Leading, Processing & Reading

Planning, Strategy, and Context: your people matter.

2016-06-04T14:27:00.000-07:00

As you may know, I am studying for my Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership, at Brandman University. Today in my Strategic Planning class we had a great webinar. One of the best features of this program is continuously tying our learning content to our change project, and our research efforts. It is what make this program exceedingly practical, and results-driven.

So our discussion was about understanding strategy, and developing awareness of roadblocks to strategic planning. Two huge considerations are methodology for planning, and the planning context. First thing to note is they relate to each other. Your context will dictate how you plan, so this is one of the first discussion to have with the planning team.

It is a good subject on which to get help from a consultant. But, whomever you hire must be methodology agnostic. They must have knowledge of several methodologies and be able to understand your context and guide you through selecting a methodology that the team can agree on. The consultant helps you discover what fits, rather than prescribes a methodology.

Now what I am about to say is not an advertisement for me being your consultant. It is to illustrate what you should hear from your consultant. I do not care which methodology you use. I care that it produces results and capacities to take new actions which contribute to you reaching your goals. Whatever fits and works is the best.

I believe the first responsibility of a leader is to get followers what they need to do their jobs. The biggest failure of leadership is to not take care of followers; to set expectations and not give them what they need to reach them.
Why do I mention this? We discussed context for planning. One of the things we get focused on when discussing leadership, is what leaders need. We must be on guard against that. Our goal should be to have people so well trained and equipped, they are able to leave, but so valued and listened to, they do not want to.

Then our planning efforts will be easier. Dedicated employees who are engaged, will make planning work. While we were discussing planning, I was reminded of “The Plan.” It a story that illustrates context, and a culture of “proper” communication, over the truth. I wish I knew who wrote it. I first saw it as a young lieutenant in the Air Force. There are various versions. Here is my favorite (language warning):

The Plan

In the beginning, there was the Planning Team.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without form.
And the Plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, “It is a crock of shit, and it stinks.”
And the Workers went unto their Supervisors and said, “It is a pail of dung, and we can't live with the smell.”
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, “It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it.”
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, “It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength.”
And the Directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another, “It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong.”
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, “It promotes growth, and it is very powerful.”
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, “This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with very powerful effects.”
And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
And this is how shit happens...

Happy Planning!

Organization Theory, Leadership Theory, Management Theory; who’s right or is it all Bull$#!t?

2016-03-18T19:33:00.000-07:00

Recently I had an assignment in my Organizational Theory and Development class. The essence of the question was what is a more accurate description of Organization Development: has it evolved or is it just adopting every fad that comes along. I keep seeing this binary thinking rear its ugly head in business and leadership thought frequently: leaders are good/managers bad, servant leadership is the only way to lead, appreciative inquiry only because criticism is wrong.

It’s relatively easy to take a position and adhere to it. We do it almost viscerally. But it can stunt our intellectual growth. We live in a world of practicalities, of getting things done, informed by a certain disdain for theory, and academic thinking. Heck we ridicule education. So we are not likely to deeply examine how we understand what we understand. Theory bores us.

The issue I have with this is the questions and binary thinking ignore a basic fact: theory is not reality. How we know things (epistemology) and whether or not there is a reality (ontology) aside, no theory has yet been developed that explains everything.

A big part of the reason this problem exists, is few of us learned what theories are and how they are built. Thankfully, there is Dr. Mary Jo Hatch, author of Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. I was lucky enough to have to read from this book for class. She tells us that we use theory every day, “whenever you create your own meaning or grasp someone else’s, you make things, feelings, ideas, experiences, values and expectations into ideas or concepts. In doing this you explain yourself and your world and this constitutes theorizing.”

She continues to explain how we observe and are told about phenomena and then make abstractions and concepts. We separate the details from the phenomena to see their similarities and build concepts. We create the concept of “dog” as distinguished for the concept of “cat.” This allows us to understand dogs in a general way so we have an idea of how that strange one we just encountered may behave. We may have never known about Rhodesian Ridgebacks, but we have the concept of "dog" and immediately recognize the Ridgeback as a dog.

So we live with theories. They help us see and understand our world. I mentioned epistemology and ontology before. Taking a look at what we can know and how we can know it allows us to see that there will naturally be varied perspectives and experiences.

And that is the kicker. While we get bogged down in binary thinking and which view is best, the reality is none of them are right, nor wrong. They are different. Hatch says, “In my view the diverse theoretical base … is something to celebrate, not only because it offers a broad perspective on … life, but because it creates more possibilities …” What she means is these theories are just frameworks to observe and understand the world. They are not the world. The value they have is what actions do they let us take. We act in accordance to our beliefs; our theories.

So what does this mean in a practical way? You can learn to observe how you are observing. You can develop a broader view, and recognize your own biases. You can reflect on how you built your interpretation and how it helped and hindered you. You can learn the difference between fact and opinion (most of what we say is opinion).

When my colleagues start touting the supremacy of their preferred theory of leadership, I am reminded of Dr. Charles Yoos, who wrote There is No Such Thing as Leadership! He argues that leadership is an invalid construct, and the research we undertake should not be taken to prove anything in particular about “Leadership.” In other words at a very rigorous epistemological level, it is all bull$#!t.

So what to do? Recognize it. Because application of the theory is the key. And since constructs are abstractions; they have little detail. We must therefore supply the detail of the situation when we apply the theory. Dr. Hatch says “You will want to develop both concepts and theorizing skills with a broad base of personal experience and then translate your abstractions back into specific understanding.” Figure something out, see if it works. If not, figure out something else. Keep learning.

References

Hatch, M. J. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Yoos, C. J. (1984). There is No Such Thing as Leadership! In G.E. Lee, & T.E. Ulrich (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium: Psychology in the Department of Defense (343-352). Colorado Springs, CO: United States Air Force Academy.

Charisma in Leaders is a Dangerous Thing.

2015-07-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

Students of leadership theory know about traits-based approaches. Traits are a basic attempt to address the question of what good leadership is. I believe people tend to form a picture in their minds of good leaders by picking famous ones. Famous leaders are usually charismatic.

So it is no surprise that most people think charisma is required for effective leadership. I did an informal survey to check. I asked 100 people (63 women and 37 men) to agree or disagree with this statement: “Charisma is required for effective leadership.” The results:

All Respondents:

Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
20.00%	54.00%	8.00%	16.00%	2.00%

Women (63):

Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
20.63%	53.97%	7.94%	14.29%	3.17%

Men (37):

Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
18.92%	54.05%	8.11%	18.92%	0.00%

College Graduates (66):

Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
21.21%	51.52%	9.09%	15.15%	3.03%

Again, not surprising; but there is a problem. Research shows that charisma is not required, and can in fact be a dangerous. The biggest issue in my mind is Charisma is hard to quantify for an individual leader, and even if it is not, it is nearly impossible to quantify its impact on particular results. Before we get into that let’s define the terms.

Charisma is assessment that the leader has mystical in-born qualities to the extent that followers become disciples. This has nothing to do with the morality of outcomes. But notice charisma is ascribed by followers to the leader. More on that later.

Effective Leadership is the attainment of the organization’s goals to broad satisfaction of its stakeholders. Notice I do not say all stakeholders; only those who support the organization’s goals. Thus we are not making value judgements about the morality or ethics of the results.

The Trait Theory of Leadership attempts to establish the set of characteristics of effective leaders. Since the thirties various studies have listed different groups of traits, and presented evidence on the positive impact or need for charisma. Few have looked at how charisma was ascribed or even measured until recently. Pentland (2010) demonstrates measurements for charisma. But little work has been done to show whether results were because of charisma, or if good results generated the assessment of charisma in retrospect. But there has been substantial history showing charisma has a positive effect on “rallying the troops” in times of urgency.

At the same time, there is a growing body of research warning against the “hero bias,” or our willingness to believe in attractive people (Yukl, 1999). Think of leaders like Pol Pot, or Hitler or “hot criminal” Jeremy Meeks, a violent felon who is getting a second chance because of his looks. Ugly felons won’t get that attention.

So this emphasis on charisma obviously has problems. Michael Frenzel, the CEO of TUI-AG took a thriving steel business and turned it into a failed travel company because he thought the expertise in shipping would translate. Nobody told him it was a bad idea. Dick Fuld destroyed Lehman Brothers by cajoling his sales personnel to break the law.

Charisma can create all kinds of problems (Nadler & Tushman, 1990 and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013):

1. Unrealistic Expectations – the ego may allow for the creation of impossible goals.

2. Dependency and counter dependency – dependency on the leader for all direction, or a need to show how leader is wrong.

3. Reluctance to Disagree – a culture of ‘Yes-men.’

4. Need for Continuing Magic – if the leader makes a mistake, credibility suffers.

5. Potential Feelings of Betrayal – failures can create anger amongst followers.

6. Disenfranchisement of Next Leadership Level – lower level leaders lose influence because of dependency on the charismatic leader.

7. Limitations of Range of the Individual Leader – time, energy and expertise is limited, cannot be everything to everyone all the time.

So it is pretty clear that Charisma is dangerous. But can we have effective leadership without it? The answer is a resounding “yes.” There is, admittedly, little research on uncharismatic leaders (what fun is that?). Stadler & Dyer (2013), surveyed 100 successful European companies with long track records. They found that the majority had leaders not considered charismatic by their employees. Look at people like Mother Teresa, Angela Merkel, and François Holland, all effective leaders and not generally considered charismatic.

Still it depends who you ask. Charisma is attributed. We need to understand better how that works. The question of values congruence has been explored (Brown & Treviño, 2009), and leaders with values similar to their followers are more often seen as charismatic. Ask a Republican about President Obama, and you might get a very different response than if you ask a Democrat. Further the research only looked at the one to one relationship, rather than the group process. Leadership requires followers so it is a group process. The bottom line is charisma is poorly understood in general.

There is more work to do. For practical reasons, charisma should be more of a warning than a desirable trait for leaders. In terms of developing leaders it should never be a requirement. In fact special effort should be made to find the quiet, unassuming people who steadily produce strong results and show loyalty to the organization, and their colleagues.

Diversity training - it doesn't work.

2015-02-25T13:46:00.000-08:00

Question from my Human Resources Management Course: Unlike many training programs designed to develop skills, diversity training focuses on attitude. Briefly describe one experience you have had with diversity training (1) assessing how effective the training was and (2) one recommendation for improvement. Be specific and support your response with an example.

“Diversity training doesn’t extinguish prejudice. It promotes it” (Bregman, 2012, para 15). I have attended many diversity trainings. They were all a waste of time, except they helped me identify which of my coworkers might be bigots. The best lesson I ever learned on diversity was at a UC Santa Cruz graduation. The president delivered the commencement address. He said something to the effect of focusing on differences is counterproductive. We should focus on similarities: we put our pants on one leg at a time, we eat breakfast and brush our teeth, and we want a better life for our children. Diversity highlights division, divisiveness, and creates a hypersensitivity and burden of political correctness.

This question answers itself: ‘Unlike many training programs designed to develop skills, diversity training focuses on attitude.’ If the approach to the training or the content does not address improving business skills within the framework of the organizational mission, values, and goals, it is worthless. Every diversity training I have attended was what you can’t do or say, and how each racial group has been discriminated against. It heightened sensitivities, and potential for lawsuits.

[T]he emphasis has to move away from an individual focus toward addressing the bigger picture: how can we, as a cohesive unit, create more opportunity by achieving the organization’s goals? How can we stop contending against one another and vie against a much bigger threat: our external competitors, new technology, and other revolutionary changes within our industry? How can we advance our work with cultural knowledge, skills, and strategies for engaging the best talent and the most customers/students/constituents? (Smiley, 2014, para 8).

So to fix the problem, design courses that talk about the similarities mentioned above, and that we all want to be successful in work. That we accomplish that by building relationships based on trust and mutual respect. That respect comes when we understand that our cultural differences are just matters of style in getting all those same things we want done. And for goodness sake teach people to not look for injury. If you are wished “Merry Christmas” take it on faith as a sincere expression of good wishes and say “Thank you.”

References:

Begman, P. (2012). Diversity Training Doesn’t Work. Harvard Business Review [online serial]. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work

Smiley, L. (2014). Why Employees Hate Diversity Training. Retrieved from https://societyfordiversity.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/why-employees-hate-diversity-training/

On Followership

2014-06-27T01:53:00.000-07:00

We can agree that improving leadership will improve results; that is why it is important to study leadership. “The flip side of leadership is followership. It stands to reason that if leadership is important to performance, followership must have something to do with it too” (McCallum, 2013, para. 2). Frankly leaders cannot lead without followers; they need each other. But the comparative lack of study in this area points to the over emphasis of leadership I talked about in my first post.

The degree to which followers execute tasks, demonstrate independence, understand how they fit in the organization, and support the leader and the organization is critical to success. Some jobs require better followers, some do not. But all can benefit. Helping followers become better is a key ingredient to growing future leaders. It may be apocryphal, but there is the story of the NASA janitor that President Kennedy approached and asked, “What is it you do here at NASA?” He replied, “I am helping send a man to the moon, sir.” Now that is an excellent follower! For leaders to encourage independence for Team Leadership and Self-Leadership, they have to trust their followers. Demonstrating that level of commitment facilitates trust. So here are some tips on Followership:

Qualities of good followers and why they are important:

Intelligent & competent in their roles: allows leader to not worry about their ability.

Committed to the organization and mission: allows leader to trust their motives.

Willing to speak their minds, not afraid to bring bad news: allows leader to address problems early (this comes from their commitment to mission).

Will be on board with decision once they are made: commitment and trust.

Ways to cultivate good followers:

Training as needed.

Get to know them personally to support them in their goals.

Use all the development resources that HR has.

Include team in decision processes, solicit their advice.

Give them opportunities to share leadership.

Ways to cultivate your effectiveness as a follower:

The single biggest thing is to immerse yourself into the professional learning and tenets of the company/industry.

Seek mentors who know the organization & can help navigate the politics.

Maintain your ethics and those of the organization.

Support your leader and colleagues.

Be up front about personal motivations so colleagues and leader can trust you.

Final Discussion Question from Ethics Leadership and Democracy, Brandman University: Definition of Ethics

2014-04-28T18:45:00.000-07:00

Q: Now that you've sat through eight weeks of discussion, explain your definition of "ethics." This should be a more substantial definition than “doing the right thing”. Has it changed at all? What ethical perspective or principles do you most closely align with, e.g. Utilitarianism: Greatest good for the greatest number. Why?

A: In all honesty, I cannot say my definition has changed. I still believe that ethics are applying the standards of right and wrong to our actions. I will say that I see now that I identify most with Utilitarianism when making personal decisions, and when making decisions related to broader social questions like public policy and how I will vote, I tend to follow Rawls Justice as Fairness precepts (Johnson, 2012, p. 20-29). I still look to my values of compassion, integrity, service, and excellence as touchstones for my decisions. Of course the legal and moral frameworks inform and guide.

I suppose I am lucky in that I have traveled extensively before and after I went in to the workforce. It led me to study history and philosophy, and gave me an appreciation of how important culture is in determining the stories we live in. Our choices are driven by them. In discussing the stories we live in and choices, Sheena Iyengar, Psycho-economist said:

Instead of replacing one story with another, we can learn from and revel in the many versions that exist and the many that have yet to be written. No matter where we're from and what your narrative is, we all have a responsibility to open ourselves up to a wider array of what choice can do, and what it can represent. And this does not lead to a paralyzing moral relativism. Rather, it teaches us when and how to act. It brings us that much closer to realizing the full potential of choice, to inspiring the hope and achieving the freedom that choice promises but doesn't always deliver. If we learn to speak to one another, albeit through translation, then we can begin to see choice in all its strangeness, complexity and compelling beauty (2010).

We must listen differently, with an understanding of how we listen. This course has given me new frameworks for observing myself, and the organizations of which I am a part, and that is most valuable.

References:

Johnson, C. E. (2012). Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Iyengar, S. (2010, July). Sheena Iyengar: The Art of Choosing. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing#t-477065

Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right by Joseph L. Badaracco Jr.

2014-04-07T07:27:00.000-07:00

The commercial tells us life is messy. More than that it can be destructive. For centuries philosophers, statesmen and clergy have sought to give us theories to handle the vagaries of life with certainty. But they suffer from not being encompassing, and worse they are generally sterile thought experiments that do not work in the real world.

Joseph Badaracco wrote this book to provide managers practical guidance for making decisions when the courses of action are all the right thing to do within competing values. He argues that these right versus right decisions are not well addressed by what he calls the “standard answers” of “follow the law, serve the shareholders, consult the company credo, do the right thing…” (Badaracco, 1997, p. ix).

He begins with a thorough understanding of why these decisions are so difficult. Three business cases of increasing complexity are offered. The first is about a young finance analyst at an investment bank being asked, on short notice, to join a presentation team, when analysts are not normally on presentation teams. He suspects it is because he is black, and there is a desire to show the prospect how enlightened the bank is. The young analyst has only responsibilities to himself and the company. If he declines, another black analyst, with more time at the bank, is prepared to go. The decision is about more than just the trip, it is about personal identity and character of the analyst as an analyst, a black man, a Christian, etc.

The next case introduces us to a marketing director who has been asked by his subordinate to fire one of her direct reports, a newly hired single mother. The difficulty here is our director is not only responsible to himself and the company, but he is also responsible for other’s careers and success. The conflict is the company’s high-tilt work environment is in conflict with its stated desire to be family friendly. A recent merger has created a debt load and drives the need for long hours from everyone, with no letup in the near future. The new employee while working 60 hour weeks, is not putting in the time as others are, and her work is behind.

The final case is the about the marketing of the abortifacient, RU 486. The chairman of the manufacturer, who is a doctor, had to make the final decision on introducing the drug. His personal beliefs were that the drug could save lives by preventing botched abortions. But the head of a company has obligations to shareholders to insure profitability. Public pressures from anti-abortion groups created actual threats to his employees too. Their safety was a concern also, as was the possible damage to the business by wholesale boycotts because of this one product. Pharmaceutical companies and other organizations in society share responsibilities for the character and quality of the society; that is the extra complexity introduced by this case.

After examining the uselessness of the “standard solutions” in light of the cases, Badaracco develops a framework of questions for dealing with these complex issues in general, and the cases in specific. These questions are developed through philosophical principles of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and James, who offer practical advice that puts theory into real-world action. They force the decider to examine himself, the context, the history and how others involved might see the same facts, including what hidden agendas they may have, as well as the possible impacts of the courses of action available. Badaracco also provides advice on how to make this all work, with the demands of a complex society.

There are very few organizations the detailed ethics guidelines as the US military. From personal conflicts of interest to the law of armed conflict, ethics are critical to the mission of national security and the public trust. Ethics training covers not only these rules, but also the principles behind them. It is a part of the curriculum at every stage of military education.

Defining Moments elevates the thinking to a whole new level. Starting with chapter three, “The Futility of Grand Principle,” Badaracco lays out the limitations of traditional methods to deal with right versus right issues. For example, he explains that if the head of the drug company looked to stated values he would have found things like “’to continuously increase the long-term value of the company’…’meet people’s basic needs and improve the quality of life while safeguarding and raising living standards’” (Badaracco, 1997, p.28). So do those values endorse RU 486, or decry it? That is the problem with mission statements: they are too vague. They have to be because they are frameworks for guidance that try to cover all possible situations, which they cannot do in practical terms. Worse, they are sometimes put together without consideration for how they may be used. Meanwhile to address vagueness, many organizations create detailed codes of ethics outlining what is right and what is wrong behavior, and create training programs on conflicts of interest, sexual harassment, equal opportunity, etc. However these rules-based programs can only deal with right versus wrong.

Where the book goes is to the questions derived from Aristotle, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and James. Four of the questions Badaracco posits are:

· How do my feelings and intuitions define, for me, the right-vs-right conflict?

· How deep are the moral roots of the conflicting value that are creating the right-vs-right conflict?

o Look at your previous defining episodes for patterns of ethical commitments

o Look at how those relate to your memberships: family, company, society (local and global)

· This is my way, where is yours? Examine your goals and motives for achieving them, and how this decision impacts them.

· What will work in the World as it is?

Clearly these are deep questions which require thought and reflection, not just on the matter at hand, but on the history which created it, how we fit into it with our experiences and morals, who will have to deal with the effects of the decision, etc.

For example, taking the question of what works in the real world, given the knowledge of the work environment and the needs of the company at the time, perhaps hiring a single mother was a set up for failure. Since he did that, the marketing director should examine his role in creating the situation, and his motives.

This one example scratches the surface, the cases are examined with all the questions, and the background philosophies that generated them. Machiavelli is better understood and tempered by the others, and they are in turn tempered by each other.

This treatment of the cases make this book critical for all managers, and in fact valuable to anyone wishing to develop a capacity for dealing with right versus right problems. Analyzing what happened gives us a perspective that is both wide and deep. This allows for practical exploration of the problems. It is an outstanding guiding framework to take action. If it could do more, it would better structure the process to help managers move with alacrity on difficult questions with a limited shelf life. Having said that, no other treatment of the right versus right subject I have seen, comes close. This goes in the library.

My Most Valuable Leadership Lesson

2014-01-24T13:51:00.001-08:00

It has been way too long since I posted. I must do better.

Many of you know that I am a retired US Air Force Reservist, having made the rank of Lt Col. I did not get there on my own. A lot of great people helped me on the way. Officers in the military are the managers and executives who decide direction, and strategy. It is a lot of authority, because lives are at stake. But there is a difference between "acting in charge" and "being in charge." Thankfully in ROTC, I was taught that a brand new second lieutenant will fail by acting in charge of enlisted folk who have more experience.

That was the major take-away from ROTC. Sure we spent many hours discussing leadership, management, organizational theory, command responsibility, supervision, force employment. A lot of us felt our oats when we pinned on. But we also were warned and humbled to know our place and respect the enlisted folks who could also mentor us.

But that only prepared me to listen to the most important lesson. When I was near the two-year mark, almost ready to pin on first lieutenant, I was given charge of special security for the command. I found my self supervising a staff of six enlisted personnel, one a Chief Master Sergeant. An Air Force Chief is the highest enlisted rank. "Mine" had over 25 years in the service at that time. I knew I would be asking him more than telling him.

On the first day of that job, Chief sat me down (yes not the other way around) and asked me, "Sir, if the colonel came to you and said, 'I want you to put up that flagpole,' what would you do?"

I started answering an engineering problem: "I'd measure the pole, determine how deep to set it, dig a hole..."

"No sir. That is not what you would do."

"OK, what do you mean?

"You would come to me and say, 'Chief, get that flagpole put up,' and I would turn to the Staff Sergeant and tell him how deep to dig the hole."

There it was: everything I learned about leadership in two years of ROTC. The people around you are trained and trusted to do their jobs: know where yours ends, and theirs begins. Tell them the what, and help them with the how only if they ask. Give them what they need to succeed: funding, support, equipment, training, advocacy. Delegate authority, but not responsibility. Ask them for advice, because they know the job and the organization. Listen at least as much as you talk, probably way more. Then get out of their way.

Will things go perfectly? No. But you will have given them trust and respect, so when things go wrong you have a foundation on which to build improvement.

I'd say I got really lucky having that Chief so early in my career. I hope he would be proud of me.

People-Centered Model of Business

2011-09-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

By: Ramla Akhtar, CC BY-NC-ND 2.5

I have mentioned the work of Dr. Fernando Flores many times before in this blog. I also keep an eye out for other authors that speak on similar topics to gauge how Fernando’s work is influencing the broader conversation. Recently I thought I had stumbled on something that was evidence of this influence. A paper entitled Why Do We Do Business? Introducing PC MOB – The People-Centered Model of Business, by Ramla Akhtar.

Unfortunately I was disappointed. The paper was posted in her blog on 6 May 2006. What disappoints me is there seems to be no further development of this model. Ms. Akhtar calls it a first draft, and invites comments and suggestions. I wish there was more, because this has potential. As it stands, there is a lot missing.

Firsts she calls herself a “philosopher, entrepreneur, and teacher.” But, in the paper, she offers no background or bona fides to establish experience, training or authority in these areas. A general search of her name gave me her LinkedIn profile, which lead to another blog and website, none of which indicate furtherance of the topic. I see no training in philosophy, so I do not value that claim. She is on sabbatical until the end of this month, so I hope there will be more on this model.

But my chief issue is with her model not really addressing her premise. This is my assessment, not a fact. Let me explain. She starts with a story about teaching classes in business, and the observation that her students did not learn that money is not the primary reason we do business.

My heart sank. Didn’t they know where the chasers of money end up? Weren’t they listening closely to the secrets of the most successful men and women? Was that all about money?

So her premise is that humans engage in business for some primary reason other than money. She also explains later that money is “…a common denominator, some medium of exchange that is understandable by all.” Further that a “…money-based transaction, when not done for service of the humanitarian kind, is called “business.” That contradicts her main premise by defining business as something excluding service to humanity. I patently disagree with that point of view; to me it is hopeless as it presumes that anyone who requires pay for their service is not serving humanity. I know a few nurses & military personnel who might object.

The model she offers is a diagram dividing human life four zones: Spiritual, Personal-Familial, Socio-Economic, and Eco-Political. Within each zone people act in various roles. She explains that the key element missing from the model is how the roles are expressed. In other words the model itself does nothing to provide guidance for action that will reduce the thrown-ness to money as the purpose for business. But the paper explains to a degree why expression of roles is critical for entrepreneurs, and that the mode of expression will vary from culture to culture. Recognizing these two factors is important, but more development and grounding are needed.

However this division of life into domains and roles within the domains is not new. Steven Covey did it in The 7 Habits and First Things First. What is more he grounded these two in values and real human concerns.

My other objection is that she also reduces non-money transactions as barter arrangements. It seems she is saying that all human interaction is a quid-pro-quo arrangement. “Within a family, barter of services and sacrifices can be arranged…” In other-words, even exchange is the sole motivator for action. That is, to me, a money transaction without money, based on what she says about working outside the family. That proposition scares me.

Next she claims that these zones relate to each other and create the “circle of life.” Spiritual leads to Personal-Familial leads to Socio-Economic leads to Eco-Political, and back to the start. I say that is too linear and temporal (never mind that it is diagrammed as a circle) to engender the complexity of human endeavors.

The remainder of the work has many terms that are not well explained, and declarations that are not well grounded (e.g. “The PC MOB elicits empathy as a reader takes a realistic stock of the people being studied.”). I say the diagram can also be used to leverage an approach to make more money. It is a tool, just as a hammer is a tool that can be wielded for building or destroying.

Yes it is easy to criticize. I think my assessment that the work needs much more development before it can be useful is fairly well grounded. I wrote this in hope of spurring the author and her followers to further develop the model to answer the original question: why humans do business. Dr Flores’ work address the issue from a different vantage point: why we need to view humans as central to all business activity: not why humans do business, but why business is human, and what new skills are needed to make it work better for us all.

Building Trust

2011-03-17T22:59:00.000-07:00

Image: Nutdanai Apikhomboonwaroot

Trust in the workplace has been a hot topic for some time. At some level, we all know what it means to trust, and that trust is important. We have also seen the ‘fall back, I will catch you’ exercise for building trust in teams (usually on a sitcom where the catcher is distracted at the last second creating a predictable laugh-track moment). We can recognize when trust is lacking: micromanagement, not wanting to bring up bad news for fear of reprisal, overly burdensome red tape, etc.

What to do about it? In order to build trust, we must first understand it. One thing that causes major problems is the normal kind of trust we have grown up with. It tends to be an all or nothing game. This blind trust leaves us vulnerable to betrayal, which will generally eliminate the possibility of regaining the trust. The problem with this trust is that it is often leveraged against us in matters that do not meet these criteria. Has anyone close to you ever said “Don’t you trust me?” when discussing a personal matter that is not a relationship killer (like your sibling borrowing your iPod?).

We need a better definition of trust to work in our daily lives and relationships (including at the office). In The Speed of Trust Stephen M.R. Covey likens it to porn, by quoting Jack Welch: “I know it when I feel it.” Yet Covey then goes on to say it is confidence in another’s integrity and ability. In other words, you believe not only that they will do as they say, but they are able to do it. OK, I am all for keeping things simple, but does that definition give us any ability to take different actions? I think there is a better explanation.

Being a fan of Fernando Flores’ work I agree with his view that trust is a conscious assessment of another’s capabilities, commitment, and history of behavior, in a particular domain of action. Those last two are key. I may trust my ten year-old to color inside the lines, but not to drive a car, or cook without supervision. If I tell him no he cannot cook while I am out of the house, and he whines “You don’t trust me,” I have a foundation for an unemotional explanation: he has no history of behavior in that domain…he’s has not shown me he knows what to do to remain safe.

Flores & Robert C. Solomon’s book Building Trust: In Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life, expands the explanation and how the mechanisms of trust work in the areas of emotion, mood and leadership. They call this “authentic trust.” Russ Alberry reviewed the book on his website (highly recommended reading too):

The authors define "authentic trust" as a more complicated model, a type of trust that involves conscious evaluation and builds into the trust the possibility of betrayal. Authentic trust is when one takes into account the capabilities and history of the person being trusted, recognizes a risk, and makes the conscious choice to trust anyway…I think the definitions are useful. When one is reading them, they do seem obvious, but I think they surface a lot of unconscious assumptions. I was intellectually aware that trust is not something that has to stop at the first betrayal of the trust, but it's very easy, particularly in the grip of emotion, to fall back on treating all trust like simple trust.

And there we have it, a strong foundation to recognize how trust works, why it can fail, and how we can move to Authentic Trust, which is sophisticated, reflective, and possible to renew. Having said all of this I must recommend both books referenced above. Using Authentic Trust as a jumping off point, the programs and solutions proposed by Covey can be better implemented.

Ignore Culture at Your Peril

2011-02-28T11:15:00.000-08:00

Image: jscreationzs

Edgar Schein, MIT Professor of Management and author of Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, contends that many of the problems confronting leaders can be traced to their inability to analyze and evaluate organizational cultures. Attempts to create a new vision, or make wholesale organizational changes, fail because they run counter to the culture. Major changes must at least address culture, and they may even require work to change the culture.

What is culture? My favorite definition: it is the presuppositions that make behavior acceptable. Gordon Gecko said "Greed is good." So any behavior that allowed him to make money was OK. The simplicity of this definition is a good foundation for analysis. To me culture is not icons, the furniture, artifacts or values. The physical items indicate the culture. And values certainly drive the presuppositions that make the culture. Of course, understanding values and artifacts is needed to grasp the culture.

Thankfully this topic has been well explored in the organizational context over the last decade. This of course was possible because the broader topic of culture has been a discipline of anthropologists for hundreds of years. There are materials and tools. And of course consultants.

Before searching out consultants, do your research. Washington State University has a good page on the topic. The Free Management Library is also an excellent resource.

Key points to remember:

You cannot change the culture unless you know what it is and how it got that way.
Fix problems, not blame. This principle should be applied in all aspects of the organization (part of the culture). Here it allows total honesty when analyzing culture.
Once you understand the current culture, decide what culture makes sense given your business, market, and stakeholders.
Aggressively align departments, people and processes with the new culture and values.
As quality and process improvement, culture is an ongoing concern. Don't set it and forget it.

EVs: so what?

2011-02-18T16:40:00.000-08:00

Image: Nutdanai Apikhomboonwaroot

Electric Vehicles (EVs) are here, to stay? Nissan delivered the first Leaf to a San Francisco Bay Area resident in December. The first one in Texas arrived in January. Chevrolet delivered the first Volt to a New Jersey resident in December and to the SF Bay Area later that same month.

I remember the Chevy EV1 and the claims GM “killed” the electric car. I think the world was not ready back in the early 90s. Gas was cheaper, tax loopholes subsidized car purchases for small businesses, the economy was better. Infrastructure: we have gas stations at every corner, but how do we charge our cars away from home? Lots of changes have come since then: gas costs more, tougher economy, better batteries, better charging technology, more experience with industrial EVs, and now the smart grid.

But does that all mean the market is there? I say yes mostly, but also no a little bit. The yes is easy: interest is high, and providers are working to meet the demand. The no is more complicated and it comes in three arguments: limited infrastructure, which is tied to “range anxiety,” and consumer awareness (which needs to be improved to sort truth from hype).

I firmly believe EVs are here to stay; the market will mature. The benefits, not only to owners, but to the environment are too strongly believed by the market. I say it that way because there is still debate on many issues. In general I agree with the belief, but some of it is the hype. For example a dottribes blog article gives us hope, but there are points to discuss (the torque matter bears some examination).

And the “no” that I called small? Infrastructure is still a concern, but there is the EV Project, a nation-wide study to develop knowledge and processes to best plan and distribute infrastructure. So the horse/cart relationship will be cleared up. That should further reduce “range anxiety.” But the idea that people are afraid they will get stuck because they run out of juice is a red herring to me. I think the word anxiety is too loaded. I do not remember any reports of problems from the early EV1 owners. It is the same as driving a regular car: you use the vehicle appropriately given your needs and the infrastructure that exists. If you need more than the Leaf can provide in a day, you don’t buy it. EV1 owners just didn’t drive it beyond its range. Seriously how often do you run out of gas? It isn’t because there are so many gas stations; it is because you know where they are and how far you can go in relationship to them. Same issue with EV’s, just fewer places to get juice. But again…that is changing.

So yes, they are here to stay. I, for one, am glad of it. They will improve the environment, reduce our need for oil, stimulate innovation, and create jobs. They may not comes as fast as we expect, the benefits may come slower or faster, there will be issues to deal with and new questions to answer. But the market will mature and expand.

So if you are interested, do some research into the cars and your own needs. If you have an iPhone, get the app that simulates an EV to let you know what you need. Coming soon to Android.

A foundational organizing principle, for IT!?

2011-02-04T14:21:00.000-08:00

No, seriously, I actually mean it. We’ve all heard the consulting world stumping about corporate vision mission and values being necessary for business success. And what company that completes these exercises doesn’t have something that says they value people (employees, customers, both)? Especially here in the USA, where most industry pundits talk about supporting knowledge workers as being a holy grail for management.

So given that you value employees, their talents and creativity and want to support their knowledge work, what is your foundational principle for Information technology? I wager that most of you do not have one. Actually, more to the point, you do, but instead of formulating it yourself, it was delivered to you by your hardware/software vendors.

Image: Suat Eman

How did this happen? I believe it is because we look at work in terms of problems and solutions separate from the people who create/need them. Get the tool and we fix the problem, we can manipulate the document (information) and that is what knowledge workers do. After all isn’t work the manipulation of things across time? Perhaps; but bees do that too, and their society hasn’t really changed much in a few thousand years. Human society has and the rate of change is logarithmic.

And, oddly enough, one thing we share with bees, is that we get work done, by interacting on an individual to individual (and individual to group) basis. The problem is we still view those interactions as manipulating things. Person A transmits words to person B. This view is thing centric, not people centric. And that thing, in terms of your IT infrastructure is the document, not what it is supposed to enable your people to do, or why it exists. I bet you still think of your computing infrastructure as analogous to a file cabinet, and workflow means moving a document along a timeline of tasks that manipulate it. Chew up the pollen and spit it in a cell and it turns to honey. Yay.

Let’s take a different view. Let’s put people and their concerns at the center of everything, as your value statement says. Start there and we can ask why does the document exist, what actions does it enable, what relationships, entities, and products can we create? Bill Welty, CEO of Action Technologies, Inc., wrote an article in the October 2005 edition of Business Integration Journal, entitled BPM in the Real World: How Person-to-Person Interactions Support the Knowledge Worker. According to Welty knowledge workers comprised 52% of the workforce in 2004, versus a bit more than 10% in 1904.

“It’s too bad most workflow software packages weren’t designed with knowledge workers in mind. Instead, they were created using a command and control methodology in which managers simply assign tasks and check to see that work is completed. This approach works perfectly if you’re trying to run a factory or a typing pool. But these products are totally inadequate for organizations that rely on knowledge workers.”

OK, so what is the difference? People centric models more accurately reflect what people do when creativity and development are required. They allow for negotiation, building agreement, managing commitments, and building trust. Task based systems do not engender collaboration nor coordination. Yes you can collaborate on a document in SharePoint by capturing versions. But the negotiation, and commitments are not accounted for in SharePoint, and they are virtually invisible unless you save every email as a file related to that document. Heck you can only assign a document to a category if a category is a folder to put the document in.

That’s why I like IBM’s Lotus Notes & Domino approach. Ed Brill, Director, Messaging and Collaboration, IBM Lotus Software, writes in his blog:

“In IBM's world, the person and their work results are the center of the universe. Right click on a mail message in Notes 8.x, and the first menu choice is the human who authored the mail -- and ways to enhance your interaction with that human. Sure, Lotus Connections can store file attachments, but the fundamental unit of measure there is a person -- with their activities and interests.” “We didn't simply say we want to take a word processor/spreadsheet/presentation tool to the web -- we examined how we could make the act of using these tools more productive for the humans on either end. We are focusing on the future of collaboration based on social analytics and a move away from the inbox, towards a much-more productive world of relevant content and information.”

With this approach, IBM has committed to providing these solutions in a manner which do not dictate platform. If people are the main concern, then why force them to use one server operating system? Why force them to migrate to new hardware or operating systems with every new release? Why force them to wait three years for new feature releases?

So I ask again, what is your foundational principle for IT?

Consultants' web resources.

2011-02-01T14:31:00.000-08:00

Image: graur razvan ionut

I've been dabbling with website development since 1998. It started out of necessity as a consultant and program manager for an IBM/Lotus business partner. Part of my job required not only Lotus Notes development (using Lotus Script), but adding content to the company website. I'll be blunt, even though it was rewarding to solve a script/HTML issue to get the desired results, I hated coding. I found it tedious, and frustrating. There were other folks who loved it, and were loads better.

Since then I have been keeping aware of tools and services that make it easy to build and host websites. Not because canned sites are necessarily better, but because they are good starting points for getting online & building your business. If they are free or cheap, even better.

Blogger.com is a case in point. Free and easy. No need to pay for a domain or pay for hosting. You can add advertising, and affiliate marketing functionality to earn some money. If you have a domain, you can use WordPress, a free tool, to set up a blog. You can monetize your WordPress blog too.

If you want to have your own website, you need to buy a domain, and have it hosted. We've all seen the rather adolescent GoDaddy ads. If not, you will soon if you watch the SuperBowl on Sunday. As compelling as cleavage shots may be, I am not all that impressed with the company's offerings. I find they use teasers that get you in, but the total cost of ownership is more than other providers. However, 1&1 Internet, Inc. impresses me. They offer domain names and site hosting, at the best rates in the industry. They are big and reliable. (Full disclosure: if you order anything from them, please use the links here, they will give me a referral fee.)

Once you have a domain, you need to get a site designed. I suggest Wix, a free site builder that is flash enabled. It is very easy to use, and there are tons of templates. The only drawback is using this tool limits your design flexibility somewhat. But getting online and in front of customers fast makes this my first choice. You can have a site up and running NOW...you can then redirect from you 1&1 domain to your Wix site. You do not need your own domain to use Wix, but it is nice because the free Wix domain creates a URL that is a little awkward. Wix does offer domain hosting your own domain for your Wix site, but this costs too much for my tastes. Going with 1&1, and redirecting to Wix is a good start until you can find a web design service to create that really professional presence that will go on the 1&1 server when you sign up for their hosting.

So for consultants to get on line quickly, and start building a brand and reputation quickly (and getting a few dollars from advertising and affiliate programs) Blogging, 1&1 and Wix are quick, easy, and cheap (or free). I highly recommend you investigate them (and order your 1&1 through my links above :-).

Book - How We Decide

2011-01-31T18:01:00.000-08:00

Adapted from Amazon.com:

Buy from Amazon

Since Plato, philosophers have described the decision making process as either rational or emotional: we carefully deliberate or we "blink" and go with our gut. But as scientists break open the mind’s black box, they’re discovering that is not how the mind works. Our best decisions are a finely tuned blend of both feeling and reason—; the precise mix depends on the situation. The trick is to determine when to lean on which. Jonah Lehrer arms us with the tools we need, drawing on cutting-edge research as well as the real-world experiences...His goal, to answer two questions: How does the human mind make decisions? And how can we make those decisions better?

A very accessible, well-written overview of the current views that emotions are in integral part of rationality. While the information is not exactly new, this book is well researched, documented, and organized with a narrative structure that makes it easy to understand. If you are interested in improving your thinking, helping your clients improve their business performance, or understanding why machines cannot think like people, you must get this book. Seriously, everyone who owns a brain should read it.

Available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, and Borders

Defining? Leadership (& Management)

2011-01-28T19:11:00.000-08:00

Image: jscreationzs

I am always concerned when we set to define something so ethereal, because when we draw distinctions, which we must to give us a framework for observing that which we are defining, we also limit it. So how does one go about defining leadership? Two main themes to address this are what leaders do, and distinguishing between leadership and management.

For example Abraham Zaleznik in 1977, wrote an article in Harvard Business Review that addresses Leaders vs. Managers. From the Best of HBR:

"The difference between managers and leaders lies in the conceptions they hold, deep in the psyches, of chaos and order. Managers embrace process, seek stability and control, and instinctively try to resolve problems quickly - sometimes before they fully understand a problem's significance. Leaders, in contrast, tolerate chaos and lack of structure and are willing to delay closure in order to understand the issues more fully in this way. Zalenznik argued business leaders have much more in common with artists, scientists and other creative thinkers than they do with managers. Organizations need both managers and leaders to succeed, but developing both requires a reduced focus on logic and strategic exercises in favour of an environment where creativity and imagination are permitted to flourish."

My problem with this view is it seems to define managers and leaders as individuals who can be only one or the other. Does this mean managers cannot lead, or leaders cannot manage? Are managers not creative? You probably react the same way I do to those questions: silly, of course leaders can manage & vice-versa, of course managers can be creative. What about "individual leadership?" Well I'll get to that.

OK then, so let's approach this through the lens of roles. That way anyone can be either a leader or a manager. So now we still need to define leadership as a role. Warren Bennis, in his book "On Becoming a Leader" describes what leaders and managers do:

The manager administers; the leader innovates.
The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
The manager maintains; the leader develops.
The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.
The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon.
The manager imitates; the leader originates.
The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.
The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Nice set of distinctions, and as roles we can allow for a CEO (a leader primarily) to be concerned with the bottom line. Think about driving your family to Tahoe. While in that left seat you are controlling the car, your kids trust you not to get in a wreck and you are working on the short range (next stop light) and the long range (getting to King's Beach). So we can recognize that both roles can operate in the same person at the same time. I think we can conclude therefore both are important and required. One cannot function without the other.

(BTW: that penultimate bullet kinda irks me, the US military prides itself on giving its members the tools to use their judgment in their jobs (we follow orders, but we understand the mission, so we can execute on our own if needed.)

I'm sure some of you are thinking about qualities of leaders, but I do not want to get into the debate about what they are, or whether they are nature or nurture. I believe that there is no list of qualities that can be drawn up that we all will agree on, that make a leader. Each leader is too different to make this conversation not be an argument. And some qualities can be developed, and some require at least the seed to be there already. Then we throw on top of that style. Makes my head swim. Besides, it all seems too prescriptive. That is to say if I identify an individual with the "right" qualities, they will be a good leader. I doubt it because it does not take into account context and circumstances. Great leaders fail too (but they sure are not afraid to risk failing).

Now that we have some idea about what leaders do, we can start talk about how they do it. My personal favorite book on this is American Generalship by Edgar F Puryear. He asserts:

Leaders surround themselves with trusted advisers who are not "yes men"
Leaders read to understand history, their industry, trends and where they fit in the world
Leaders maintain contact with all echelons of their organization (management by walking around)
Leaders make decisions in a timely manner because of all the above
Leaders work hard to take care of their people

So there you have it, or not. The real reason I stop here in the effort to follow the existing literature is because I tend to agree with Henry Mintzberg, the Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. Leadership is overemphasized. In Debunking Management Myths, Mintzberg says,

"...ever since the distinction was made...attention focused on leadership. My view is that management without leadership is disheartening or discouraging. And leadership without management is disconnected, because if you lead without managing, you don’t know what’s going on. It’s management that connects you to what’s going on. We can make the distinction between leadership and management conceptually, but in practice I don’t think we should."

Again, back to driving the car on a family vacation. So why make the distinctions at all? Because each role requires different levels of thinking and acting. Developing those capacities (through training and practice), and knowing the distinctions will allow you to observe yourself and how you act in those roles and move between them or act simultaneously in them.

But for what purpose, what is the point? Here is where we get into allowing for individual leadership, and I think this is the best definition of all. In their book Failsafe Leadership, Linda Martin and Dr. David G. Mutchler boil it down to this: Leaders produce desired results consistently over time. Using that as the definition of leadership allows for personal leadership in your job, the organizational framework for evaluating employees and training them to be successful, defining goals at all levels, how to communicate to get work done, and how to develop leaders for the future. I think it puts the right emphasis on leadership, and allows us to focus on learning how to produce results without getting hung up on whether we need to focus more on management. Because if the how gives us the results, then we are doing both well. As individuals, we can evaluate all training (and experience) on how it helps us produce results.

This does not exclude managers from being leaders, just the opposite. So how do we define managing in light of this new definition of leadership? Perhaps in another posting. Meanwhile lead well, with compassion.