Writes of Passage

Listening to Leaders

2010-11-02T14:13:00.003-07:00

Here's a free opportunity to listen to 30+ leader/authors on the subject of leadership. Over the two days (Nov 3 & 4) you can watch on demand videos whenever you have the time!
Have fun!

When Acceptable is Not Acceptable

2010-04-22T10:23:00.003-07:00

Work place standards v. what we really want to happen

Recently I was leading a workshop on skills and process to address poor performance and defined the trigger for initiating the process as performance or behaviour that is “below acceptable standards”. We talked about the usual things like ensuring that people knew what the acceptable standards were and how they were measured. This led to an interesting discussion on standards - how they get set and how to change them, and if that is possible in their environment - in this case, healthcare.

What happens when the standard in practice, or the desired standard, is higher than the espoused standard? How does a leader evaluate a person’s skills and performance when there is more than one standard in play?

Two situations were of particular interest – I’m sure there are more – and generated a whole bunch of questions that were outside the scope of the workshop.

1. Work standard may not be a “standard of excellence”

For example, in hospitals taking 2 attempts to start an IV meets acceptable standards. Wouldn’t the standard of excellence be “first time”? Employee may never get an IV started on the first attempt and as long as they always get it going on the second attempt they are performing to standards. I know which one I would prefer as a patient.

2. Team norm is higher than the work standard

For a team engaged in the pursuit of high performance, how do new team members understand that although there is a work standard, they are expected to perform above it? What can the leader do if they don’t?

In both cases, it makes it harder for team leaders to work with an employee that performs to “work standard” without any attempt to meet the higher standard. If they don’t address it there is a chance that the lower standard will become THE standard if other team members become discouraged.

What advice would you give the leader to help them engage the “acceptable” performer while still supporting the higher standard?

The Eighth Opportunity

2009-05-26T14:13:00.003-07:00

Before I start let me make it clear - I am a huge fan of Lean principles and philosophies as part of the complex path to organizational excellence. I applaud the engagement of the people doing the work in making the work better. I find that people can easily grasp the idea of the Wastes and come up with ideas for their environment. I love the guiding framework of the 5Ss and the clear leadership required to create context in the organization.

So what's the problem?

I've seen one too many Lean presentations on successful initiatives where they talk about the seven wastes and give a nod to the eighth (human skills, abilities and experience) saying they know it's there but didn't include it.

Why not?! In our rush to be efficient in the light of previously predicted people shortages (maybe not now - who can tell), we are overlooking the potential of people we already have. The old customer service adage used to say that it's cheaper to sell to an existing customer than to a new one. I haven't got the numbers for recruitment but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may apply to existing people resources as well.

Is there anyone out there working in this area in conjunction with lean philosophy and initiatives in their organization? I would love to talk to you.

The time it takes to change what's your time horizon?

2009-05-25T19:37:00.003-07:00

In a recent keynote speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, Peter Senge remarked that our management time horizon is shorter than our change horizon or, in other words, change takes longer than the average manager stays in the job. He also talked about what he calls our “boundaries of concern” which defines who we care about and for how long. Senge challenged us to extend our boundaries from our family and city block and include to the implications of our actions globally and for the future.

In an age where 20 year old buildings can be designated as heritage* it seems that no one is willing to build cathedrals anymore.

Enter the Long Now Foundation with the goal of promoting "slower/better" thinking and fostering responsibility “in the framework of the next 10,000 years”. One of the founders, Stuart Brand, makes the point that when he was a child “people used to talk about what would happen by the year 2000. For the next thirty years they kept talking about what would happen by the year 2000, and now no one mentions a future date at all.”

Remembering being riveted by the futuristic idea of 1984 and what might happen? I take his point … what dates are on your time horizon now? Mine is 2011 when we have been told that there will be more people leaving the workforce than joining it – I need to get out more.

Brand goes on to say “The future has been shrinking by one year per year for my entire life. I think it is time for us to start a long-term project that gets people thinking past the mental barrier of an ever-shortening future. I would like to propose a large (think Stonehenge) mechanical clock, powered by seasonal temperature changes. It ticks once a year, bongs once a century, and the cuckoo comes out every millennium."

So they built one. The Long Now Foundation is already on their second prototype (moving a little fast there aren’t you boys?) and, realizing that a clock with such a long context in time needs support for longer term content, is now developing the 10,000-year library.

Their guidelines are remarkably similar to the key characteristics of companies that have survived more than 200 years:

Identity – sense of who we are transcends what we do
Tolerance – openness to what we don’t know
Fiscal conservation – maintain control of their destiny
Sensitivity to environment – larger sense of responsibility as a natural by product of how they operate
Serve the long view (and the long viewer)
Foster responsibility
Reward patience
Mind mythic depth
Ally with competition
Take no sides
Leverage longevity

Learn more about their thinking at http://www.longnow.org/

Incidentally, the Long Now Foundation uses five digit dates, the extra zero is to solve the deca-millennium bug which will come into effect in about 8,000 years.

What's your "boundary of concern"?

* see this link for Vancouver’s criteria and a 2006 list of heritage registered buildings, monuments, parks and trees http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Guidelines/V001.pdf

On being average

2008-01-04T12:44:00.000-08:00

Chris Koch, editor CIO magazine talks about the applicability of a traditional IT benchmark measure of cost/spending against revenue and what it means to be in the middle of the range for your industry. He speculates that if you are mid range you probably aren't spending effectively and that companies finding themselves close to their industry average in spending should be concerned. Noting that many IT benchmarks reflect only new spending and do not include the cost of maintaining what you already have, Koch says

"Average may simply mean you are managing neither piece well. Being in the middle shouldn’t be a comfort."

and to take the message home, he quotes a CSC study which found that

"companies that spend much less than the average [on IT] are three times more successful than those in the middle. And companies that spend much more than the average are six times more successful."

There are problems with external benchmarks, mostly related to knowing whether or not you are comparing apples and apples, and not all companies find value in using them. The currently popular Lean approach to process excellence, for example, ignores other industry benchmarks and measures only against itself.

Perhaps the lesson is not about benchmarking.

Highly effective organizations have strategies and plans which drive the resource allocations year over year. If companies spending more and less than average are achieving better results, could it possibly be that the average spenders are not targetting their budgets, IT and otherwise, towards specific goals? Could it be that they don't have clear objectives?

I suspect that all too often in "average" organizations, the budget is the plan.

Is There Too Little "Know Why" In Business?

2007-02-12T09:10:00.000-08:00

Is There Too Little "Know Why" In Business?
Published: February 2, 2007
Author: Jim Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor at Harvard Business School.

"Two recent books offer views of the roles of managers and leaders. The first, Know-How, by Ram Charan, sets forth eight behaviors exhibited by managers who get things done. The second, Purpose, by Nikos Mourkogiannis, could really have been titled "Know Why." It describes four kinds of purpose, "starting points" that govern what great companies do and how they do it. Each of these purposes represents a kind of "holy grail" as opposed to goals (often merely financial), missions or visions, or even a set of values. As Mourkogiannis puts it, "Let others play with 'strategy' and 'tactics' and 'management.' Purpose is the game of champions." "

According to this theory, truly transformational purpose can be found in: (1) discovery, the challenge of adventure and innovation characterized by dot-com entrepreneurs willing to work 24/7 in search of the new or unknown, (2) excellence, in which high standards are not compromised for short-term performance (as with Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett), (3) altruism, where the primary purpose is to serve (customers, employees, etc.) first and assume that profit will follow (as at Nordstrom), and (4) heroism, typically involving grand plans to change entire industries or even the way we live (Bill Gates and Microsoft).

The argument is that only one of these purposes, if pursued rigorously and successfully, is required for greatness. Putting mere goals, such as primarily making money, before purpose gets us an Enron or a Worldcom. The pity, according to Mourkogiannis, is that true purpose could have enabled these organizations to make even greater "real" profits than those they reported.

One curious aspect of the book is that relatively few examples are cited to illustrate purpose in the for-profit world. Several are used repeatedly, perhaps in part to suggest the complexities of establishing purpose in an organization. Among these, the choices included examples such as BP and The Body Shop, suggesting that purpose, a requirement for greatness, is no guarantee of long-term respect and performance.

Purpose is powerful when it comes to attracting and inspiring employees, centering a company's activities, or guiding strategic change. Executives talk about and seek these things for their companies all the time. But how much purpose do we find even at the top of a typical organization? Can we aspire to a strong sense of "know why" even if our organization is not out to change the world? In terms described here, how strong is purpose in your organization? Is there too little "know why" in business? If so, why? What do you think?

Forty years of The Effective Executive - Appreciate our Strengths

2006-05-04T10:14:00.000-07:00

I realized a few days ago that it is 40 years since the late Peter Drucker first published a slim volume called the "The Effective Executive" . He held several consistent messages over the years, one of which was to focus on people's strengths so that their weaknesses were irrelevant.
Yet we still persist in measuring what is least powerful in each of us and attempting to solve the problem through "training". Let's take a moment to follow his good advice - find something that someone (yourself maybe?) does well and make it even stronger. Mastery is an admirable long term goal and yet the ongoing pleasure of learning more about something we do well and are interested in may be even more rewarding.

The effective executive makes strength productive. He knows that one cannot build on weakness. To achieve results, one has to use all the available strengths -- the strengths of associates, the strengths of the superior, and one’s own strengths. These strengths are the true opportunities. To make strength productive is the unique purpose of organization. It cannot, of course, overcome the weaknesses with which each of us is abundantly endowed. But it can make them irrelevant. Its task is to use the strength of each man as a building block for joint performance

Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive, 1966

After 40 years wouldn't you think we might finally get it?

Mantras and Affirmations

2006-03-27T09:20:00.000-08:00

Now here's a convoluted thought - are affirmations really negative statements that link us squarely to exactly what we don't want?

Robert Fritz has an interesting and disparaging take on affirmations (Path of Least Resistance p. 105.) He believes that, rather than creating the positive image, repeating the "affirming statement" constantly confirms the existence of the negative. He gives example such as "the universe supports me" suggesting that if you really, fundamentally believed that you wouldn’t have to repeat it to force your mind to accept the thought. He holds that every time you make the affirmation, you are actually creating an image of not being supported by the universe. (There's much more... to do with the conscious and unconscious mind).

So what’s the difference between a mantra and an affirmation?

In my limited understanding, an affirmation is a statement that is designed to create a deliberate belief in the conscious mind. A mantra seems to be more uniquely personal, perhaps coming from within. Is it a guiding expression that helps you to access your deepest beliefs rather than a way to create them?

Are mantras a short form of a appreciative inquiry - a connection to a personal possibility statement? Hmmm.....

Noticing what I notice

2005-12-21T15:37:00.001-08:00

Leveraging the Power of the Image - turn on your Reticular Activation System!

How do we cope in these days of information and sensory excess – that constant flow through eyes, ears, nose and touch? Even the sharpest mind can only conciously deal with a few things at a time without overloading. Fortunately, there’s a screening device in our heads called the Reticular Activation System (RAS). This group of cells in the brain filters out the 99% of unimportant data and feeds the remaining 1% to our conscious mind. RAS uses rules and criteria which we establish, deliberately or not, to determine the content of that 1% and therefore to govern what we notice.

RAS is very good at what it does. For example - have you ever suddenly seen something you hadn’t noticed before, yet it was there all along? You just bought a new car in what you thought was an unusual colour and suddenly every fourth car on the road is the same make - and the same colour - as yours. This is your filter system (RAS) in action. When something becomes important to us, we notice more of it.

As we tend to get more of what we focus on, it’s critical that the rules and priorities we give to our RAS are designed to get us what we want, instead of more of what we don’t want. We can train RAS by being concious of asking better questions.

According to Mark Wigginton, an Austin, Texas-based personal development coach "The questions you ask yourself will determine how the Reticular Activation System will respond to your search. If you ask yourself, ‘Why can’t I seem to find a job?’ your brain will hand you a list of seemingly valid reasons why you aren’t moving forward. As you bring the reasons you can’t progress to the forefront of your mind, your RAS will automatically seek out reinforcement. ‘I can’t make progress because of conflicts with my schedule, my family responsibilities, I don’t know the right people, etc.’ But if you ask yourself, ‘What one thing can I do today to move my job search forward?’ your RAS will lead you toward the results you want.”

How Do Visual Cues Work?

Visual images hold amazing power.

First, let’s look at how the brain processes information. The mind simply can’t keep up with the 36 million bits of visual data that bombard it every second so the conscious mind doesn’t bother trying. It simply passes most of the info along to be processed somewhere else. According to brain specialist Amy K Hutchens, 99% of learning is done on a non-conscious level. “That’s a fancy way of saying that vision dominates your brain activity and behaviors.” she says, “Basically, what we see can determine how we act”.

That’s good…except that what we see is also a result of what we believe. That makes more sense if we look at the missing link – what our eyes “see”, the information that is sent to the brain, must be processed and categorized somehow in order to be meaningful.

In addition to a reticular activation system, which is a physical cellular structure, each of us has a frame of reference created by among other things our life experiences, value sets, and beliefs systems. Sometimes called a mental model, this is each person’s unique lens through which they view the world. It is by testing information against this frame of reference that we create meaning for ourselves and through this lens we attempt to understand what we “see”. If the incoming information does not fit with our frame of reference, there is a good chance that we will reject it. In other words, we will only see what we already believe.

Seeing The Good Stuff

The “reticular activation system” (RAS) sorts through those millions of bits of data, making sure that you’re only aware of certain things and details you do not want to miss – those things that you have established as important - such as hearing your name in a crowd. If you are only going to get one percent of all that information, it is essential your RAS is clear on what it needs to look for and let you know about.

Unlock the Genius Within

In his recent book, “The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”, James Newman, Harvard Professor and expert on the human mind, proposes that the brain was originally designed to be bicameral- meaning, we could use both sides of the brain. Somewhere along the way, he explains, the brain functions literally broke in half and we lost that ability to use both sides of the brain. Newman proposes a solution to doubling our brainpower by learning to use our Reticular Activation System. Knowing how to turn this system on is the secret of teaching your brain how to accumulate all the knowledge on a given subject you need- thus, you develop “genius like” powers, and have all the knowledge you need to become an expert, on any given subject. Bernard Baars at the Colorado Neurological Institute describes this technique as contrastive analysis. He claims that it’s possible to give the brain a framework for differentiating conscious and unconscious processing.

The Knowledge is in the Room

Our brains accumulate an amazing amount of knowledge and take in a tsunami of information every day. Your brain uses the priorities, which you consciously or unconsciously fed to it, to determine the past and present information that is most relevant to help you achieve your goals.

Todd Beeler, a highly successful NLP trainer and a sales coach, compares this function of the brain to a computer. If you are looking for information on goal setting and you do a search only in your own computer, you might find the few articles you happened to save for future reference. Handy, but you are only using a fraction of the computer’s potential. Ask the same computer to search on the internet and in a matter of seconds it will find an extraordinary amount of information on goal setting from around the world.

Your Reticular Activation System is similar to a sophisticated search engine. As we know from internet searches, the better the search criteria, the better and more relevant the information found. By actively setting your priorities – or search terms – you consciously program your RAS to focus on bringing to your attention the relevant information from a flood of sensory input. So, how do you super charge your RAS and unlock the amazing data gathering potential in all of us? Todd’s suggestions include:

1- Be as specific as possible about your challenge and create a powerful question designed to get you what you want. Remember that your RAS will understand the question as the priority. Asking “why can’t I” will find all the why-not reasons and problems. Asking “ What do I need to achieve…” will find the enabling data.
2- Describe the outcome you want in as much detail as possible and set a deadline for getting answers. Focus your RAS entirely on the ideal outcome you desire and all the good that is going to come from it. Including the benefits of the preferred future produces positive emotions that help to engage your RAS even more effectively.
3- Have faith in the process. Stay alert and open to the information you receive. You are asking for something you don’t have now so you may be challenged to do something new to get it.
4- Do something with the information you get. Follow those hunches! Have the courage to act, otherwise you are telling your RAS that this was not really a priority and weakening the conscious process.

Think about a time when it seemed that all your ducks were lining up in a row without much effort on your part. Was there a time when what you needed seemed to magically appear? Understanding how your own internal mechanisms work to support your real intention could perhaps make that happen more often. Instead of “putting it out to the Universe” put it to your reticular activation system.

Be careful what you ask for – you just may get it!

Realisation - Operational effectiveness

2005-11-01T09:17:00.000-08:00

According to Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business School Professor and strategy expert , success requires both the right strategy and "operational effectiveness". Porter is credited with coining the term "organizational effectiveness" as defines it as about continuously improving functional performance.

"Managers must clearly distinguish operational effectiveness from strategy. Both are essential, but the two agendas are different. The operational agenda involves continual improvement everywhere there are no trade-offs. Failure to do this creates vulnerability even for companies with a good strategy. The operational agenda is the proper place for constant change, flexibility, and relentless efforts to achieve best practice. In contrast, the strategic agenda is the right place for defining a unique position, making clear trade-offs, and tightening fit."

Porter says that managers must "lead and control the functional activities within the organisation, measure and improve the processes that they are responsible for, and leverage those processes through standardisation, communication and automation to then close the loop to provide ever increasing efficiency and effectiveness."

See the rest of this article on an interesting Oz web site "Realisation".

We are coming more and more to understand that managers must manage and that these responsibilities cannot be devolved to specialist groups. Like the old retail situation when I was told by a sales person "Oh no, we don't do Customer Service. You have to go to the Customer Service department" when we remove the accountability for effectiveness from the working manager, we remove ownership, erode commitment and take all the pride and passion out of the job.

So for those of us involved in change ...and that's all of us... it means that managers need support, coaching, training and ongoing opportunities to continue to learn about effectiveness. They need opportunities to come together and share - opportunity for a community of practice to grow perhaps. Rather than making another group responsible for hiring, performance improvement, process management etc. smart organizations are skilling their managers in what they need to build an effective organization.

But don't forget strategy, innovation and alignment - the framework that the manager needs to make those key decision. And although this approach seperates development of strategy from operationalizing it on the basis that it's hard to do both at the same time, we still need ways to hear from people and ensure that they are connected to the strategic framework.

Or do we..... ?

Inquiry is The Heart of Persuasion

2005-07-14T08:06:00.000-07:00

In a heart warming admission of how she got it all wrong with a client, Susan Cramm points out the total uselessness of "telling" as a form of persuasion...and generating business. In what she refers to as a "PowerPoint-induced haze" and in spite of very obvious clues, she plowed ahead with her presentation in an attempt to assist a client to get support from her boss. In "The Heart of Persuasion - Editorial" (CIO online magazine) Susan reminds herself and us that

"Persuasion is a process that starts with credibility. Credibility comes from listening to people to understand them and respect their points of view. You must address both sides of persuasion by spending as much time on the negotiation and learning process as you would on the content of your solution. If you do so, you will spend less time with your computer and more time with people, listening to their views... If you start with effective inquiry, you can transition to advocacy once you know what issues or opportunities are important to your audience."

Robert Middleton, of Action Plan Marketing, reminds us also that as consultants too often we rush to explain to the client who we are and what we do. Why not listen, he says, and let them talk about their needs and situation. From a work generating perspective, they are telling you what it is that they want you to do for them. Makes the proposal so much easier to write so much more likely to be accepted.

Try it with your partner, teenager and co-workers. Inquiry is a powerful tool that doesn't need batteries, or complicated training, just a genuine desire to learn. How simple is that?

Inquiry as Strategy - Drawing in the Opposition

2005-07-13T09:11:00.000-07:00

In the April issue of McKinsey Quarterly is a great article on the benefits of inclusion. (The McKinsey Quarterly: Controversy Incorporated: "Learn to work with not around stakeholders"). It points to a common strategy of essentially trying to buy off opposition with "gifts and grand gestures" and compares that to understanding opposition as a source of information for progressive and mutually productive strategies.
The article gives a couple of opposites as examples:

Cargill's initial entry into the market for sunflower seeds in India. Starting in the early 1990s, this activity generated bitter political opposition, and Cargill offices in that country were set on fire twice. The company's response was to teach Indian farmers how to improve their crop yields. As a result, the productivity of the local farmers increased by more than 50 percent. Once Cargill had provided them with a palpable economic benefit, they understood that the company aspired to be their partner rather than their exploiter.

and

Monsanto's effort to create markets for genetically modified seeds. The company was bitterly opposed by farmers in developing countries who feared becoming dependent on a single supplier of expensive seed. Instead of accommodating these concerns, Monsanto responded with an effort to publicize scientific evidence about the benefits of genetically modified seeds, but few of the farmers believed that the scientists supporting the company's claims were truly independent. Arguably, Monsanto lost the opportunity by pressing its claim too hard too. Buffeted by a steady backlash in developing and developed markets alike, the company lost almost half of its market capitalization in the year to September 1999, and a few months later it was acquired.

The Monsanto approach to resistance is common and assumes that "if you just know more you will agree with me" and "it's your lack of information (and understanding) that is causing you to resist". In contrast, the Cargill response strategy was "seek first to understand (Covey)" and deliver a win/win relationship-building solution.

It's interesting to see how a priority on learning, rather than a focus on winning, results in more wins all round. Instead of " how can we get what we want?" maybe a more productive question is "how can we find out what it is that we need to know?" And for a truly successful outcome, throw out the deficit thinking and incorporate a genuine spirit of abundance. There is enough for all when we work together and care about each other's success.

Appreciative Inquiry and Data

2005-06-23T11:31:00.000-07:00

Dr. Roni Horowitz works with a technique called ASIT for creative problem solving and frequently poses interesting scenarios. While admitting that I don't always understand the solutions and am somewhat mathematically challenged, sometimes I do "get it" and appreciate the approach. The latest newsletters are about the theories of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, the human need to categorize information and the difficulty of transferring learning from one category to another. One of the outcomes of this tendency is that when "problem solving" we naturally look at that information categorized as "related to the problem". As Dr. Horowitz says

The problem is that some information may not seem relevant to the PROBLEM, but may be highly relevant to the SOLUTION.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the successes of the appreciative inquiry approach? AI examines information in the context of the solution and causes us to accesses that data set that we have categorized, consciously or not, as related to solutions. In this process we look at problem related data, but presumably only data that also relates to solutions plus solution related data that we would not access in the problem category.

Maybe in our information overloaded world, this is one of the reasons that AI seems to generate energy and movement. It gets us past that "analysis paralysis" of trying to figure out what data might mean and moves to an inquiry into how to get more of what we want. Asking "what do we need to know" in the context of the solution, guides what we need to measure and what numbers are important. Hopefully (funny how it always comes to that leap of faith) this broader data set, supports the possibilities of generating multiple solutions across different disciplines. And to emphasise for the "Yeah Butters" who still say that AI ignores tough problems - problem related data is synthesized/analysed in context of the potential solutions or desired outcome, it is not ignored.

There's more. For the full quote from Dr. Horowitz...

" We need categories to be able to handle the huge amount of information we use and control. That's why we have a hierarchy of folders and files in our computer, and that's why universities are categorized into faculties and departments. I remember seeing a quote mentioning that it's a pity
nature isn't divided into the same categories as universities. Categorization helps us, but can also prevent us from using what we know about one field in another. There is a well known problem in education called the transference problem. If you teach something in one context, students most likely will not be able to use that knowledge in another. Have you ever had the experience of having met someone regularly in a particular place but found it difficult to recognize him in another?

A rigid budget system is also organized hierarchically according to categories. Even individuals unconsciously create a budget system. In one of their experiments K&T found that if a person purchases theater tickets at say, $100 and accidentally loses them, he will NOT buy new tickets. But if that person lost $100 he would still go and buy the theater tickets on the same day. The explanation is that after purchasing the tickets, the money already "belongs" to the theater budget. When lost, new tickets are not purchased because the "theater budget" has been spent. When losing $100, the money had not yet been "assigned" to a certain budget category, so the theater budget is still available.

When solving problems we also use a categorization system to help us deal with the vast amount of data involved. For example, we make an almost automatic distinction between what's relevant to the problem and what's not.

The problem is that some information may not seem relevant to the PROBLEM, but may be highly relevant to the SOLUTION. ASIT, by forcing us to consider ALL elements of the problem's closed world helps us loosen up this rigid distinction.

Sign up for Dr. Roni Horowitz's ASIT TECHNIQUE FOR A WEEK - Creativity and Inventive Thinking Number 230
June 23, 2005 http://www.start2innovate.com
--------------------------------------------------

HBS Working Knowledge: Leadership: Don't Listen to "Yes"

2005-06-11T11:33:00.000-07:00

If people smile, nod, and say 'yes' at your company, maybe it's time to start an argument. According to HBS professor Michael Roberto, the lack of good, constructive conflict within an organization makes it that much harder to accurately evaluate business ideas and make important decisions.

"Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer: Managing for Conflict and Consensus (Wharton School Publishing)" looks at the results of not creating an atmosphere where disagreement is encouraged and explored. On the premise that constructive conflict, when leveraged well, surfaces more information, Roberto outlines steps to spark positive conflict (emphasis always on "positive"), hear all views and then make decisions. 'Keeping conflict constructive helps to build decision commitment, and therefore facilitates implementation,' says Roberto.

Hmmm...we know that inclusion, encourages participation and participation builds commitment. Exclusion creates resistance and unconstructive criticism - imagine all those left out people standing on the side lines, arms folded and yelling at the referee.

In the context of the "Wisdom of the Crowd", maybe there is a role for a caring devils advocate who's sole job is to make sure that "group think" means that the group is really thinking? Maybe uncontested concensus is a slippery slope to complacency and on to entropy...hmmm.

The Zen of Management Maintenance: Leadership Starts with Self-Discovery

2005-05-10T10:09:00.000-07:00

According to Jagdish Parikh (HBS MBA '54), the gap between what everyone learns about leadership and what they actually experience exposes a fundamental flaw in leadership models today. The qualities that genuine leaders possess and what makes inspiring leaders so rare are not innate characteristics. Rather, he believes, they are skills that aspiring leaders can and should actually teach themselves, such as self-knowledge and self-mastery. Self-knowledge and self-mastery can be developed through conscientious practice.
It's interesting that after the barrage of the leadership styles, labels ,methods and cute observations , the orginal messages of leadership as an inner journey, are again to the forefront of discussion and advice. We have had the real message. First lead yourself...it's a great way to practice and you may be the most difficult "follower" you encounter.

The duality of being both differentiated and connected (Ron Short) creates the two complimentary sides of the positive leadership coin. Differentiated - clear personal knowledge, values and accountabilities - and connected - relationship focused, servant leader and talented listener. Now who wouldn't want to follow someone like that?

Make your own luck. Hold or Fold? Sizing Up Risk... and making decisions

2005-05-10T09:28:00.000-07:00

"Every bet, large or small, corporate or personal, puts you into a game. And whatever the game, at some point your participation ends. Sometimes it ends because the game is over for all the players, sometimes because your participation is terminated by others, and sometimes because you've chosen to exit the game"

According to Eileen C. Shapiro and HBS professor Howard H. Stevenson, three key elements help you size up an option: your satisfaction to date, predictions about likely results, and future intentions. Take a look at this exerpt from "Make Your Own Luck" at HBS Working Knowledge . Although the focus here is on business investment, does making a bet equate to making a decision? Deciding usually means choosing an option and this matrix offers help to analyse your options in whatever "game" you are playing.

" Option A is to stay in the game as an active player until some later time or until someone or something boots you out. Option B is to quit this game and then enter another game that will allow you to go after the same kinds of results you've been aiming for in the current game. And Option C is to quit this game and go to a different kind of game that produces a different type of results."

Any decision in the game of life - career, relationship, redecorating - could be approached from this aspect. The key perhaps is awareness of exactly what it is that you believe you are trying to achieve and what it is you are achieving.

Try this thought on for size...you are getting the results of your actions.

With the objective of making your own luck, take a hard look at your aims and options by category and what exactly it is that you want , not what you want to escape. What's a decision you need to make? Try out the matrix in the article and see.

Remember though, as the authors point out at the end, " the recommended options for each of the three profiles we just looked at share one big caveat—you need to check your emotions as well as your analysis". In the end, is it like flipping a coin to make a decision and deciding how we really feel about the result? Do the head work first, the intellectual analysis, but don't forget to check with your heart before you act.

Appreciation and Empathy. Is it your Mirror Neurons at work?

2005-02-25T15:42:00.000-08:00

Why is it we connect so deeply when we watch other people, especially when we have some knowledge of the actions they are performing? Why do we get so involved with sports teams and have such emotional reactions to movies?

It could be our mirror neurons. Studies with monkeys tracked brain "noise" when they picked up a peanut and initially thought that this was a motion indicator. When the motionless monkey saw someone else pick up the peanut, its brain made the same "noise". We know we learn by watching and then copying. Is this what we are uniquely designed to do? Watch this PBS clip and hear scientists speclating that we are predisposed to empathy and social contact. If we weren't we would need the mirror neurons...and we wouldn't have them.

The implications for learning at work are immense. If I don't see you do something, does this mean I can't really empathize with your needs, challenges and successes? Information and checklists may intellectually teach how another group performs it's tasks. If we want people to care - they got to see!

Take a look. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/01.html

HBS Working Knowledge: Organizations: Surfacing Your Underground Organization

2005-02-21T11:59:00.000-08:00

"Then there's another mindset I call the defensive mindset. The idea is that even if you are seeking valid knowledge, you are seeking only that kind of valid knowledge that protects yourself or your organization or your department—it is defensive. From a defensive mindset point of view, truth is a good idea when it isn't threatening or upsetting. If it is, massage it, spin it. But if you massage it and spin it, you're violating the espoused theory of good management. When you spin, you have to cover up the fact that you're spinning. And in order for a cover up to work, it too has to be
covered up."

Margaret Wheatley reminds us that for every measurement, or truth, that we focus on, we leave behind other measures or truths. What if we went back to every measurement we have chosen and looked at the ones we left behind? What story do they tell - do they keep us honest, reflecting the real theory instead of the theories in use? I once asked a quality group how many of them measure conformances. After the laughter, the thought remains...what is the truth about how well we are doing? We are where we are because of all the actions and decisions "we" the organization have made. Therefore, our subsequent actions and decisions can create what we want to be. QED.

Poor Productivity? Blame it on Management!

2005-02-02T13:38:00.000-08:00

According to the 2005 Workplace Productivity Survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM.) Workers believe the number one factor that negatively impacts employee productivity is poor management. The SHRM (www.shrm.org) survey polled a sample of 478 human resource professionals and 613 employees to collect information about workplace productivity and asked employees, “Which of the following factors negatively impact your productivity at work? (Check all that apply.)”

Responses were as follows:

Poor management. (58 percent)
No longer being motivated by the work. (38 percent)
Organizational changes. (26 percent)
A lack of defined goals in the job. (24 percent)
Readiness to leave organization. (16 percent)
A lack of accountability in the job. (13 percent)
Pressure by management to show face time. (12 percent)
Other (16 percent)

Is this management bashing? Not really? After the decimation of management ranks in the last ten to fifteen years it's hard to find skilled managers...and skilled mentors. Without positive role models it's difficult to grow and learn. A focus on raising management skills will highlight where emloyees have found a great excuse, or more likely been conditioned to, blame everything on the managers. "Not my job, man" is often the result of a blame based workplace where failure is punished and taking personal responsibility is risky.

Organizations need to examine the culture that they have created and change the norms and rewards to those that value and demand high performance. Skilling and supporting the managers is a good place to start.

Top Down: The Plight of Middle Managers

2005-02-02T08:36:00.000-08:00

The demise of the corporate pecking order is a myth, says Stanford professor Harold J. Leavitt. Middle managers are the ones who bear the brunt when an organization pretends that everyone is equal. "One must also ask another question: If networks are, in fact, the designs of the future, can we feel confident that they will do significantly better than hierarchies?" Leavitt doesn't think so. He believes that the real problem lies in the pressures of inhabiting that dangerous world of middle management. With the ever present opportunity for making a CLS (career limiting statement), middle managers need to tread delicately in the minefield between upper and lower management. See a book excerpt from Top Down at HBS Working Knowledge: Leadership: The Plight of Middle Managers

If you are interested in "middles" also try Barry Oshry's book "Seeing Systems" for insights into the interplay, beliefs and tensions between tops, middles and bottoms.

Melcrum's Top Six for the business focused HR

2005-01-05T10:11:00.000-08:00

In order to help organizations compete in today's business environment HR must simultaneously deliver service excellence, business partnering and strategic services such as organizational design and development. Taken from the November/December 2004 issue of Strategic HR Review, here are the Corporate Research Forum's six characteristics of a business-focused HR function:

1. A strong focus on fulfilling business strategy, grounded in sound business understanding.
2. Objective performance measures tied to business goals.
3. High competence in cause-and-effect analysis, prioritization, and program execution.
4. Transactional service excellence and competence to successfully leverage technology.
5. Organization design and development capabilities. These skills are vital to create the environment for high performance - create an organization structure which is effective at dealing with complexity and build a culture which supports learning, development, respect and mutual responsibility.
6. Outstanding relationship management.

Source: Strategic HR Review Vol 4. Issue 1, November/December 2004
E-mail: damian.lynch@melcrum.com to start your subscription.

Corporate social responsibility - triple bottom line.

2004-11-20T10:20:00.000-08:00

The challenges of the people and planet elements of the triple bottom line (the third being profits) seem to be getting some traction under the title of " corporate social responsibility". From the McKinsey Quarterly:
The UN's corporate-citizenship initiative, the Global Compact, has enrolled more than 1,800 corporations, which have agreed to support human rights, environmental protection, and noncorrupt business practices. Unfortunately, participation—particularly by US companies—has fallen short of expectations. The take-away: Some 40 percent of the compact's participants say that it had a good effect on their corporate citizenship, but hard work lies ahead to generate the insights and practical tools needed to implement its principles and to change the world's corporations for the better.

From an FAQ with Ikea President, Anders Dahlvig :
Is it possible for IKEA to be the good company that shows respect for people and the environment at the same time as IKEA sells products at low prices? "Yes! It isn't always easy. There aren't always quick-fix solutions. But there's no conflict between good business and good companies. By making demands on suppliers with regard to environmental and social responsibility and by helping them meet these demands, our business relationship contributes to a better everyday life for the people manufacturing IKEA products. Better working conditions lead to more efficient production and better productivity. In this way suppliers can produce at a lower cost and IKEA can sell at lower prices in its stores."

For example, initially IKEA thought of an eco-friendly furniture line but then decided that was not good enough and defined a goal of all their offerings being socially and environmentally friendly. To do this they help suppliers meet higher standards in their own communities - social responsibility extended as a "green chain" that reaches across the world! Ikea believes in a journey of many small steps taken consistently.

Emphasis in the quote above is mine. Ikea's work is not new, they have been head and heart committed for some time. Propelled by their own crisis in the late 80's as they struggled to meet Swedish and German standards for formaldehyde, Ikea adopted and later adapted The Natural Step (TNS) program and this has become their mantra for doing business internally and externally. Skipping the discussion about western materialism, we can focus on the concept of effective use of resources and ecologocally sound investment in countries and communities where survival has been the first priority. No I don't work for IKEA, nor are they the only company actively working to do a good job in this area. Take a look at Bob Stiller, CEO of Green Mountain Coffee who is committed to fair trade coffee as a piece of GMC's social responsibility practice. The GMC story is also one of personal conviction, persistence and informed action. More examples please!For links to more info...

See Green Mountain's story and principles at
http://www.greenmountaincoffee.com/ContentPage.aspx?Name=FairTradeOverview&DeptName=SocialResponsibility

Ikea's plan and more importantly, action for PPP at
http://www.ikea.co.uk/ms/en_GB/about_ikea/social_environmental/social_and_environmental2003.pdf

A paper on Ikea's early experiences with TNS http://www.naturalstep.org/learn/docs/cs/case_ikea.pdf

And for more in depth...

The Natural Step Story :Seeding a Quiet Revolution by Karl-Henrik Robert, foreword by Ray Anderson
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
http://www.newsociety.com/.

It may be unlikely that a Swedish karate champion, family man, and cancer scientist could be at the center of developing a systems approach to life on Earth that could revolutionize the way humans operate in the world, but this is the story of just that: the idea, and the man behind it.

As a cancer specialist, Karl-Henrik Robèrt faced a stream of parents who would sacrifice anything to save their children. Yet that same selflessness did not seem to extend to saving the environment. For debate on how to achieve sustainability was divided, with no agreement on universal principles. But Robèrt’s experience convinced him that consensus on how to meet the most basic requirements of life should be possible.

Thus began a long process of consultation among scientists and others that eventually led to the definition of four system conditions essential for the maintenance of life on Earth: conditions that have now been agreed upon world-wide and encapsulated as The Natural Step framework. Supported by the King of Sweden, Robèrt’s original ideas were mailed to every household in Sweden. Exported around the world, they were elaborated, refined and eventually adopted by companies like IKEA and McDonald’s, and business leaders such as Ray Anderson, CEO of US carpet company Interface, and Paul Hawken, successful entrepreneur and author who later headed the US Natural Step organization. Dramatic, visionary and inspiring, The Natural Step Story will appeal to all with a passion for sustainability including business leaders, academics, journalists, activists, and students.

Karl-Henrik Robèrt is a cancer scientist and Professor of Resource Theory at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Having initiated The Natural Step movement in 1989, he was awarded the Green Cross Award for International leadership in 1999, and the Blue Planet Prize (the 'environment Nobel') in 2000.

To Buy http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3773 (and I don't get commision!)

Just Work, Russel Muirhead

2004-11-16T06:22:00.000-08:00

In an interview with Mallory Stark, HBS Working Knowledge, Russel Muirhead says..

That we should avoid work to which we are ill suited, that we should not be miscast in one of our life's main activities or stuck serving purposes we cannot embrace, is of obvious importance. In this respect, the concept of fit addresses the basic question "Why is it right that I am doing this?" This is a personal question, though not a trivial one, as it reflects an understanding of both who we are and what we deserve. Its answer hinges on an understanding of how we might fit our work. In one sense, work is a good fit when it calls on the aptitudes and talents through which we can best contribute to society (or the market). When our abilities are aligned with the tasks or jobs society needs performed, work fits. This "social fit," between individual aptitudes and the tasks society generates, is necessary if people are to be moderately successful and societies efficient and productive.

But this is only part of what the idea of fit involves. Even when we are able to do our work well, we might still find that the work fails to engage our interests, purposes, and most distinctive capacities. To map our aptitudes onto social needs is one thing; to find work fulfilling is another. A "personal fit" with work, where work contributes to our own development and expression, may elude us even when we fit our work from a social perspective. The difficulty of combining social fit with personal fit reflects a provocative question at the heart of justice: Can we each get our due while at the same time contributing to the common good? When some do work that fits them badly yet contributes to socially important ends, another version of this question surfaces: Why ought some be constrained so that others or the whole may thrive? At the other extreme is an ideal of fit with work "where love and need are one."2 According to this ideal, work is aligned with our purposes or good development; it engages us in the service of ends we endorse, expresses something of who we are, or develops our powers in ways we experience as good.

HBS Working Knowledge: Organizations: Is Your Job Just Work?
Just Work,Russel Muirhead

from book publishers review

This elegant essay on the justice of work focuses on the fit between who we are and the kind of work we do. Russell Muirhead shows how the common hope for work that fulfills us involves more than personal interest; it also points to larger understandings of a just society. We are defined in part by the jobs we hold, and Muirhead has something important to say about the partial satisfactions of the working life, and the increasingly urgent need to balance the claims of work against those of family and community.

Against the tendency to think of work exclusively in contractual terms, Muirhead focuses on the importance of work to our sense of a life well lived. Our notions of freedom and fairness are incomplete, he argues, without due consideration of how we fit the work we do.

Should the Wisdom of Crowds Influence Our Thinking About Leadership?

2004-11-08T13:21:00.000-08:00

Blogged earlier about Jim Surowiecki's book The Wisdom of Crowds and I'm fascinated to see the variety of responses to Jim Haslett's orginal column on the implications for leadership. Note that Surowiecki has some criteria for wise crowds incuding "being reasonably informed and motivated, have diversity of points of view, independence from each other’s opinions, and be decentralized with access to and the ability to draw on “local knowledge”. And they have to have some kind of mechanism for aggregating “private judgments into a collective decision.”

Some respondents to the column are noting which decisions would be suitable for wise crowds with one person specifically EXcluding visioning. Another wonders where these "crowds" might be. Put your AI hat on - believing is seeing and take a look - let me know what you think.

HBS Working Knowledge: What Do YOU Think?: Readers Respond: Should the Wisdom of Crowds Influence Our Thinking About Leadership?

Talent Retention - the good and the ugly

2004-11-07T08:33:00.000-08:00

The focus on talent, the "War for Talent" and the "Talent Economy" are smack dab in the spotlight. There are however, a number of different takes on the issues and solutions.

A question: why would "Talent Retention" not always be a key strategy? Why would we throw away or let slip the best people in any organization at any time? One key to surviving and thriving on the realities of this crisis (and avoiding the media and consultant hype) is to take a hard look at your organization for what is working now.

Assuming that people have actually stayed with you, ask them why? Ask them what's important to them about the organization and how they participate in it - their organizational citizenship. Ask them what makes they feel valued. Then figure out how to get more of that!

Beware the dangers of being "star struck" with a talent focus that makes you vulnerable by concentrating all your energies on a few performers. In our enthusiasm for creating engaging workplaces we need to be sure that the people we ask to help us design them are the ones that we we need for sustainability. A production designed just for the star only runs as long as they are willing to stay. You never know, there may be untapped talent in the chorus line.

Take a look at the manifesto "The Talent Myth" by Malcolm Gladwell for a well timed warning.