Thinking Teams Blog

Five Ways Good Engineering Leads to Bad Mangement

09/11/2013 16:21:00

Engineers can make great managers. They have highly-developed problem solving skills, and they have mastered knowledge needed to lead technology-based organizations. But the road from engineering to management can be surprisingly rocky. Management requires ways of behaving and thinking that can seem contrary to hard-learned engineering values. This can lead to teams of engineers, frustrated by managers who can’t manage, and newly-promoted managers who find themselves in positions of bewildering stress.

Engineers understand that management is different from engineering. New managers learn they need to set objectives, delegate, give feedback, handle finances, etc. The concepts are easy, make sense, and engineers can convincingly articulate them. But engineers frequently struggle with applying them. Why?

One reason is that engineers try to manage while still thinking like an engineer. They follow the checklist of good management practices, but they approach management with deeply-held engineering values. An engineer who wants to manage must not only learn new skills, but also learn to look at things from a new perspective. Here are five areas where mindset can torpedo even the best engineer’s attempt to manage:

Identity: What is My Job? An engineer is focused on product, tools, and technical expertise. A manager must focus on people – roles, relationships, organization.
Independence: How do I do my job? Engineers treasure independent thinking and personally coming up with the best idea or solution. A manager needs to treasure effective teamwork and success of the group.
Aesthetics: What does excellence look like? Excellent engineering is elegant, flawless, uncompromising, and efficient. Excellent management often compromises, trading performance for affordability, efficiency for buy-in, perfection in the face of resource constraints.
Influence: How do I work with others? Engineers seek unambiguous, data-driven interactions with others, to communicate and resolve issues. Managers engage in rich personal interactions to bridge barriers to communication, pool multiple perspectives, explore ambiguity, and achieve consensus.
Learning: How do I develop as a professional? An engineer’s growth is driven by expanding explicit, technical knowledge in an area, so the engineer can operate there without making mistakes. Managers become good managers by managing, making mistakes, and adding to their base of tacit knowledge.

It’s not that the engineering mindset is not useful to managers. An engineering background can give a manager a real advantage. And of course, like managers, engineers need to relate to people and learn from experience. However, an engineer stepping into management needs to know that his or her job involves not just new duties, but new ways of thinking. And these new ways of thinking are going to be especially hard to learn, because they can grate against engineering sensibilities. Engineers becoming managers need to honor their engineering instincts, but recognize their limitations and make sure they don’t get in the way.

The Thinking Organization

01/22/2013 18:52:00

This pyramid summarizes the Thinking Teams view of a successful organization, effectively moving toward its goals, powered by collaborating teams of wholehearted individuals. The pyramid builds from foundational elements; its layers show focus areas for organizational improvement and growth.

Starting from the base:

Self-Aware, Productive Individuals – a wonderful alignment happens when an organization enables its members to participate in a way that connects with their full selves, not just the conscious tip of the mind's iceberg (The Committee in Your Head, The Power of Alignment)
Open, Respectful Person-Person Communication – when teams learn to communicate, not from the deceptively efficient but narrow perspective of concrete positions, but from an expanded awareness of shared goals and the potential for mutual learning, each team member moves closer to full potential and contribution (Apples and Oranges, Another Iceberg)
Focused, Agile, Managed Teams – when the powerful human ability to cooperate is focused and enabled by agile structure, the team becomes greater than the sum of its parts (Hive Mind, Bendable Concrete, Being Rational About Irrationality )
Thriving Enterprise Led With Vision – when leaders embrace the sometimes contradictory facets of their organization (Corrective Lenses), they can expand their options and tailor effective action by thinking of their organization as a

“Factory” – creating structure that mutually supports individual and organization (Happy Cogs, Taking Chances ); or a

“Family” – Holding and fostering organizational values that transcend the daily to-do list (The 26 Hour-a-Day Manager); or an

“Arena” – creating a transparent, fair space to engage divergent interests and allocate scarce resources (Clean Politics); or a

“Theater” – articulating the symbols that connect an organization’s mission to meaning and value for team members and stakeholders (Theater of Symbols).

--Tom

Being Rational About Irrationality

01/13/2013 10:05:00

People thinking together can achieve remarkable results. 2012 saw the discovery of the Higgs boson using the 17-mile-long Large Hadron Collider; the successful lowering of the NASA Curiosity Lander to the surface of Mars by its sky crane (verified 14 minutes later when its radio signals finally reached earth); and Apple reaching a market capitalization of $375B, placing it first among technology companies. Human rationality made all these things possible.

Of course, humans aren't always rational. Sometimes it’s obvious, if not in the moment, then after a bit of reflection – like that stupid comment I made when I was angry! But what’s more remarkable is when irrationality is more subtle. Cognitive bias is a departure from rationality that extensive studies show to be part of human nature. This is not bias brought on by ignorance or poor up-bringing; it is about short cuts, strategies our powerful but limited brains use to keep up with our complex, ever-changing environment*.

Scientists have identified an ever-expanding list of over 100 predictable human biases, including

Social biases – favoring the in-group; herd instinct; overemphasis on personality-based explanations of other’s behavior; ….
Memory biases –recalling the past in a self-serving manner; the “I knew it all along” effect; mistaking ideas suggested by a questioner for memory; …
Decision-making biases – expectations affecting perception; interpretations confirming preconceptions; wishful thinking; …
Probability/belief biases – stereotyping; judging arguments based on believably of conclusions; expectations influencing experimental results; …

Significantly, these biases can be unconscious, cropping up even when we are wary of them.

One of the most important things an organization can do is to filter out the human biases that inevitably cloak good ideas. It’s easier to do this when an organization recognizes that bias is not a flaw to be eradicated, but a fundamental feature of human thinking. Organizations transcend biases by

Valuing open dialog and mutual learning over defending positions
Honestly measuring performance against objective measures of success
Encouraging productive collisions between diverse points of view.

--Tom

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

Taking Chances

01/01/2013 15:57:00

“Part of the $10M I spent on gambling, part on booze, and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly.” – attributed to George Raft

Maybe George was onto something, at least the gambling part. Taking a chance on an uncertain outcome is often considered foolhardy or even immoral, yet chance-taking is at the core of life. Everything about our biology is built to capitalize on chance events, from the connection-rich carbon atoms we’re made of, to the way our DNA lets the occasional mutation squeak by, to the way sexual reproduction rolls the genetic dice. But ….. Why take chances?

Our biology takes chances because it has no choice - the universe is more complicated than any organism can be pre-wired to handle. Our bodies grow highly-structured organs to insure our survival, but we need to adapt to an ever-changing, unpredictable environment. Nature knew the definition of “luck” before there was anyone to articulate it – “preparation meeting opportunity” - in this case, unpredictable opportunity.

Organizations can take a lesson from this. Yes, we do need our organization charts, our policies and procedures. These are based on what worked in the past, and that’s really important - experience is the foundation of our business. Our policies and procedures also keep us safe from known or potential danger. That’s important, too; we can find ourselves out of business if we are found non-compliant by industry regulators, for example. But while we’re keeping ourselves out of trouble and making money leveraging our experience, let’s make sure we are also set up to adapt to the rich unpredictability of markets, technology, and even our people.

Biology capitalizes on unpredictability by taking chances, by making sure every once in a while, some “wild” departures from status quo have a chance to prove they are better. Organizations can do that, too. Gmail and Google News were unpredicted results from Google’s policy of encouraging engineers to spend 20% of their time on personal interests they think will help the company. Bose Acoustics and Digital Equipment Corporation emerged from the work of interdisciplinary teams in MIT’s Building 20, a re-configurable work space that encouraged productive interaction, without knowing everywhere it would lead.

So, be like nature: fight fire with fire. Build your organization to allow unpredictable solutions to unpredictable problems and opportunities.

--Tom

A Theater of Symbols

12/18/2012 14:49:00

In 1997 Scott Adams, creator of the cartoon Dilbert, put on a disguise and played management consultant at the real company, Logitech. With the cooperation of a company official who was in on the joke, Adams spent over an hour leading a group of senior managers to create a new mission statement, full of relatively content-free phrases such as “emerging, mission-inclusive markets”, “explore new paradigms”, and “filter and communicate and evangelize the findings”.

Like most jokes, this one is funny because it is both absurd and true-to-life, just like the Dilbert comics. But why are organizations so prone to absurdity? …. Here’s another example – have you ever noticed how often really important things get done in an organization, not only outside the formal structure, but in spite of it? … Why do we waste time on things that only get in the way?

We might shake our heads, blaming Peter-Principled incompetence. Or, maybe we cut leadership a little slack – the job’s tough and even competent managers may be off-track. Both can explain apparent organizational stupidity, but there may be something even more powerful at work. “Empty” mission statements and procedures can fill an important human need – the need for symbols that give meaning to what we do.

The power of symbols is in their appearance, not their substance. People use symbols as lighthouses to navigate uncertainty and ambiguity. If creating an “empty” mission statement leads to solidarity and wholeheartedness, that’s more important than concise language. Organizations need solidarity and wholeheartedness, and symbols can get around the impracticality of getting everybody to see all the facts and possible outcomes the same way.

Symbols show up everywhere in an organization. The U.S. Navy’s $5B Polaris missile program is a poster child for the effective use of analytical management techniques, having had the almost unheard-of distinction of being on-time and under-budget. However, a post-mortem study* of the program concluded that the fruits of analytical management - all those charts and plans - were only loosely linked to what was really going on. Those careful creations of Program Management Specialists were mostly ignored by the people doing the work! ... Those charts and plans did serve a critical function, though. They symbolized a well-run program. They kept hordes of external stakeholders happy and critics at bay, giving the program team the running room needed to succeed.

The next time you spot an organizational practice that looks particularly stupid, look for symbolic value. The practice might deserve death by the sword of common sense. Then again, maybe not.

-- Tom

*Sapolsky, H. The Polaris System Development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Clean Politics?

12/13/2012 11:30:00

For a long time I thought business politics was a dirty word. I guess I wasn't alone – this is from Wikipedia: “…. organizational politics are by definition: The pursuit of individual agendas and self-interest without regard to their effect on the organization’s efforts to achieve its goals…. See also Coworker backstabbing, Cronyism, Gaming the system, Nepotism, One-upmanship, Psychological manipulation, Workplace bullying …”. What a doctrine of dirty deeds!

But the thing that really bugged me was people crying “politics” as a cop-out. They used it when they felt victimized by other people’s behavior – behavior they didn't understand, so must be motivated by at least one of the seven deadly sins. Sure, it can feel like you've been stabbed in the back, but it’s more useful to look for communication disconnects than evil intent. Though revenge can taste sweet, it’s more productive to work on shared understanding than to pick up a sword.

So, politics can mean dirty deeds, and it can mean miscommunication. But there’s another definition of politics that recognizes a critical role in business: politics is “… the realistic process of making decisions and allocating resources in the context of scarcity and divergent interests.”*

This version of politics is always needed because reality always outpaces our ability to fully understand it, and each of our understandings is somewhat (or very) unique. Effective teams reason and analyze, pool their understandings, and listen to each other. However, there can be a point when there is no clear “right answer”, and someone has to use their best judgment to make a decision. This gives rise to the stuff of politics, the stuff that makes an organization like an arena:

Authority – who makes the final judgment, and how do I influence them?
Conflict – how are conflicts resolved, and how do I win?
Coalition – who are my friends, and how can we help each other?

So, depending on which lens you look through, an organization can look like a factory, a family, or an arena. In our next post we will explore a fourth perspective: organization as a theater.

--Tom

*Bolman, Lee G. and Deal, Terrance E. . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, 2003.

The 26 Hour-a-Day Manager

12/10/2012 11:00:00

This is no shortage of advice on how to be a good manager. Right now I’m looking at a management textbook with over 500 references, and for each of those books and articles, you could probably find hundreds more saying basically the same thing. Why are management themes so frequently recycled? I think it’s because the problem isn’t in the knowing, it’s in the doing. We know enough to construct an impossibly long to-do list of things a good manager should do. We start down our list of good intentions, and then find our actions dictated by the curve balls life decides to pitch our way. Of course, we want better than that, and the latest management best-seller is a good way to get re-centered, to bump to top priority things that are essential but get trumped by the urgent.

The structural aspect of an organization – the “factory” frame - is designed to make sure we can’t forget it. There are checklists, and they demand to be followed. The human resources aspect of an organization – the “family” frame – more easily becomes part of the to-do list we don’t get to. We know it’s better to have a positively reinforced team with shared objectives. But how much time can we afford to spend making that happen? We have lots of other things to do, and most of them have a more predictable payoff than time spent exploring the forest of human needs, perceptions, and motivations.

To excel in the human resource frame, I suggest taking inspiration from real families. A family is a family because of what it IS, not what it DOES. Rather than trying to add high priority humanizing tasks to your factory, insist on a way of being. Let the tasks that hold your structure be informed by fundamental values:

Mutual respect, trust, and acceptance
Open communication and frank feedback
Commitment to shared objectives
A passion to jump in, maybe stumble, and grow.

In our next post we will explore the political frame - organization as an arena.

--Tom

Happy Cogs

12/03/2012 11:29:00

The notion of an organization as a “factory” can make people frown. You know the story – dull, repetitive tasks; exploited workers; de-humanized cogs in a machine. This is what organizations get when they forget they are made up of people. But just the same, all organizations share a factory-like need to guide and coordinate human talents.

During my first years studying engineering in college, I worked in a factory that made trucks. I noticed a parallel: both factories and electrical circuits need a design that works in spite of variable and somewhat unpredictable components. Bureaucrats try to serve this need in organizations, and we often despise them for it. But structure and routine can result in good things, like trucks that are widely affordable, and good pay for limited skill.

A well-designed “factory” can achieve a self-reinforcing harmony between organization and individual. There are structural and organizational sciences to draw upon, but applying them to a particular organization, at a particular point in time, is an art.

For example, consider a “factory” that builds computer software. In Agile Software Development*, Alistair Cockburn cites the need for these organizations to develop “ecosystems that ship software”, tailored to situational factors such as: team size, skill, and experience; software complexity, criticality, and requirements changeability; and enterprise culture, e.g., risk aversion.

We can view creating a good “factory” as tailoring a balance between structure and flexibility. Here are some trade-offs to consider:

Structure Flexibility

Constrain work to schedule and budget Adapt to discoveries of what works

Maintain commitments Promote evolving, clarifying conversations

Establish authoritative documentation Engage in rich human interaction

Objectively measure results Frequently examine criteria against reality

Monitor details Encourage noticing, feedback, and help

Focus each participant’s work Empower individual creativity

Capture best practices Adaptively optimize cost-benefit

Of course, an organization is more than a “factory”; in our next post we will explore organization as a “family”.

--Tom

*Cockburn, Alistair Agile Software Development, Second Edition. Boston: Addison Wesley, 2007.

Corrective Lenses

11/27/2012 10:04:00

In a sense, an organization is a big project. Like any project it needs a balance of structure and flexibility; it needs a healthy respect for the unknown, an infrastructure that fits, and courageous openness. However, an organization is more than just a project – it is an enabling environment. Lots of words are written about how to make organizations work, but I want to start by asking “Why do organizations fail?”. We have lots of examples of that – financial meltdowns, shuttle disasters, broken healthcare systems, car recalls.

In Reframing Organizations*, Lee Bolman and Terrance Deal pin the blame on a kind of leadership myopia. Leaders usually get to be leaders because they have seen and enabled what their organization needs. Then what happens? Do these leaders suddenly become stupid or greedy? Bolman and Deal point to a more likely situation – narrow perspective meets real world. The organization faces challenges in new dimensions, and the leader’s perspective doesn't adapt.

Part of the antidote is to expect and be open to the unexpected, feedback, and the need to change as a leader. But adapting is hard if you're seeing only part of the picture. Bolman and Deal offer four lenses or frames through which leaders can correct their myopia:

Structural Frame – look at your organization as a factory or machine, and make sure rules, roles, and process are attuned to objectives, environment, and technology
Human Resource Frame – look at your organization as a family, and make sure your team is aligned, empowered, and fulfilled
Political Frame – look at your organization as an arena, and develop advocacy and power base, and an environment for productive handling of competition and conflict
Symbolic frame – look at your organization as theater, and inspire faith, beauty, and meaning.

--Tom

*Bolman, Lee G. and Deal, Terrance E. Reframing Organizations – Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, 2003.

Bendable Concrete

11/23/2012 14:42:00

We often talk about life in blacks and whites, but life is lived in grays. Take the opposites “rigid” and “flexible”. The most rigid, unforgiving thing I can think of is concrete, and now there is “bendable concrete”*! Project leaders trying to enforce The Plan may see a black and white choice between order and chaos. What’s really needed is an agile shade of gray.

Balancing project structure and flexibility is a fine art. Too little structure gives us the Wild West, unmet commitments, and a team limited to what can be achieved by the fittest survivor. Too much structure smothers the initiative needed to overcome the unknowns limiting The Plan at the start of any project. Everyone knows this, but getting the right balance is so difficult that most of the time most projects find themselves some distance from the sweet spot.

An organization’s projects are more successful when they

Are realistic about uncertainties - The software industry got much better when they gave up pretending they knew precise specifications and implementation costs at the start of a project.
Tailor information infrastructure - There are great methodologies out there for maintaining knowledge bases and tracking projects. Unfortunately, as successful organizations scale up they often forget how to be lean and mean when that is needed
Foster transparency with stakeholders - It takes guts to air problems in front of a customer, but we need them to participate in the inevitable journey of discovery associated with any project, and to look for best return on investment, not perfection.

Of course, an organization is more than the sum of its projects. Keeping multiple perspectives, like structure and flexibility, acquires new dimensions at the enterprise level. This will be the topic of our next post.

--Tom

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_cementitious_composite