Leadership

now that i know the answer, what was the question?

This week I turned 42, which, as two different people reminded me, is the answer to life the universe, and everything. In Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series a supercomputer determined that the answer to life, etc. was “42” and then suggested that if people didn’t understand what the answer meant perhaps they needed to figure out what the question was.

How often do we come to conclusions based on false assumptions, brought about by poor questions? Closed-ended questions, leading questions, questions that are very open to interpretation, and just garden variety misunderstood questions all provide answers. They just don’t give us information.

Better questions lead to better answers which leads to better decisions, better actions, and better results. Any guesses where poor questions lead?

it’s not about you, it’s about the decision

Ever experienced (or maybe created) a situation where someone refused to yield on a decision? They made their preference known and refused to back off – even when it clearly went against the group or good sense?

So often, we’re not arguing for what would be best. We’re not hearing the other views, taking in new information, and reassessing our solutions. Instead, we’re sticking to out guns. No matter what.

And what a waste of time that is.

I was recently involved with a committee that needed to assess several applicants to determine who would receive an award. Each applicant was evaluated on several criteria and assigned ratings. One person collected the ratings from each member of the committee and compiled them into a spreadsheet, comparing the rating in a few different ways. The numbers showed there was a clear division between the top tier and the next level. The top group was certain to be granted the award, but there were a few the committee would need to debate. These were applicants that received mixed ratings across the committee.

On almost a whim, the committee members’ names had been removed from the spreadsheet. Although each could see all of the ratings given for each candidate, no committee member knew who had given which ratings.

Interestingly, with the names removed, the candidates became more important than the raters. No one dug in their heels or got defensive. Those who felt strongly one way or the other brought up their concerns – but it was clear it was about the candidate, not saving face or defending their ratings. Those who didn’t have strong feelings could quietly go along with the group without having to justify their scoring. Debate and discussion moved along quicker than ever, egos stayed in check, real issues surfaced, non-issues stayed away. All in all, a quicker and more effective method than in previous years.

This suggests to me that there are real benefits in any decision making when we can find ways to keep it about the decision. That’s what a secret ballot is all about. I’ve been harping on the idea that people don’t want the best decision, they want their decision to be best. Well, this is one way to remove the “their” part of the equation so that the group can focus on the best decision.

Although, this was for a community award, I’m very interested in using this approach with interviewing and selecting candidates. Or any group decision. Any thoughts?

quick review: The Strategy Book

“The Strategy Book” by Max McKeown – brilliant and practical. I posted a slightly different version of this over on amazon a few weeks back, but it’s worth repeating.

I had been following the author for a while on Twitter (@maxmckeown) and I ended up getting a copy of the book through a promotion. Once it arrived, I moved it ahead of the long list of books in waiting. Less than 30 pages in I was recommending it to others and I ordered several of the author’s books for our corporate library.

The Strategy Book

This is one of those books where, if I’d highlighted all the ideas that grabbed me, I’d have ended up with practically all of the book in yellow. The author is concise and down to earth, yet has a very engaging and conversational style. He does a great job of condensing big ideas into simple sentences.

Barely finished, I immediately moved his book “The Truth About Innovation” to the top of my reading stack. And then “Unshrink” (and my department is now reading it as part of our ongoing development). Next up, “Adaptability”.

Definitely my new favorite author. Track it down, read it, enjoy. Really, really great stuff.

More info: http://www.maxmckeown.com/thestrategybook

you say you want a revolution: three steps to changing culture

Company culture . Can’t escape hearing about it, but why is it important? Stripped of all buzzword mystique, culture is just “the way things are done” in the organization (or the team). It’s the personality of the company. Just like people, some are stiff and precise, some are loose and casual, and some are all over the board. We usually refer to the company, but culture also applies at the department or team level. Every group has its own feel or culture.

If the culture isn’t what you want, no problem. Changing the culture of a company, department, or even a team isn’t easy, but it is possible. It takes time, patience and persistence. There are three broad steps to reshaping the culture.

1. Decide what you want the culture to be. One way of thinking about culture is to consider it the default decisions and actions. When X event happens, we always take Y action. For example, “We have a culture of the highest integrity. When any dishonesty is discovered, we terminate the person immediately.” Or, “We are a customer service culture. When a customer wants to return an item, we always accept it, no questions asked, no hassle involved.”

So what do you want the culture of your team or company to be? What are the characteristics you would want anyone and everyone to use to describe the atmosphere?

Here’s the challenge: whether you consciously and deliberately choose a culture or not, there will be a culture. It will be whatever decisions and actions you support, reward, and tolerate.

2. Design processes and rewards to support that culture. If you’re trying to create a culture of high quality but the pay scale is based on volume, you will have a culture of volume – always. If you want a culture of simple, fast customer service but the processes are onerous, cumbersome, and unfathomable, you will continue to have a culture of complex and cumbersome customer service. If culture is the default way of acting, then the default way of acting IS the culture. Words won’t change it, only action. Different action = different culture. Same action = same culture.

3. Make selection decisions that support the culture. If you want a culture of outstanding customer service, don’t hire misanthropes. New hires should have the skills to do the job (duh!) but also the behaviors and inclinations that will allow them to both support and thrive in the culture you are creating. People who won’t support the desired behaviors/actions will be a continual drain on the culture. If they already exist in the team/company, they need to move along to a company with a culture better suited to them. NOTHING destroys attempts at shaping culture quicker than continuing to reward and employ people whose actions are in clear opposition to the intended culture.

For example, if you want a culture of integrity do not continue to employ people who clearly lack it just because, “they get results.” Doing so, only reinforces a culture of getting short term results by any means necessary.

There you go: know what you want to create, reward and support the necessary behaviors, and make selection (and de-selection) decisions that support what you want. Have patience and perseverance. It won’t change overnight, but it will change.

schisms and divisions for fun and profit?

Us humans seem to really like dividing the world into “us” vs “them”. It is a simple way of dealing with otherwise complex relationships and I assume that it is a survival mechanism developed in the foggy mists of time when anyone outside of the immediate family/tribe/clan had to be thought of as enemy.

A few years back I was having a business dinner in Germany with a rising star of a company where I was facilitating a  leadership development program. We were very similar in age, family status, etc. It was unsettling to think that if we lived closer to each other we could have probably been good friends and if we’d been born a few generations prior we would have been blood enemies. Divisions of arbitrary geography.

Yet, even when we remove survival or the geographical politics of war, it seems as though we strive to create divisions and isolate ourselves in the warm comfort of factions. Recall, yesterday’s post: we don’t want to find the best way, we want our way to be best. And we’ll segregate and re-define the world until that’s possible. It’s easier to exclude those with different perspectives than to consider the validity of their ideas or allow them to help improve our thinking.

Of course, we’re so good at creating schisms that we’ll do it just for fun and amusement. I used to belong to a forum for a specific sports car. When the car was new many of the postings reveled in the smug glory of having a better car than the rest of the world. Soon, a suggestion was made – in the spirit of fun (I think) – to create unofficial factions based on whether one’s car was a light or dark color. This spawned good natured bickering over the merits of having, say, a dark blue car vs the yellow one. Then, after four years, the car was updated and it became first generation vs second generation. Never mind, that you had to be a true car geek to tell the difference, this was serious. One person even posted that to like the first generation was to hate the second generation. What? Within just a few years the unity of common interest degenerated into dozens of “us vs them” groups bickering over arbitrary distinctions.

That’s a simple example of how trivial it can be, but don’t we see this in everyday life at work? Ever work at a place where communication was challenging between departments and cooperation non-existence? Where the various departments were willing to hurt overall company performance just so their tiny fiefdom could “win” against other departments?

How sad when organizational performance suffers because of internal strife and distrust, because of redefining the company from a united “us” to separate pockets of “us – this department” vs “them – those other departments”. How pathetic when the competition is turned inward and the other departments are seen as bigger competitors than the company’s competition. We get ahead at the expense of the company and we all lose.

We can talk all day about gaining competitive advantage through better customer service, strategy, people, processes, etc. and it’s all meaningless as long as silos exist within the company. Silos and castle walls crumble and fall when we move the boundaries and stop defining it as “us vs. them” and start defining it as “Us”.

What say you?

the secret behind persuasion, change management, and talk radio political debates

People don’t want to discover the best solution. They want to believe their solution is best. And they are very threatened by data, evidence, or thoughts suggesting otherwise.

foolproof 2-step plan for success

1. Be awesome.

2. Repeat.

you’re not the boss of me

When my son was five years old he was fascinated with “being in charge”. No surprise really because at five it seems like everyone is in charge of you. Even as we grow up I suspect we all want to be in control of our own destiny. This drive, this ambition is a good thing but any strength pushed too far becomes a weakness. Within every organization there are employees, managers, even senior managers getting in their own way – and getting in the company’s way. They spend their time wishing that they were in charge – in complete control. They are irritated by anything that gets in their way and dream of being able to lead unhindered. Why is this dangerous?

It ignores the practical reality that everyone reports to someone. Thinking that you can get promoted high enough to escape the scrutiny of others is fantastical nonsense. If they can’t see this obvious truth, what less apparent realities are they missing? What are they not doing while they are spending their time and energy in fantasyland?

A leader dreaming of being in complete control is a leader who wants their ideas and decisions to go unchecked by law, regulation, common sense, or basic manners. They seem to believe that they are completely right in all situations and should never be questioned, second guessed, or told “no.”

Leaders thinking they are universally right lack introspection and ignore/discredit any feedback that suggests they might be wrong. This is an assertive person who will make snap decisions that are often right, but they are unable to tell when they are wrong. They are also unable to lean from mistake or experience.

Because they believe they are always right, they rarely think through the potential consequences and downsides of a decision. Although they may have good ideas, implementation is often chaotic because they mistakenly believe that creating the idea was the hard part and executing the idea is easy. Likewise, they are continually frustrated by those around them who are unable to implement their ideas exactly as it exists in their minds, unhindered by reality.

The leader who wants to be completely in charge is someone only thinks about themselves rather than what is best for the company, the customer, the employees, or anyone else. They create teams, departments, and organizations whose success and glory is so centered on themselves that it dies when they are not there. This is in stark contrast to the leaders they try to create great teams, departments, and organizations that will thrive after the leader is gone (think petty dictatorships vs enduring democracies).

Unfortunately, these folks are often used to getting their way because others find it easier to give in than keep crashing against the wall of their closed-minded obstinance. This only reinforces the belief that they are right and if they stick to their guns they will prevail. All of these traits make them ferociously difficult to manager and downright painful to report to.

Sometimes this person will get in their own way so much that their career never moves forward and they spend their lives at the lowest levels, forever frustrated. Sometimes, this person will realize that they cannot work for others and start their own business or seek out jobs with maximum autonomy. And sometimes, this person will rise up through the organization, gaining considerable position and power through talent and hardwork, yet still crave more, more, more.

Again, I’m not referring to ambition, but the desire to have complete, unchecked control. So what’s to be done? As an HR pro, how do you help this person lead while staying within the boundaries of law, decency, and long-term success? How do you help them tap into their often considerable strengths while keeping them from creating anarchy and chaos? I’m leaving this open ended as I’d love to hear others’ ideas and experiences.

Soundness, profitability, or growth. Pick any two.

In everything there is a choice and in everything there is a tradeoff. There is an old adage in bicycling that highlights the choice/tradeoff decision: “Light, strong, or cheap. Pick any two.” When buying parts you can have them light and strong (but it’ll be expensive), strong and cheap (but it’ll be heavy), or light and cheap (but it’ll be weak). It’s up to the individual to decide what’s most important to them.

The same is true in business, even though it goes largely unrecognized. We can just as easily say: “Soundness, profitability, or growth. Pick any two.” We can be stable an profitable (though growth will be slow), profitable and fast growing (at the cost of soundness), or sound and growing (but won’t have much left over as profit). The challenge is, that because we don’t recognize this tradeoff, we try to create a business that is stable, has great profits, and is quickly expanding. Trying to maximize all three at once is impossible – at best one (or more) of the three will suffer, but be hidden. For example, the business may be highly profitable and expanding nicely and appear stable, until that first bump in the market highlights just how overleveraged the company is. At worst, the business is neither sound, nor profitable, nor able to grow.

Correct me if I’m off base here, but it seems that Wall Street rewards maximum profitability and growth, generally at the expense of soundness. Yet, the truly enduring companies (whether we’re talking about a sole propritership or multinational giant) – the ones that survive the cycles of recession – are the ones that best understand this tradeoff and keep soundness in the mix, switching focus on profits or growth as their strategy warrants.

In business, as in personal life, it always comes down to opportunity costs. By understanding what you really want, you have a much better handle on the strategy to pursue. As wonderful as it sounds, it’s a recipe for disaster to try and create soundness, profitablity, and growth simultaneously.

That’s the theory anyway. I’d love to hear about examples that poke holes in the theory (I sure can’t think of any).