for the future. You know what they are capable of, and just the fact that they are there is a hopeful objective reality. At other times, though, it is time for an ending, and someone new must be brought in for the hope to be more than a wish.
When to Suspend Hopelessness
I have said above that the past is the best predictor of the future. But remember, I said that only applies if nothing changes or if
there is no rational
reason to have hope.
One rational reason, then, is to have the right person in charge, whom we can trust to figure out the future and make a difference. Things turn around with the right people. So if you have that person in the situation, no matter how bleak, hopelessness may not be cal ed for. Look what happened to Apple when Jobs returned to leadership. Not so hopeless anymore.
Now for the harder question: Can I ever have hope when someone is currently failing but they are sorry and have a newfound commitment to doing better? When can I have hope for that? Do we always just throw someone away who is not doing wel ? Do we
always
have to create a necessary ending if there is a pattern of failure?
Absolutely not! People change. We can often have hope, as people do wake up and get it and change. But . . . not always. If you invest hope in their changing but they don’t, you can waste more time, even years, and not get anything in return for your misplaced trust, other than more misery and more failure. So the question is this: when can I have hope that a person is going to be different in the future than he is now or in the past?
Answer: again, look for the objective reasons to hope, other than their saying “I’m sorry” or “I am committed this time.” You need a “reason to believe.” Here are nine objective factors to help you determine whether you can have hope that tomorrow wil be any different from today: verifiable involvement in a proven change process, additional structure, monitoring systems, new experience and skil s, self-sustaining motivation, admission of need, the presence of support, skil ed help, and some prior or current success.
Verifiable Involvement in a Proven Change Process
Is the person in some sort of change process that you can verify a sustained commitment to? For example, if an addict says that he is going to get sober, if we see him checking into rehab and staying the entire time, and if, after he is out, he goes to two AA meetings a day for a few months, stays in constant touch with his sponsor, goes to counseling, and so on, then there is a rational reason to have hope.
If a nonperformer in business commits to a change process of some sort, such as coaching or other verifiable, proven processes, that is a rational reason to suspend hopelessness. I recently worked with a corporate board that was in the process of selecting a new CEO. After much discussion, the board offered the job to a candidate who lacked experience in one critical area, but he agreed to get help from both a coach and outside consultants. The board had objective reasons to believe that the candidate recognized his limitations and was wil ing to undertake the necessary actions to fil this gap in experience. Because the candidate committed to a growth process, the board was able to offer him the job and feel that the future could be hopeful.
Additional Structure
By and large, people do not change without new structure. The change process must not be left up to the person’s own schedule and internal controls. The process must include a structured path, i.e., set-in-stone times and practices that do not depend on the person’s own whims, regular meetings with a coach, mentor, support group, trainer, or seminar.
Change must be structured for many reasons, but one is the way the brain works. Old patterns get reinforced unless a new discipline is introduced to override the old patterns. People who have never exercised on their own because of a lack of self-discipline cannot be trusted to al of a sudden begin to get in shape because the doctor says they need to. They usual y need the structure of regular times with a trainer or a class in order to make the program sustainable. New brain patterns must be developed from outside structure. In business coaching, for example, I often require set, structured times when I and the executive or the team wil be together, as opposed to just “when you have time or when you need it.”
Monitoring Systems
How do we know this is al happening? Because we are watching it and measuring it. One company put together a subcommittee from the board of directors, which, like any other subcommittee, had a task: the development of the CEO. That committee regularly monitors the CEO’s involvement in the process and his progress. It reports to the board of directors to show that the CEO is in compliance with the development program. They monitor the process. Why? Compliance with a change process is increased with monitoring. There is a reason that parents oversee little kids’
homework times. With a lack of maturity or strengths, the natural drift is away from what is difficult and different, and monitoring is always essential to success.
New Experiences and Skills
People change not only because of new information, but also by gaining new experiences that teach them what they need in order to make the future different. In leadership coaching, for example, I am always attuned to what kinds of experiences a leader needs in order to actual y internalize the change that he or she is looking to make. Then we design a path to gain those. Skil s building can be a big part of that as wel . I have sent many leaders to workshops, group experiences, off-sites, et cetera, knowing that the changes that were absolutely necessary to their success would never happen without such experiences. Information and insight are important to change, but experiences are crucial as wel .
Self-sustaining Motivation
How do you know when to have hope for the future of someone’s changes?
Look at the degree to which you are having to drive the process
. That is one of the strongest indicators of what is going to happen.
When people are on fire to change, they go to their meetings and their sessions without anyone making them. They do it on their own. They read books; they look for others in the change process; they seek experiences, listen to podcasts, and look for advice. You can just look at them and know that they have the fire to develop. As I write this, I am in a conference-center resort setting, as I usual y have to get away from it al to work on a book. In this conference center, a convention is being held for people in direct-marketing sales organizations. I have run into several of them over the last few days, and you can instantly see their future. The fire that drove them here to learn how to make their businesses work, as wel as the conversations I overhear in the restaurants and hal ways, show their investment. No one is making them be here. They are here on their own dime and time. I love to see that kind of self-motivation and drive. I do not know if they would pass al of the other tests that we have mentioned, but in this one dimension, I would see hope for their future.
If you are hoping that someone is going to succeed in the future when the past has not been so great, look for this kind of hunger to make tomorrow different. If you are having to nag them into doing the work, chances are that if you quit nagging, then the work is going to stop as wel .
And if the work is not sustained, then the change is less likely to occur. Whenever I hear that an addict who got sober has stopped going to meetings, my heart sinks. It usual y is a good predictor of a coming slide. The same is true of executives who get started in a coaching or development program but then get “too busy.” Not a good sign for the future.
Admission of Need
To have hope that people are truly going to change, you must have an admission from them that they real y
need
to change. They must see that they have a problem and own the problem.