See more selections at: http://www.soaringeagleent.com/bookstore.htm
Monday, December 27, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 52-Gaps, SWOTs and Segments
Most managers and leaders are familiar with the common organizational analysis tools of SWOT and Gap but these tools are largely ineffectual when not properly segmented. Using a segmented approach will deliver greater value to these time worn tools.
SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. When performed normally, this type of analysis yields almost cursory and useless results. Typical responses when looking at an organization as a whole include comments about having good people (a strength), lacking suitable space (a weakness), growth of a business in a strong economic market (an opportunity) or the presence of a competitor (a threat). This provides a brief snapshot of where an organization is and what might be on the horizon in very high overview. This approach contains only the singular dimension of flat area.
Gap analysis is even more of a simplistic approach. It is linear and clearly defines where an organization is and where it wants to be. The gap between the then and now represent a self-writing action plan when a company identifies how to move from the now to the future. Like SWOT, it is flat and, unique to gap, it is a single straight line.
Now imagine these analysis tools in three dimensions with depth and breadth added. That is what adding segmentation to these tools will achieve. Starting with SWOT, instead of looking at the organization as a whole, segmentation forces the same analysis except broken down in the key operating areas of the company. First the organization defines the key operating areas and many of those are common to all organizations. Typical ones include human talent, financial, facilities, technology, core products and services and regulatory or legal issues.
For example, the training department at High Stakes Motors wants to begin the strategic planning process for 2008 and rather than beginning with a SWOT analysis of the department, they segment their approach and begin with the people in the department. They determine that there are some core strengths and individuals who could be called strong. They also determine there are some general deficiencies and weaknesses among their staff. They look at opportunities to improve personnel skill levels and cross-train key team members and they identify the threats of organizations that have higher compensation or benefit packages. From this view, the management team for the training department at High Stakes Motors can craft a 2008 plan that capitalizes on their strengths, addresses the weaknesses, captures some opportunities and strategically positions to minimize the threats.
Wash, rinse and repeat for all the major segments of the High Stakes Motors training department for all aspects of their operation including their facilities, the technology used, strategic partnerships, financial structure and core training offering. The end result is a significantly more detailed, more useable and more reliable way of looking at this operation.
Now imagine a Chia pet. One that has been watered and is beginning to grow a bit. That is what we are going to create instead of a linear gap analysis. With the center point of segmented gap being the “where we want to be” mark, the lines out from that point will represent where we are based on the same segments used in the segmented SWOT analysis. So, for the High Stakes Motors training department we have one line to the center for technology, one for human talent, one for core products and services offered, one for customer service level, one for facilities and so forth. Each line begins at a different spot because, as in most organizations, these segments are in different stages and degrees of closeness to the ideal.
The really helpful part of segmented gap analysis is that it allows for the construction of simultaneous action planning and action plans that can be interdependent upon other action plans. So rather than approaching the organization linearly, the organization is viewed in full three dimensions and strategic planning can be built to attack all segments at once.
Is a segmented approach more difficult and time consuming? Absolutely but the results will dramatically improve the ability of an organization to plan effectively for the coming years.
Gap and SWOT analysis have been around for a long time and are great strategic planning tools. Tools and not the end game. A common misconception in strategic planning is that gap and SWOT analysis are a result and not a tool to help achieve a results.
In it’s most simple form, gap analysis is a view of where we are, where we want to be and mapping a process of how to get there. This can be a powerful process when crafting strategic objectives and actions plans. It is also extremely helpful in the honest assessment of where an organization or department is currently performing.
SWOT analysis is a little more in-depth and detailed. It helps identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (thus the SWOT). This too, is very powerful, especially when identifying action plan items.
Effective leaders embrace and use these tools in a collaborative and participatory manner within the overall strategic planning process.
SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. When performed normally, this type of analysis yields almost cursory and useless results. Typical responses when looking at an organization as a whole include comments about having good people (a strength), lacking suitable space (a weakness), growth of a business in a strong economic market (an opportunity) or the presence of a competitor (a threat). This provides a brief snapshot of where an organization is and what might be on the horizon in very high overview. This approach contains only the singular dimension of flat area.
Gap analysis is even more of a simplistic approach. It is linear and clearly defines where an organization is and where it wants to be. The gap between the then and now represent a self-writing action plan when a company identifies how to move from the now to the future. Like SWOT, it is flat and, unique to gap, it is a single straight line.
Now imagine these analysis tools in three dimensions with depth and breadth added. That is what adding segmentation to these tools will achieve. Starting with SWOT, instead of looking at the organization as a whole, segmentation forces the same analysis except broken down in the key operating areas of the company. First the organization defines the key operating areas and many of those are common to all organizations. Typical ones include human talent, financial, facilities, technology, core products and services and regulatory or legal issues.
For example, the training department at High Stakes Motors wants to begin the strategic planning process for 2008 and rather than beginning with a SWOT analysis of the department, they segment their approach and begin with the people in the department. They determine that there are some core strengths and individuals who could be called strong. They also determine there are some general deficiencies and weaknesses among their staff. They look at opportunities to improve personnel skill levels and cross-train key team members and they identify the threats of organizations that have higher compensation or benefit packages. From this view, the management team for the training department at High Stakes Motors can craft a 2008 plan that capitalizes on their strengths, addresses the weaknesses, captures some opportunities and strategically positions to minimize the threats.
Wash, rinse and repeat for all the major segments of the High Stakes Motors training department for all aspects of their operation including their facilities, the technology used, strategic partnerships, financial structure and core training offering. The end result is a significantly more detailed, more useable and more reliable way of looking at this operation.
Now imagine a Chia pet. One that has been watered and is beginning to grow a bit. That is what we are going to create instead of a linear gap analysis. With the center point of segmented gap being the “where we want to be” mark, the lines out from that point will represent where we are based on the same segments used in the segmented SWOT analysis. So, for the High Stakes Motors training department we have one line to the center for technology, one for human talent, one for core products and services offered, one for customer service level, one for facilities and so forth. Each line begins at a different spot because, as in most organizations, these segments are in different stages and degrees of closeness to the ideal.
The really helpful part of segmented gap analysis is that it allows for the construction of simultaneous action planning and action plans that can be interdependent upon other action plans. So rather than approaching the organization linearly, the organization is viewed in full three dimensions and strategic planning can be built to attack all segments at once.
Is a segmented approach more difficult and time consuming? Absolutely but the results will dramatically improve the ability of an organization to plan effectively for the coming years.
Gap and SWOT analysis have been around for a long time and are great strategic planning tools. Tools and not the end game. A common misconception in strategic planning is that gap and SWOT analysis are a result and not a tool to help achieve a results.
In it’s most simple form, gap analysis is a view of where we are, where we want to be and mapping a process of how to get there. This can be a powerful process when crafting strategic objectives and actions plans. It is also extremely helpful in the honest assessment of where an organization or department is currently performing.
SWOT analysis is a little more in-depth and detailed. It helps identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (thus the SWOT). This too, is very powerful, especially when identifying action plan items.
Effective leaders embrace and use these tools in a collaborative and participatory manner within the overall strategic planning process.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 50-Decision Making Ownership
At the end of the day, the decision was yours. Even with collaboration and using systems thinking, you made the call. The decision is part of your leadership record and legacy.
Effective leaders cannot run from their decisions. They cannot blame others. They cannot blame the economy. They cannot hedge or try to escape accountability. It was your decision.
When right on target a decision is a glorious thing. Your hard work paid off and you chose the correct course of action. Everything fell into place nicely and the return was better than anticipated. It is pretty easy to own that type of decision.
The harder decisions to own are the clunkers. The ones that don’t work out so well or the choice that just did not pan out. Those are hard to swallow and to have your name attached.
Effective leaders own decisions that are both good and bad. With good decisions, the leader will share credit with the team, those that provided valuable input and any stakeholder that gave clues about outcomes or consequences.
When the decision is a poor choice you are on your own buddy. Can’t blame the data or any person. It is all you.
With bad decisions, there are a couple of additional decision points that come into play. The poorest choice is to defend and continue to cheerlead for a bad decision. This is simply digging a bigger hole and drawing more attention and potentially, criticism to a bad decision.
The effective leader must admit the mistake and work diligently to fix it. Simply say that you made a mistake, you are sorry and you will get it fixed. Use plenty of personal pronouns to make sure the ownership of the decision is clear. You may not get beaten up for a bad decision but you will certainly loose credibility if you try to run from it.
When looking at a poor decision, first check and see if you gave yourself enough time to analyze and diagnose the situation and all of the potential impacts. This is the most common reason for poor decisions. Then, retrace the system thinking and seek a different and wider scope of input that focuses on why the first decision failed and that the issue still exists. Never compound a poor decision with a rash or arbitrary fix that is simply designed to save face.
Effective leaders cannot run from their decisions. They cannot blame others. They cannot blame the economy. They cannot hedge or try to escape accountability. It was your decision.
When right on target a decision is a glorious thing. Your hard work paid off and you chose the correct course of action. Everything fell into place nicely and the return was better than anticipated. It is pretty easy to own that type of decision.
The harder decisions to own are the clunkers. The ones that don’t work out so well or the choice that just did not pan out. Those are hard to swallow and to have your name attached.
Effective leaders own decisions that are both good and bad. With good decisions, the leader will share credit with the team, those that provided valuable input and any stakeholder that gave clues about outcomes or consequences.
When the decision is a poor choice you are on your own buddy. Can’t blame the data or any person. It is all you.
With bad decisions, there are a couple of additional decision points that come into play. The poorest choice is to defend and continue to cheerlead for a bad decision. This is simply digging a bigger hole and drawing more attention and potentially, criticism to a bad decision.
The effective leader must admit the mistake and work diligently to fix it. Simply say that you made a mistake, you are sorry and you will get it fixed. Use plenty of personal pronouns to make sure the ownership of the decision is clear. You may not get beaten up for a bad decision but you will certainly loose credibility if you try to run from it.
When looking at a poor decision, first check and see if you gave yourself enough time to analyze and diagnose the situation and all of the potential impacts. This is the most common reason for poor decisions. Then, retrace the system thinking and seek a different and wider scope of input that focuses on why the first decision failed and that the issue still exists. Never compound a poor decision with a rash or arbitrary fix that is simply designed to save face.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 49-Critical Objectives
Goals. Targets. Objectives. Milestones. All the same thing with a little different nomenclature.
Critical objectives are those measurable, meaningful, comparable and important benchmarks that track progress towards the vision of an organization or unit within a company. These objectives are usually expressed in annual terms but can be created for less than a year in start-ups and environments requiring significant turnaround.
This is another part of strategic planning in which minimizing is better. Five to seven objectives per year is the top end. More will convolute your ability to achieve real ownership and buy-in into these objectives. Our teams must be able to remember them and lock onto them as the year progresses.
Each objective must incorporate a significant business segment. Most commonly, strategic planning will incorporate objectives related to revenue or sales volume, customer service quality, productivity, quality of work or product, team member satisfaction and expense control. These major headings represent not only important areas of organizational success but also those areas in which each individual team member can contribute and participate. They are also the categories that can be easily measured and reported.
The best format of a strategic objective includes a comparable element to a prior year or prior period. By example this would look like “Improve Customer Satisfaction by 4% Over 2010.” This example also includes the measurability required in good strategic planning. By contrast, the example of “Improve Customer Service” meets neither of these requirements. Measurability and comparability are important to demonstrate progress and to connect to important business elements.
The incorporation of comparability also assists the effective leader in promoting improvement and growth. From year to year or period to period, the leader is able to raise the bar in some or all strategic areas of performance. The one required element in this area is that the growth factor cannot be some arbitrary number. The best tool for this is a standard progression analysis that looks at change and improvement from year to year and uses that as the improvement factor for the coming period. Another tool for that purpose is to diagnose capacity for maximum performance and factor that over a three to five year period.
Two final notes on critical objectives include the ability to connect each objective back to a line or element in the company vision and mission. This connectivity will insure that proper progress in being made towards the ultimate target described in the vision. The other final element is the reminder to make sure that all of the critical objectives can be impacted by team members. For example, team members can contribute to revenue but have very little impact on net income.
Critical objectives are those measurable, meaningful, comparable and important benchmarks that track progress towards the vision of an organization or unit within a company. These objectives are usually expressed in annual terms but can be created for less than a year in start-ups and environments requiring significant turnaround.
This is another part of strategic planning in which minimizing is better. Five to seven objectives per year is the top end. More will convolute your ability to achieve real ownership and buy-in into these objectives. Our teams must be able to remember them and lock onto them as the year progresses.
Each objective must incorporate a significant business segment. Most commonly, strategic planning will incorporate objectives related to revenue or sales volume, customer service quality, productivity, quality of work or product, team member satisfaction and expense control. These major headings represent not only important areas of organizational success but also those areas in which each individual team member can contribute and participate. They are also the categories that can be easily measured and reported.
The best format of a strategic objective includes a comparable element to a prior year or prior period. By example this would look like “Improve Customer Satisfaction by 4% Over 2010.” This example also includes the measurability required in good strategic planning. By contrast, the example of “Improve Customer Service” meets neither of these requirements. Measurability and comparability are important to demonstrate progress and to connect to important business elements.
The incorporation of comparability also assists the effective leader in promoting improvement and growth. From year to year or period to period, the leader is able to raise the bar in some or all strategic areas of performance. The one required element in this area is that the growth factor cannot be some arbitrary number. The best tool for this is a standard progression analysis that looks at change and improvement from year to year and uses that as the improvement factor for the coming period. Another tool for that purpose is to diagnose capacity for maximum performance and factor that over a three to five year period.
Two final notes on critical objectives include the ability to connect each objective back to a line or element in the company vision and mission. This connectivity will insure that proper progress in being made towards the ultimate target described in the vision. The other final element is the reminder to make sure that all of the critical objectives can be impacted by team members. For example, team members can contribute to revenue but have very little impact on net income.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 48-Consistent and Fair in Tone Setting
One of the challenges associated with tone setting is the need to be consistent and apply tone setting fairly and equitably. It is painfully easy to be upbeat, build relationships and greet those team members that have always been nice to us. For the team members that have been supportive, complimentary in 360 degree reviews and volunteer for more work, tone setting is a walk in the park. Just like talking with treasured friends and family.
Where many leaders find challenge is to provide the same amount of tone setting behaviors and skills to those team members that may be or may have been a little problematic. Those team members that question, challenge or irritate are a tough crowd and it is easy to justify why you would not tone set with them. After all, they are a bitter and nasty bunch.
Another challenge to consistency are the team members that rebuff tone setting. The ones that do not open up when trying to build a relationship or the ones that may even tell you “it is none of your business.” In reality, it is these two populations that need your tone setting more than any other. These people are screaming to be engaged by the leader. Here, your resilience will play a big part in continuing to reach out and try to build rapport.
Think about the impact of your eyes for a moment. Too frequently our eyes point out what is different about others and not what we may have in common. Look at the common little pockets of team members in a parking lot or break room and you will see that groups often form around age, gender or ethnicity. The effective leader has to ignore the messages of the eyes and reach out to all populations, regardless of difficulties, and build an excellent tone base with each of them.
Where many leaders find challenge is to provide the same amount of tone setting behaviors and skills to those team members that may be or may have been a little problematic. Those team members that question, challenge or irritate are a tough crowd and it is easy to justify why you would not tone set with them. After all, they are a bitter and nasty bunch.
Another challenge to consistency are the team members that rebuff tone setting. The ones that do not open up when trying to build a relationship or the ones that may even tell you “it is none of your business.” In reality, it is these two populations that need your tone setting more than any other. These people are screaming to be engaged by the leader. Here, your resilience will play a big part in continuing to reach out and try to build rapport.
Think about the impact of your eyes for a moment. Too frequently our eyes point out what is different about others and not what we may have in common. Look at the common little pockets of team members in a parking lot or break room and you will see that groups often form around age, gender or ethnicity. The effective leader has to ignore the messages of the eyes and reach out to all populations, regardless of difficulties, and build an excellent tone base with each of them.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 47-Thanksgiving for Leaders
Thanksgiving offers a unique time of the year to offer thanks and appreciation for those around us and the good fortune in which we have been bestowed. The usual thankfulness involves family, friends, health, security and the availability of four days of football games.
In addition to the standard items, people in leadership positions need to be thankful for more.
Team Members
The jobs of supervisors, managers and executives are uniquely dependent upon the ability and effort of those that they lead. No matter what kind of relationship you may have with your boss, it is your team members that keep you in your job day in and day out. When they perform well, you are successful. When you fail to keep their support, you will fail.
Take a few moments this week and sincerely thank and appreciate the efforts of your team members.
Customers
Both internal and external customers drive the business need for your existence. Without them, there is no need for your department or your organization. Yes, they can sometimes be demanding, problematic and downright difficult but you need them desperately. Your customers are the life's blood of the company.
Far too often we assume that customers have no choice in their decisions or are locked in with us. Even internal customers can choose to outsource the service that your group provides.
Find a way to communicate your appreciation to your customers this week.
Challenges and Opportunities
Leadership is challenging. Problems roll up to your level. Tough decisions need to be made and guidance needs to be provided. You have to craft direction, coach team members and build strategic relationships with difficult people.
Thank goodness for all of those things. It is these types of challenges that define your value to the organization and hone your skills. If leadership were easy, anyone could do it.
Support Systems
All of us have support systems in which we rely upon nearly every day. Spouses, friends, mentors and even our pets.
When times are tough, they hear us out. They encourage us and sometimes challenge us to continue to meet the rigors of our jobs. They keep us going.
In the most sincere manner available, thank them.
In addition to the standard items, people in leadership positions need to be thankful for more.
Team Members
The jobs of supervisors, managers and executives are uniquely dependent upon the ability and effort of those that they lead. No matter what kind of relationship you may have with your boss, it is your team members that keep you in your job day in and day out. When they perform well, you are successful. When you fail to keep their support, you will fail.
Take a few moments this week and sincerely thank and appreciate the efforts of your team members.
Customers
Both internal and external customers drive the business need for your existence. Without them, there is no need for your department or your organization. Yes, they can sometimes be demanding, problematic and downright difficult but you need them desperately. Your customers are the life's blood of the company.
Far too often we assume that customers have no choice in their decisions or are locked in with us. Even internal customers can choose to outsource the service that your group provides.
Find a way to communicate your appreciation to your customers this week.
Challenges and Opportunities
Leadership is challenging. Problems roll up to your level. Tough decisions need to be made and guidance needs to be provided. You have to craft direction, coach team members and build strategic relationships with difficult people.
Thank goodness for all of those things. It is these types of challenges that define your value to the organization and hone your skills. If leadership were easy, anyone could do it.
Support Systems
All of us have support systems in which we rely upon nearly every day. Spouses, friends, mentors and even our pets.
When times are tough, they hear us out. They encourage us and sometimes challenge us to continue to meet the rigors of our jobs. They keep us going.
In the most sincere manner available, thank them.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 46-Collaborative Decision Making
Two great leadership fears are associated with collaborative decision making. Like most fears, they are baseless and concocted by the enemy that resides on your shoulders.
Some people in leadership positions fear using a collaborative approach in decision making because it would make them look weak and indecisive. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, the leader always retains the right and responsibility to make the final decision and veto the input from others. This is not always prudent but no one removes a leader’s ability to make the final choice after seeking input and collaboration.
The other fear that leaders often connect to collaborative decision making is that through seeking input the decision will become a popularity contest and the pig with the best lipstick will win. Again this is a baseless fear and collaboration is not about incorporating democracy and voting to an issue, it is simply about seeking input.
To obtain collaboration, the leader must create an environment in which team members and peer leaders feel safe and that their opinion is valued. There can be no besmirching, belittling or dismissing of input. All input, even those contrary to your opinion must be appreciated and valued. This is not about changing your mind but about selecting the best course of action and decision for the organization.
Many traditional methods of collaboration don’t work. Brain storming and the unwarned introduction of a topic yield very little results. To get someone’s thoughts on a subject, process or decision point, effective leaders have found that a private, direct and previewed approach work best. The leader will announce that one of the subjects during one-on-one meetings will be a particular decision or direction element and that gives team members or peers a chance to think about it and process their own conclusions. The privacy element also reduces any team member’s trepidation about public comment or fear of embarrassment.
Collaboration also implies that the leader will be open to suggestions and different perspectives. If that is not the case, future attempts at collaboration and seeking input will be hampered.
A collaborative approach to decision making is more time consuming and requires more effort but it yields significantly better decisions when done well. Ownership of the decision is enhanced through feedback and input. Unintended consequences are uncovered. Different perspectives are considered. New ideas are found.
Some people in leadership positions fear using a collaborative approach in decision making because it would make them look weak and indecisive. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, the leader always retains the right and responsibility to make the final decision and veto the input from others. This is not always prudent but no one removes a leader’s ability to make the final choice after seeking input and collaboration.
The other fear that leaders often connect to collaborative decision making is that through seeking input the decision will become a popularity contest and the pig with the best lipstick will win. Again this is a baseless fear and collaboration is not about incorporating democracy and voting to an issue, it is simply about seeking input.
To obtain collaboration, the leader must create an environment in which team members and peer leaders feel safe and that their opinion is valued. There can be no besmirching, belittling or dismissing of input. All input, even those contrary to your opinion must be appreciated and valued. This is not about changing your mind but about selecting the best course of action and decision for the organization.
Many traditional methods of collaboration don’t work. Brain storming and the unwarned introduction of a topic yield very little results. To get someone’s thoughts on a subject, process or decision point, effective leaders have found that a private, direct and previewed approach work best. The leader will announce that one of the subjects during one-on-one meetings will be a particular decision or direction element and that gives team members or peers a chance to think about it and process their own conclusions. The privacy element also reduces any team member’s trepidation about public comment or fear of embarrassment.
Collaboration also implies that the leader will be open to suggestions and different perspectives. If that is not the case, future attempts at collaboration and seeking input will be hampered.
A collaborative approach to decision making is more time consuming and requires more effort but it yields significantly better decisions when done well. Ownership of the decision is enhanced through feedback and input. Unintended consequences are uncovered. Different perspectives are considered. New ideas are found.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 45-Object Oriented Innovation
An excellent resource in innovation and improvement is the use of Object Oriented Innovation. OOI is a very simple approach that yields the highest success in innovation and creativity.
The starting point of OOI is to define the end point. What is the desired outcome? What is the product or process that you need to achieve? What is the end game? Equally important as defining the ending point in which you want to achieve is insuring that the end point has value and is valued by the organization. You must connect the end product or process to the core values and mission of the organization. If it fits, you keep going. If it does not fit, you have to look to see if it should be eliminated, discontinued or repackaged in such a way that it will fit.
Without deference to how it is done now or who is involved now, the next phase of OOI is to determine how the end point is achieved. Identify the needed steps to deliver the product, service or project. Again, the challenging point in this step is to ignore how it is currently being done or how it was done before and concentrate on how it needs to be done. The step must include identifying resources needed, labor and time, regulations, laws and other requirements.
Since no leader works in a vacuum, the next step in OOI is to identify the areas of impact. What other departments will have to change the way they do things? Is there an impact on customers and end users? Are there organizational considerations and the egos of other leaders that may be in play? What is the human resource impacts such as changed hours or more or less people? What are the financial considerations? The effective innovation leader must now reconcile these realities without overly compromising the desired outcome and make some good judgments and decisions about the next course of action.
The final OOI step involves converting the identified process steps to action and delivering the desired outcome.
The starting point of OOI is to define the end point. What is the desired outcome? What is the product or process that you need to achieve? What is the end game? Equally important as defining the ending point in which you want to achieve is insuring that the end point has value and is valued by the organization. You must connect the end product or process to the core values and mission of the organization. If it fits, you keep going. If it does not fit, you have to look to see if it should be eliminated, discontinued or repackaged in such a way that it will fit.
Without deference to how it is done now or who is involved now, the next phase of OOI is to determine how the end point is achieved. Identify the needed steps to deliver the product, service or project. Again, the challenging point in this step is to ignore how it is currently being done or how it was done before and concentrate on how it needs to be done. The step must include identifying resources needed, labor and time, regulations, laws and other requirements.
Since no leader works in a vacuum, the next step in OOI is to identify the areas of impact. What other departments will have to change the way they do things? Is there an impact on customers and end users? Are there organizational considerations and the egos of other leaders that may be in play? What is the human resource impacts such as changed hours or more or less people? What are the financial considerations? The effective innovation leader must now reconcile these realities without overly compromising the desired outcome and make some good judgments and decisions about the next course of action.
The final OOI step involves converting the identified process steps to action and delivering the desired outcome.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 44-Ethical Litmus Tests
There are several ways to tell if you have made good ethical decisions or not. The most simple is a three step test that can be used by individuals for simple decisions or by entire organizations for more far-sweeping decisions.
The first step is the gut check. Sometimes known as the butterfly test or the sleep test, this simply asks whether you can live with the decision comfortably without life interruption. If stomach butterflies, tormented sleep or great anxiety exists, the decision likely has some ethical problems and may not conform with your company’s values. By contrast, if sleep, eating and life are not a problem, your decision was probably ethically correct.
There is one problem with this test because it requires a conscience. With people that have no conscience, personal value set or the ability to shrug away any concern with poor ethical choices, this test will not work effectively. One other challenge related to this ethical test step is that group decisions will often eliminate any guilt associated with the poor ethical choice. The personal reconciliation point is that the other two committee members voted for it so my responsibility is eliminated.
The second ethical litmus test is the authority test. This test asks how you would feel is someone in authority or someone that you hold in high regard would feel about your decision. A boss, your spouse, a trusted friend. How would they react to your choice? What would they say? Would they be supportive or would they question your actions? Would they be proud of you or disappointed in you? Those are the key questions that make this test step work.
Some organizations have actually codified this test step by creating an ethics officer or ethics manager in their company. Usually found in larger companies which also have to deal with a highly regulated environment, these people are the person in authority that adjudges decisions and directions as ethical or not. It is the responsibility of the ethics officer to ask the questions and test decisions against the values of the organization.
The final ethical test is related to media coverage. How would it look if your decision was on the front page of the local newspaper? Could you defend your actions to 60 Minutes without slamming the door on Morley Shafer? Would you have to say “no comment” or could you articulate your position clearly? These questions assume that we would choose more carefully if the media were watching our every move.
There is no perfect way to test for ethical treatment and ethical decision but when the three tests are performed sequentially, it is helpful in staying out of trouble. At the end of the day, ethical decisions are made by ethical people and unethical decisions are made by unethical people.
The first step is the gut check. Sometimes known as the butterfly test or the sleep test, this simply asks whether you can live with the decision comfortably without life interruption. If stomach butterflies, tormented sleep or great anxiety exists, the decision likely has some ethical problems and may not conform with your company’s values. By contrast, if sleep, eating and life are not a problem, your decision was probably ethically correct.
There is one problem with this test because it requires a conscience. With people that have no conscience, personal value set or the ability to shrug away any concern with poor ethical choices, this test will not work effectively. One other challenge related to this ethical test step is that group decisions will often eliminate any guilt associated with the poor ethical choice. The personal reconciliation point is that the other two committee members voted for it so my responsibility is eliminated.
The second ethical litmus test is the authority test. This test asks how you would feel is someone in authority or someone that you hold in high regard would feel about your decision. A boss, your spouse, a trusted friend. How would they react to your choice? What would they say? Would they be supportive or would they question your actions? Would they be proud of you or disappointed in you? Those are the key questions that make this test step work.
Some organizations have actually codified this test step by creating an ethics officer or ethics manager in their company. Usually found in larger companies which also have to deal with a highly regulated environment, these people are the person in authority that adjudges decisions and directions as ethical or not. It is the responsibility of the ethics officer to ask the questions and test decisions against the values of the organization.
The final ethical test is related to media coverage. How would it look if your decision was on the front page of the local newspaper? Could you defend your actions to 60 Minutes without slamming the door on Morley Shafer? Would you have to say “no comment” or could you articulate your position clearly? These questions assume that we would choose more carefully if the media were watching our every move.
There is no perfect way to test for ethical treatment and ethical decision but when the three tests are performed sequentially, it is helpful in staying out of trouble. At the end of the day, ethical decisions are made by ethical people and unethical decisions are made by unethical people.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday Mentor Week 43-Non Verbal Communication and Tone
A great deal has been written about the importance of non-verbal elements in the totality of the communication picture. Ranging between sixty and eighty percent of either message content or message richness, all experts agree that body language, facial expressions and tones account for a big part of the message received.
In addressing tone, a good communicator must understand their environment and situation. During corrective coaching, a leader cannot be overly upbeat or friendly in tone. When having relationship based dialog or during tone setting, you cannot come across in a flat, monotone or disinterested tone. Tone, in communication is an interesting dynamic that is driven by attitude. When the attitude is strong and healthy, a person is more likely to correctly adapt to different tone situations. When attitude is poor, tone adaptations are less likely to occur or, at the least, occur in a well done manner.
The great mirror of tone, and attitude for that matter, is the human face. Very few leaders are truly in tune with how their face looks during communication. Many are unaware of the wrinkled brow, scowl or stares of indifference that they cast on a regular basis. Under stress and with a poor or sinking attitude, managing facial expressions becomes a remote after-thought.
Effective leaders and great communicators make a special point of being aware of and managing their facial expressions. They understand what others see on their face and they actively work to create facial expressions that add to, and not distract from the message. This facial management is an important part of the non-verbal communication package and very important in controlling the tone of any dialog.
A couple of other non-verbal messages to be aware of include crossed arms, hands in pockets and single finger pointing. The crossed arm position, especially prevalent in sitting positions and during colder temperatures, shows a closed and uninterested position. For men more than women, the hands in pants pocket message is very common. When those hands slide in the front pockets it demonstrates a nervousness or disinterested position. Many people show this when standing for introductions or in other uncomfortable situations.
First recognized by the airline industry, the single finger point is a very aggressive piece of body language. Many people report that they feel assaulted or at the least, uncomfortable when others point. And as we all remember from our parents, it is rude. An interesting side note on single finger pointing is that many studies conclude that the aggressive nature of this piece of body language is not limited to pointing at a person but rather is equally aggressive when pointing towards other objects.
We can’t put them in our pockets, cross them, put them around our mouth or point them, so what do we do with our hands and arms. Effective leaders have found great value to engaging their hands and arms as message accentuation tools. Quite simply this means to use your hand and arms to assist in adding emphasis and enthusiasm to the message package. A little hand and arm movement shows you are engaged and believe your message as well.
In addressing tone, a good communicator must understand their environment and situation. During corrective coaching, a leader cannot be overly upbeat or friendly in tone. When having relationship based dialog or during tone setting, you cannot come across in a flat, monotone or disinterested tone. Tone, in communication is an interesting dynamic that is driven by attitude. When the attitude is strong and healthy, a person is more likely to correctly adapt to different tone situations. When attitude is poor, tone adaptations are less likely to occur or, at the least, occur in a well done manner.
The great mirror of tone, and attitude for that matter, is the human face. Very few leaders are truly in tune with how their face looks during communication. Many are unaware of the wrinkled brow, scowl or stares of indifference that they cast on a regular basis. Under stress and with a poor or sinking attitude, managing facial expressions becomes a remote after-thought.
Effective leaders and great communicators make a special point of being aware of and managing their facial expressions. They understand what others see on their face and they actively work to create facial expressions that add to, and not distract from the message. This facial management is an important part of the non-verbal communication package and very important in controlling the tone of any dialog.
A couple of other non-verbal messages to be aware of include crossed arms, hands in pockets and single finger pointing. The crossed arm position, especially prevalent in sitting positions and during colder temperatures, shows a closed and uninterested position. For men more than women, the hands in pants pocket message is very common. When those hands slide in the front pockets it demonstrates a nervousness or disinterested position. Many people show this when standing for introductions or in other uncomfortable situations.
First recognized by the airline industry, the single finger point is a very aggressive piece of body language. Many people report that they feel assaulted or at the least, uncomfortable when others point. And as we all remember from our parents, it is rude. An interesting side note on single finger pointing is that many studies conclude that the aggressive nature of this piece of body language is not limited to pointing at a person but rather is equally aggressive when pointing towards other objects.
We can’t put them in our pockets, cross them, put them around our mouth or point them, so what do we do with our hands and arms. Effective leaders have found great value to engaging their hands and arms as message accentuation tools. Quite simply this means to use your hand and arms to assist in adding emphasis and enthusiasm to the message package. A little hand and arm movement shows you are engaged and believe your message as well.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 42-Maintaining and Reparing Relationships
As simple as beginning to build a relationship seems, maintaining a relationship in the working environment becomes tricky and difficult. The first order of business is to insure that the relationship is reciprocal and not one sided. People must not feel, perceive or detect that you are using them or manipulating them in the relationship.
This means that you must provide assistance and openness when required and without strings attached. You must be willing to help, mentor and coach when there is no immediate gain for your or your part of the organization. You must also spend time with the people you have built relationships with and continue to communication and build rapport. Effective relationships also require a healthy dose of forgiveness. The forgiveness of faux pas, the forgives of neglect, the forgiveness of lack of understanding, the forgiveness of neglect and the forgiveness of the lack of reciprocation.
Forgiveness is a funny equation. We all admit we need it for our own mistakes and misspeaks but we tend to be a little stingy in providing it. As openly as we seek forgiveness of others, we must provide it to others.
Repairing
The final element of fully engaging relationship power is the need to repair relationships in the working environment. Repairing relationships that have been strained over time or not tended to because of the demands of our jobs.
Repairing will require a big amount of swallowing your pride and ego to do the right thing. Relationships are about building a long lasting power base and sometimes you have to subordinate your own ego to get this done.
Like in building relationships, this is not about you waiting for others to approach you. This is about you taking the initiative and responsibility for the relationship and reaching out to those in which the relationship has become strained. This will also require you to apologize for something that, in many cases, you have not done wrong. You are apologizing for the strain or apologizing for the miscommunication or apologizing for the neglect. It is the first step in repair and may not always be reciprocated but it is a starting point.
This means that you must provide assistance and openness when required and without strings attached. You must be willing to help, mentor and coach when there is no immediate gain for your or your part of the organization. You must also spend time with the people you have built relationships with and continue to communication and build rapport. Effective relationships also require a healthy dose of forgiveness. The forgiveness of faux pas, the forgives of neglect, the forgiveness of lack of understanding, the forgiveness of neglect and the forgiveness of the lack of reciprocation.
Forgiveness is a funny equation. We all admit we need it for our own mistakes and misspeaks but we tend to be a little stingy in providing it. As openly as we seek forgiveness of others, we must provide it to others.
Repairing
The final element of fully engaging relationship power is the need to repair relationships in the working environment. Repairing relationships that have been strained over time or not tended to because of the demands of our jobs.
Repairing will require a big amount of swallowing your pride and ego to do the right thing. Relationships are about building a long lasting power base and sometimes you have to subordinate your own ego to get this done.
Like in building relationships, this is not about you waiting for others to approach you. This is about you taking the initiative and responsibility for the relationship and reaching out to those in which the relationship has become strained. This will also require you to apologize for something that, in many cases, you have not done wrong. You are apologizing for the strain or apologizing for the miscommunication or apologizing for the neglect. It is the first step in repair and may not always be reciprocated but it is a starting point.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 41-The Starting Points of Coaching
Coaching is defined in many ways, terms and contexts. For our purpose, coaching is a stream of communication from the leader to team members for the purpose of maintaining and improving performance.
Often times, coaching is viewed as an athletic function and visions of Bobby Knight, Dean Smith, Tom Osborne or Lou Holtz are summoned. The model provided by the athletic version of coaching is not far off from the business model but there are some distinct differences.
One of the comments that has often been expressed about coaching is the lack of time to devote to this activity. This is a classic symptom of a leader being too involved in doing and not involved in leading. When debunked this comment is really more about a lack of comfort in coaching skills than it is about available time.
Team members who do not receive regular coaching often feel disengaged from the organization and leader. Morale will suffer and in the absence of good coaching, team members will take an active role in defining what is good and bad in the organization. Strong personalities, sometimes for very bad reasons, will rise to an unofficial position of importance and drive team effectiveness. Team members with no coaching will also become fearful, tentative and resentful of the lack of knowing where they stand.
When effective coaching is present, the opposite will occur. Team members are engaged, upbeat, clear in their direction and clear in their understanding of where there performance is at. Team members will develop a much clearer understanding of the organization’s needs and how they fit in the big picture with good coaching. They also will see hope in their own growth.
The core coaching competency is good communication skills. To coach you must be able to communicate. In groups, with individuals, following-up in writing; a leader must be able to express their comments, suggestions, praise and encouragement effectively.
The other core competency in coaching is the need to be a people person. Although this phrase is pretty grossly overused, you must enjoy interacting with team members to be an effective coach. The boss that hides in her office and buries her nose in projects and paper work is often expressing a discomfort with dealing with people and thus avoiding coaching activities.
The journey into effective and excellent coaching will begin with breaking coaching into three separate pieces. The first piece is feedback. Feedback is providing either positive or corrective information to team members about their performance or behavior. This is the most common form of coaching and should represent a big part of a leader’s coaching interactions.
The second tenet of coaching is teaching and mentoring. This is different from feedback in that it takes a more long-term and nurturing approach. Teaching and mentoring is about providing skills to be successful and growing people for maximum results.
The final piece of the coaching puzzle is a catch-all wing that includes decisions to release team members, game planning and protecting team members. For the purpose of simplicity, we will call this operational coaching.
No single part of coaching is more important than another and none are effective without the other. For team success, feedback is needed, mentoring and teaching are needed and the operational elements of coaching are certainly engaged. Equally important and equally distributed from a leadership perspective.
Often times, coaching is viewed as an athletic function and visions of Bobby Knight, Dean Smith, Tom Osborne or Lou Holtz are summoned. The model provided by the athletic version of coaching is not far off from the business model but there are some distinct differences.
One of the comments that has often been expressed about coaching is the lack of time to devote to this activity. This is a classic symptom of a leader being too involved in doing and not involved in leading. When debunked this comment is really more about a lack of comfort in coaching skills than it is about available time.
Team members who do not receive regular coaching often feel disengaged from the organization and leader. Morale will suffer and in the absence of good coaching, team members will take an active role in defining what is good and bad in the organization. Strong personalities, sometimes for very bad reasons, will rise to an unofficial position of importance and drive team effectiveness. Team members with no coaching will also become fearful, tentative and resentful of the lack of knowing where they stand.
When effective coaching is present, the opposite will occur. Team members are engaged, upbeat, clear in their direction and clear in their understanding of where there performance is at. Team members will develop a much clearer understanding of the organization’s needs and how they fit in the big picture with good coaching. They also will see hope in their own growth.
The core coaching competency is good communication skills. To coach you must be able to communicate. In groups, with individuals, following-up in writing; a leader must be able to express their comments, suggestions, praise and encouragement effectively.
The other core competency in coaching is the need to be a people person. Although this phrase is pretty grossly overused, you must enjoy interacting with team members to be an effective coach. The boss that hides in her office and buries her nose in projects and paper work is often expressing a discomfort with dealing with people and thus avoiding coaching activities.
The journey into effective and excellent coaching will begin with breaking coaching into three separate pieces. The first piece is feedback. Feedback is providing either positive or corrective information to team members about their performance or behavior. This is the most common form of coaching and should represent a big part of a leader’s coaching interactions.
The second tenet of coaching is teaching and mentoring. This is different from feedback in that it takes a more long-term and nurturing approach. Teaching and mentoring is about providing skills to be successful and growing people for maximum results.
The final piece of the coaching puzzle is a catch-all wing that includes decisions to release team members, game planning and protecting team members. For the purpose of simplicity, we will call this operational coaching.
No single part of coaching is more important than another and none are effective without the other. For team success, feedback is needed, mentoring and teaching are needed and the operational elements of coaching are certainly engaged. Equally important and equally distributed from a leadership perspective.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 40-Avoiding Change for Change's Sake
New is not automatically better. New is just new.
Trying and testing new methods is absolutely positive and effective leaders must constantly force the issue of challenging the status quo. That does not mean that the leader is blindly committed to new methods.
Some organizations have embraced an innovation only to find that the desired outcome has not been realized. The efficiency and improvement were no where to be found and the ease of implementation has been an oxymoron. In fact, during and after the change, things became much worse but unfortunately, no leader had the courage to raise a stop sign and cease the insanity.
An important part of innovation is to insure that the new method, process or product actually delivers the desired result set. The effective leader must monitor and test all of the assumptions associated with the innovation effort to insure that it is on track. If the results slip, the effective leader must be honest in their assessment and in some cases, stop the innovation.
One sure way to disengage team members and breed a jaded response to change is to narrowly assume that all that is new must be better.
Trying and testing new methods is absolutely positive and effective leaders must constantly force the issue of challenging the status quo. That does not mean that the leader is blindly committed to new methods.
Some organizations have embraced an innovation only to find that the desired outcome has not been realized. The efficiency and improvement were no where to be found and the ease of implementation has been an oxymoron. In fact, during and after the change, things became much worse but unfortunately, no leader had the courage to raise a stop sign and cease the insanity.
An important part of innovation is to insure that the new method, process or product actually delivers the desired result set. The effective leader must monitor and test all of the assumptions associated with the innovation effort to insure that it is on track. If the results slip, the effective leader must be honest in their assessment and in some cases, stop the innovation.
One sure way to disengage team members and breed a jaded response to change is to narrowly assume that all that is new must be better.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 39-The Coach as Mentor
The final role for the coaching leader is that of mentor. Mentoring has a lot of dynamics and sub-competencies and can be the most rewarding of all the coaching related activities.
At it’s core, mentoring is the growing of talent. Growing talent to take your place. Growing talent so you can be more easily promoted. Growing talent to ease your workload and increase team member satisfaction. Growing talent to increase your organizational influence by the promotion and transfer of people you have mentored. Growing talent to create a pool of succession for your organization.
The first mentoring dynamic is finding someone to mentor. This needs to be a collaborative operation. Not everyone you think will be a good successor wants to be mentored. Not everyone who wants to be mentored will be a good candidate for future promotion or advancement. The process needs to be available to all but utilized with only a few at a time. As a rule of thumb, you should only consider directly mentoring two people at any one time. You will have to conduct some courageous conversations with people to both encourage and dissuade participation in mentoring.
The reason that mentoring is done in plural with two people is because stuff happens. People quit. They may not be exactly what you thought they were. You need to have points of comparison and need to have choices when opportunities arise. Placing all of your mentoring stock in one candidate is risky and often backfires.
Identifying mentoring candidates will require you to do a little career counseling. You will need to discover what they want out of this job and their career in whole. What are they looking for and what are their key motivations and satisfaction points. This process is just like hiring for correct fit.
After you have identified a couple of mentoring candidates, the first step is to solidify relationships with them. Discover commonalities, reconcile differences in style and appearances and build bonds on a deeper level. This relationship base will further establish trust and communication comfort which is important in the mentoring process. Get to know the mentoring participants. Let them tell their stories. Know their biography. Both you and the mentored team member must feel good about expression and deeper communication intimacy.
The effective leader now wants to add some quality doses of storytelling. Not of the bedtime variety but the types of stories that reinforce how to be a successful leader. The challenges you faced. Things you have seen. Lessons you have learned. Not related in a I’m-The-Best-Thing-Since-White-Sliced-Bread type of approach but in narrative of lessons and matter-of-fact approach. This is uncomfortable for many leaders but priceless for those being mentored.
After relational and storytelling activities, the leader must begin the process of delegating, empowering and developing the mentoring participants. You must be able to let go of some key tasks, allow the team members to perform them using their techniques and styles and debrief their decisions and performance. Much more about this process in found in the Sheep Breeding Commandment.
Another powerful mentoring tool is job shadowing. This allows mentored participants to gain a feel and firsthand appreciation for higher level jobs and functions. Job shadowing should be done in a programmatic and long –term approach that gives a sustained look at the job.
The other key mentoring piece is to allow mentored team members to act in your behalf and for you at key meetings and during times of your absence. This is an important step of translating their learning from storytelling, delegation and job shadowing into the practical world of acting and performing. During any period when a mentored candidate acts for you, even if it is very brief, a debrief dialog is critical. This dialog is designed to see what went well and what could have been done better. When done in a non-comparing and non-judgmental form, this is a great form of learning for mentored participants.
Mentoring requires a good time commitment. A time commitment that is not always returned in the near term but an investment that will pay dividends to you and your organization for years to come.
At it’s core, mentoring is the growing of talent. Growing talent to take your place. Growing talent so you can be more easily promoted. Growing talent to ease your workload and increase team member satisfaction. Growing talent to increase your organizational influence by the promotion and transfer of people you have mentored. Growing talent to create a pool of succession for your organization.
The first mentoring dynamic is finding someone to mentor. This needs to be a collaborative operation. Not everyone you think will be a good successor wants to be mentored. Not everyone who wants to be mentored will be a good candidate for future promotion or advancement. The process needs to be available to all but utilized with only a few at a time. As a rule of thumb, you should only consider directly mentoring two people at any one time. You will have to conduct some courageous conversations with people to both encourage and dissuade participation in mentoring.
The reason that mentoring is done in plural with two people is because stuff happens. People quit. They may not be exactly what you thought they were. You need to have points of comparison and need to have choices when opportunities arise. Placing all of your mentoring stock in one candidate is risky and often backfires.
Identifying mentoring candidates will require you to do a little career counseling. You will need to discover what they want out of this job and their career in whole. What are they looking for and what are their key motivations and satisfaction points. This process is just like hiring for correct fit.
After you have identified a couple of mentoring candidates, the first step is to solidify relationships with them. Discover commonalities, reconcile differences in style and appearances and build bonds on a deeper level. This relationship base will further establish trust and communication comfort which is important in the mentoring process. Get to know the mentoring participants. Let them tell their stories. Know their biography. Both you and the mentored team member must feel good about expression and deeper communication intimacy.
The effective leader now wants to add some quality doses of storytelling. Not of the bedtime variety but the types of stories that reinforce how to be a successful leader. The challenges you faced. Things you have seen. Lessons you have learned. Not related in a I’m-The-Best-Thing-Since-White-Sliced-Bread type of approach but in narrative of lessons and matter-of-fact approach. This is uncomfortable for many leaders but priceless for those being mentored.
After relational and storytelling activities, the leader must begin the process of delegating, empowering and developing the mentoring participants. You must be able to let go of some key tasks, allow the team members to perform them using their techniques and styles and debrief their decisions and performance. Much more about this process in found in the Sheep Breeding Commandment.
Another powerful mentoring tool is job shadowing. This allows mentored participants to gain a feel and firsthand appreciation for higher level jobs and functions. Job shadowing should be done in a programmatic and long –term approach that gives a sustained look at the job.
The other key mentoring piece is to allow mentored team members to act in your behalf and for you at key meetings and during times of your absence. This is an important step of translating their learning from storytelling, delegation and job shadowing into the practical world of acting and performing. During any period when a mentored candidate acts for you, even if it is very brief, a debrief dialog is critical. This dialog is designed to see what went well and what could have been done better. When done in a non-comparing and non-judgmental form, this is a great form of learning for mentored participants.
Mentoring requires a good time commitment. A time commitment that is not always returned in the near term but an investment that will pay dividends to you and your organization for years to come.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 38-Creativity Dampeners
Before delving into the leadership role in driving innovation, a few comments and notes about creativity.
Creativity can be stymied in individuals and in organizations in a variety of ways. Among the most common dampeners of creativity is a lack of recognition for ideas. When an idea falls on deaf ears and is not acknowledged or validated in any manner, people will not provide creative solutions. Even worse than ignoring an idea, is if an idea is openly besmirched or ridiculed. When that occurs, ideas and creativity will be greatly diminished in the long term and people will be hesitant to ever participate in creative solutions or suggestions.
Other common dampeners include the proliferation of policy and procedure in a company. When all behaviors are defined by the dreaded P and P, there is little room for creative thought. Add a cumbersome process to revise policy and you will have a great recipe for no creativity.
Hyper rigidity is also a contributor to lack of creativity. When there are rules for the sake of rules and adherence to those rules are more important than achievement of results, creativity is diminished. Creativity is not stimulated through sameness.
A final piece of creative dampening is history. History is a poor indicator and predictor of what may work now. Many people look back and remember how something failed previously as an excuse to not try it again. Your history and your organization’s history should never be used to not attempt something anew. After all, people have changed, the environment has changed and it just might work this time around.
Stimulating creativity requires that an organization consistently reminds itself and the team members in the organization of what is really important. Is quality service more important than clocking in at eight? Is performance more important than rigidity? Is the quality of the end product more important than attendance at the mandatory Monday meeting?
Another creativity stimulant comes from a concept linked in this section. Personal change will tend to drive creative though process and stimulate the mind to seek different paths. Trying a new drive to work, rearranging your office and new working hours all stimulate creative thought. Change some patterns and habits and grow your creative output.
Without venturing into the spiritual or metaphysical realms, there are some other creative stimulants like listening to music (softly, of course), getting fresh air and exercise that are effective as well. One of the most overlooked creative stimulants is the gift of time to think. Supervisors, managers and leaders at all levels are very often consumed by their schedule. Things to do. Meetings. Tasks. None of that provides any time to sit back and sit back and think and be creative. The most effective leaders provide themselves some time to reflect, review and be creative. No interruptions, just thinking and being creative.
Creativity can be stymied in individuals and in organizations in a variety of ways. Among the most common dampeners of creativity is a lack of recognition for ideas. When an idea falls on deaf ears and is not acknowledged or validated in any manner, people will not provide creative solutions. Even worse than ignoring an idea, is if an idea is openly besmirched or ridiculed. When that occurs, ideas and creativity will be greatly diminished in the long term and people will be hesitant to ever participate in creative solutions or suggestions.
Other common dampeners include the proliferation of policy and procedure in a company. When all behaviors are defined by the dreaded P and P, there is little room for creative thought. Add a cumbersome process to revise policy and you will have a great recipe for no creativity.
Hyper rigidity is also a contributor to lack of creativity. When there are rules for the sake of rules and adherence to those rules are more important than achievement of results, creativity is diminished. Creativity is not stimulated through sameness.
A final piece of creative dampening is history. History is a poor indicator and predictor of what may work now. Many people look back and remember how something failed previously as an excuse to not try it again. Your history and your organization’s history should never be used to not attempt something anew. After all, people have changed, the environment has changed and it just might work this time around.
Stimulating creativity requires that an organization consistently reminds itself and the team members in the organization of what is really important. Is quality service more important than clocking in at eight? Is performance more important than rigidity? Is the quality of the end product more important than attendance at the mandatory Monday meeting?
Another creativity stimulant comes from a concept linked in this section. Personal change will tend to drive creative though process and stimulate the mind to seek different paths. Trying a new drive to work, rearranging your office and new working hours all stimulate creative thought. Change some patterns and habits and grow your creative output.
Without venturing into the spiritual or metaphysical realms, there are some other creative stimulants like listening to music (softly, of course), getting fresh air and exercise that are effective as well. One of the most overlooked creative stimulants is the gift of time to think. Supervisors, managers and leaders at all levels are very often consumed by their schedule. Things to do. Meetings. Tasks. None of that provides any time to sit back and sit back and think and be creative. The most effective leaders provide themselves some time to reflect, review and be creative. No interruptions, just thinking and being creative.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 37-The Courage to Say an Honest "No"
Yes. Sure. You bet.
The easiest words to say in the English language. Makes sure that you remain popular. People come to you and you become the “go to person” in the organization. You take on all things asked.
Unfortunately, this is also a very self defeating leadership behavior. What happens when you can’t, don’t have the capacity or should not? Do you still say yes or do you deliver a honest no?
In the simplest form, the honest no needs courage when the boss asks you to take on something that you simply do not have the capacity to handle. In your attempt to please, you take on the project, move around other strategically important tasks to satisfy the boss or do a poor job on everything to just get things done. The better approach would be an honest no delivered to the boss with the explanation why. If the boss persists, you need to make the value decisions to move other things around to do a good job on what you were just given.
More complicated no responses are those delivered to team members. It is easy to grant a little time off, allow a deadline to be moved or accommodate other requests. What takes significantly more leadership courage is to say no and deny the requests when needed. It will harm your short term credibility but it will maintain your long term effectiveness and respect.
The easiest words to say in the English language. Makes sure that you remain popular. People come to you and you become the “go to person” in the organization. You take on all things asked.
Unfortunately, this is also a very self defeating leadership behavior. What happens when you can’t, don’t have the capacity or should not? Do you still say yes or do you deliver a honest no?
In the simplest form, the honest no needs courage when the boss asks you to take on something that you simply do not have the capacity to handle. In your attempt to please, you take on the project, move around other strategically important tasks to satisfy the boss or do a poor job on everything to just get things done. The better approach would be an honest no delivered to the boss with the explanation why. If the boss persists, you need to make the value decisions to move other things around to do a good job on what you were just given.
More complicated no responses are those delivered to team members. It is easy to grant a little time off, allow a deadline to be moved or accommodate other requests. What takes significantly more leadership courage is to say no and deny the requests when needed. It will harm your short term credibility but it will maintain your long term effectiveness and respect.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 36-Continuous Process Improvement
Continuous process improvement is the process of insuring that procedures, processes and operational elements are always working at peak efficiency and delivering the highest quality product.
Many organizations have implemented elaborate procedures and established committees to insure that they are always improving their processes. This section will describe a simpler method with equally powerful results.
Big time wrestling, boxing and mixed martial arts all utilize a champion/challenger system. Each of these sports (?) have a champion by weight class or experience level or by endorsing agency. This champion has established himself as the current best in the sport.
In order to continue to be the champion, the current title holder must take on challengers. If the current champion wins, that person remains the champion. If the challenger wins, that person will become the champion and prepare to take on new challengers.
The current way in which you do a thing is the champion. It does not have to be a big thing or it can be a very big thing but it is the champion. An innovative approach to continuous process improvement requires you to test a challenger against the current way that you are doing a piece of your business. If a new way or challenger is better, it becomes the new method. If a new way is not better, you stick with the way you are currently doing it.
The best part of this method is the lack of risk involved in the process. If the challenger is not better, you have not abandoned the existing methods. You have just challenged them. The champion/challenger method also insures that you do not engage in change and innovation for change and innovation’s sake.
Many organizations have implemented elaborate procedures and established committees to insure that they are always improving their processes. This section will describe a simpler method with equally powerful results.
Big time wrestling, boxing and mixed martial arts all utilize a champion/challenger system. Each of these sports (?) have a champion by weight class or experience level or by endorsing agency. This champion has established himself as the current best in the sport.
In order to continue to be the champion, the current title holder must take on challengers. If the current champion wins, that person remains the champion. If the challenger wins, that person will become the champion and prepare to take on new challengers.
The current way in which you do a thing is the champion. It does not have to be a big thing or it can be a very big thing but it is the champion. An innovative approach to continuous process improvement requires you to test a challenger against the current way that you are doing a piece of your business. If a new way or challenger is better, it becomes the new method. If a new way is not better, you stick with the way you are currently doing it.
The best part of this method is the lack of risk involved in the process. If the challenger is not better, you have not abandoned the existing methods. You have just challenged them. The champion/challenger method also insures that you do not engage in change and innovation for change and innovation’s sake.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 35-Overusing Reward, Threat and Organizational Power
Threat power is a form of “if, then” equation. It is the direct or intimated threat that if a team member fails, something bad will happen to them. A little bit of threat power is needed in any leadership dynamic but if overused, can drain the spirit and desire to perform from any team.
The necessary application of threat power is usually reserved for formal disciplinary actions when coaching has not produced a successful turnaround in a team member’s performance. In formal disciplinary action, there is the “if, then” that relates to continued failure could result in more disciplinary action or termination. Beyond this application, threat power serves no good purpose in leadership.
Like threat power, reward power is an “if, then” type of proposition. The only difference is that reward power provides for a positive reward or carrot at the end of a stick upon achieving a desired result. Also like threat power, it is necessary but in small doses.
Two areas of concern for any leader is the ongoing availability of rewards. If rewards dry up, now what? The other area of concern is why people work for and perform for a leader. Is the leader really building loyalty and relationships or simply offering compensation and spiffs on a regular basis. Many times the leader that is over-reliant on reward power is compensating for a lack of true relationships with team members and trying to buy performance.
Organizational or legitimate power is the actual authority granted to a leader based on their position and title. It is where you live in the organizational chart. It is your authority to approve things, initiate action and operate independently. It can also be seen as “do it because I said so.” It is very common in military and paramilitary type organizations which rely on a rigid hierarchy.
Unfortunately, too much emphasis on organizational power will lead to bottlenecked decision making, lack of innovation and failure to take risks. It can also be a contributing factor in sheep breeding and the lack of success associated with that. The use of organizational power can also become territorial and hoarding with people waging turf wars to insure their areas of influence are protected and insulated.
The effective leader should never have to order anyone to do anything or beg anyone to do anything. The effective leader creates a climate and the relationships needed for team members to want to do the work prescribed and direction defined by the leader.
The necessary application of threat power is usually reserved for formal disciplinary actions when coaching has not produced a successful turnaround in a team member’s performance. In formal disciplinary action, there is the “if, then” that relates to continued failure could result in more disciplinary action or termination. Beyond this application, threat power serves no good purpose in leadership.
Like threat power, reward power is an “if, then” type of proposition. The only difference is that reward power provides for a positive reward or carrot at the end of a stick upon achieving a desired result. Also like threat power, it is necessary but in small doses.
Two areas of concern for any leader is the ongoing availability of rewards. If rewards dry up, now what? The other area of concern is why people work for and perform for a leader. Is the leader really building loyalty and relationships or simply offering compensation and spiffs on a regular basis. Many times the leader that is over-reliant on reward power is compensating for a lack of true relationships with team members and trying to buy performance.
Organizational or legitimate power is the actual authority granted to a leader based on their position and title. It is where you live in the organizational chart. It is your authority to approve things, initiate action and operate independently. It can also be seen as “do it because I said so.” It is very common in military and paramilitary type organizations which rely on a rigid hierarchy.
Unfortunately, too much emphasis on organizational power will lead to bottlenecked decision making, lack of innovation and failure to take risks. It can also be a contributing factor in sheep breeding and the lack of success associated with that. The use of organizational power can also become territorial and hoarding with people waging turf wars to insure their areas of influence are protected and insulated.
The effective leader should never have to order anyone to do anything or beg anyone to do anything. The effective leader creates a climate and the relationships needed for team members to want to do the work prescribed and direction defined by the leader.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 34-Feedback from Others
The third and final source of information related to understanding yourself comes from the feedback of others. This can be in two subsets, formal and informal. Formal feedback from other people includes performance reviews and 360 degree evaluations. Performance reviews are usually not a very good source of self understanding and awareness because they are done infrequently and they are generally not done well.
The formal process of gathering leadership, performance and behavioral information from others is commonly referred to as a 360 degree assessment. It obtains feedback from those you lead, your boss and others, including vendors and customers, in which you exercise influence. The best versions of these instruments contain both quantified and numeric ratings about key leadership indicators but also include a section for anonymous comments. The most helpful information is often found in the comment section under headings that include behaviors to stop, behaviors to begin, things the person does well and things the person could do better.
The one intellectual honesty risk with 360 degree feedback comes from selecting the audience to comment and evaluate. Two errors occur frequently in choosing either people that you know will be very supportive and positive or choosing people that will be very critical. Both populations do not provide an accurate picture of you or your style. Evaluators and comment providers must be a cross section of those who love you and those who do not.
Informal methods of gaining feedback include the highly complex transaction of (gasp) asking people how you are doing. One of the best leadership sources of this information come from those being led. Simply asking how you are doing as a leader, what you could do better and what is working well is a great source of feedback to understand yourself and uncover some important blind spots.
Another great source of the same type of information comes from peers or near peers. Since they have no real vested interest in how you lead, their degree of honesty would be pretty high. This works especially well if you can create a peer mentoring type of relationship where the feedback is shared between both of you.
As with all types of self understanding feedback, this also contains a warning tale or two. The first time out of the gate, many people will not provide you with direct and fully honest information. In fact, your subordinates and peers may sugar coat things or deny that there is anything in you that needs to be changed. They may even openly think you are up to no good in this questioning. It is only through a consistent approach in which you have demonstrated no repercussions that team members will provide you with complete honesty and feedback that you need. You must ask several times across multiple months and show that no one is going to get hurt to get the self management information you want.
The final cautionary tale about direct feedback is the desire that many people have to dismiss the source. In informal feedback, if you hear something you don’t like from someone you don’t like, it is easy to discredit the information. You might say things like “you know Bob, nothing ever pleases him” or “Mary has not had a good thing to say about a boss in ten years.” Unfortunately, even when the source is not valued, some of the feedback is important. Even when wrapped in exaggeration or dislike, important information about you might lay below the surface and underneath some emotion. Focus on the message and not the messenger.
The three ingredients of understanding yourself are what you already know and believe, feedback from personality assessments and profiles and the feedback from others. Armed with this information you are now ready to begin the final step of self awareness and understanding.
The formal process of gathering leadership, performance and behavioral information from others is commonly referred to as a 360 degree assessment. It obtains feedback from those you lead, your boss and others, including vendors and customers, in which you exercise influence. The best versions of these instruments contain both quantified and numeric ratings about key leadership indicators but also include a section for anonymous comments. The most helpful information is often found in the comment section under headings that include behaviors to stop, behaviors to begin, things the person does well and things the person could do better.
The one intellectual honesty risk with 360 degree feedback comes from selecting the audience to comment and evaluate. Two errors occur frequently in choosing either people that you know will be very supportive and positive or choosing people that will be very critical. Both populations do not provide an accurate picture of you or your style. Evaluators and comment providers must be a cross section of those who love you and those who do not.
Informal methods of gaining feedback include the highly complex transaction of (gasp) asking people how you are doing. One of the best leadership sources of this information come from those being led. Simply asking how you are doing as a leader, what you could do better and what is working well is a great source of feedback to understand yourself and uncover some important blind spots.
Another great source of the same type of information comes from peers or near peers. Since they have no real vested interest in how you lead, their degree of honesty would be pretty high. This works especially well if you can create a peer mentoring type of relationship where the feedback is shared between both of you.
As with all types of self understanding feedback, this also contains a warning tale or two. The first time out of the gate, many people will not provide you with direct and fully honest information. In fact, your subordinates and peers may sugar coat things or deny that there is anything in you that needs to be changed. They may even openly think you are up to no good in this questioning. It is only through a consistent approach in which you have demonstrated no repercussions that team members will provide you with complete honesty and feedback that you need. You must ask several times across multiple months and show that no one is going to get hurt to get the self management information you want.
The final cautionary tale about direct feedback is the desire that many people have to dismiss the source. In informal feedback, if you hear something you don’t like from someone you don’t like, it is easy to discredit the information. You might say things like “you know Bob, nothing ever pleases him” or “Mary has not had a good thing to say about a boss in ten years.” Unfortunately, even when the source is not valued, some of the feedback is important. Even when wrapped in exaggeration or dislike, important information about you might lay below the surface and underneath some emotion. Focus on the message and not the messenger.
The three ingredients of understanding yourself are what you already know and believe, feedback from personality assessments and profiles and the feedback from others. Armed with this information you are now ready to begin the final step of self awareness and understanding.
Monday Mentor-Week 33-Collaborative Innovation
Brainstorming does not work.
That’s right. Brainstorming as most people think of it is highly ineffective and does not achieve the level of collaborative input desired. The brainstorming that incorporates twenty or so of your team members and peers with the obligatory facilitator, flip chart pad and colored markers does not work.
There is a pretty large population of people that will not share their ideas, suggestions and thoughts in this type of forum. Some people fear embarrassment, ridicule or even just speaking in front of a group. No matter how comfortable you make the environment, they are going to contribute very little or nothing at all. Worse yet, they may even openly mock the process because of their discomfort and pollute the participation of others. These people have great ideas, they just will not share them in a traditional brainstorming environment.
There is also a population of people that require time to process information and formulate ideas. They do not do well in an environment that rewards near auctioneer speed in conveying thoughts. They want to collect themselves, play around with various scenarios and have time to form something that meets their standards. Brainstorming sessions exclude the great ideas from this group.
Before we visit what processes work to achieve collaboration in innovation, we must examine why collaborative innovation is desirable. If you are an effective leader and have great ideas, why do you need the input from others?
The effective leader is looking for innovation partners and not just innovation participants. Ownership and buy-in are only achieved with participation. You cannot demand buy-in, sell buy-in or purchase buy-in. It is only achieved when others can willing participate in the process. As the leader, you get a team that believes they designed the innovation rather than was victimized by the innovation.
A collaborative approach to innovation also assists the leader in seeing potential unintended consequences of an new approach or change. The different views from your team and the perspectives they represent can be real eye-opening to the leader. They have operational level and daily knowledge that even the most in-tune leader will never know. Quite simply, they know what works and often, what is best for the customer or end user.
There is a short process to obtain collaborative input from your team or others in an innovation process. The first step is to announce the issue or process that you would like input about. As a general rule of thumb, give people a ten to twenty day window of time to think about what you want them to have ideas about.
The second step is to require, yes require, input. That is achieved by sending your team members a note or form with the identified issue or process and requesting that each team member produce three suggestions or ideas for how to perform it better. Establish a deadline and build a follow-up mechanism to insure you receive feedback from each team member or organizational participant. Upon receipt, be sure to thank each team member for the input, no matter the quality.
The next immediate interim step is to reconcile the written comments from your team. There are two areas of awe that occur here. First is the feedback that you will receive from the quietest members of your group. The ones that never speak in a staff meeting or traditional brainstorming session will come up with and articulate some great ideas. The second awe point relates to the degree of commonality. Commonality between your approach and theirs and commonality between their suggestions. Leaders who utilize this method report that out of hundreds of individual ideas, they can be edited down into a dozen or so common responses. Different words but same processes or suggestions.
The final step of this collaborative innovation model is the only public airing and it is a relatively brief one compared to traditional brainstorming. A group meeting is conducted and all the ideas are presented equally. The leader can include his or her suggestions and ideas on equal footing with other input and feedback at this time. With each idea out in the open, the leader or facilitator will begin reconciling ideas by pairing people, then in groups of four, groups of eight and finally the entire group to build ideas and suggestions that represent the entire group. Everyone participates and everyone is represented in this reconciliation. Ideas are formulated, documented and fully vetted. Each of the consolidation steps are time sensitive with short deadline periods to avoid over-pontification by any one group member. The team leader often excuses himself or herself from this process because of the influence they carry among team members.
Collaborative innovation takes a little more time and work but the results and the buy-in of affected stakeholders is dramatically better than dictated ideas and solutions.
That’s right. Brainstorming as most people think of it is highly ineffective and does not achieve the level of collaborative input desired. The brainstorming that incorporates twenty or so of your team members and peers with the obligatory facilitator, flip chart pad and colored markers does not work.
There is a pretty large population of people that will not share their ideas, suggestions and thoughts in this type of forum. Some people fear embarrassment, ridicule or even just speaking in front of a group. No matter how comfortable you make the environment, they are going to contribute very little or nothing at all. Worse yet, they may even openly mock the process because of their discomfort and pollute the participation of others. These people have great ideas, they just will not share them in a traditional brainstorming environment.
There is also a population of people that require time to process information and formulate ideas. They do not do well in an environment that rewards near auctioneer speed in conveying thoughts. They want to collect themselves, play around with various scenarios and have time to form something that meets their standards. Brainstorming sessions exclude the great ideas from this group.
Before we visit what processes work to achieve collaboration in innovation, we must examine why collaborative innovation is desirable. If you are an effective leader and have great ideas, why do you need the input from others?
The effective leader is looking for innovation partners and not just innovation participants. Ownership and buy-in are only achieved with participation. You cannot demand buy-in, sell buy-in or purchase buy-in. It is only achieved when others can willing participate in the process. As the leader, you get a team that believes they designed the innovation rather than was victimized by the innovation.
A collaborative approach to innovation also assists the leader in seeing potential unintended consequences of an new approach or change. The different views from your team and the perspectives they represent can be real eye-opening to the leader. They have operational level and daily knowledge that even the most in-tune leader will never know. Quite simply, they know what works and often, what is best for the customer or end user.
There is a short process to obtain collaborative input from your team or others in an innovation process. The first step is to announce the issue or process that you would like input about. As a general rule of thumb, give people a ten to twenty day window of time to think about what you want them to have ideas about.
The second step is to require, yes require, input. That is achieved by sending your team members a note or form with the identified issue or process and requesting that each team member produce three suggestions or ideas for how to perform it better. Establish a deadline and build a follow-up mechanism to insure you receive feedback from each team member or organizational participant. Upon receipt, be sure to thank each team member for the input, no matter the quality.
The next immediate interim step is to reconcile the written comments from your team. There are two areas of awe that occur here. First is the feedback that you will receive from the quietest members of your group. The ones that never speak in a staff meeting or traditional brainstorming session will come up with and articulate some great ideas. The second awe point relates to the degree of commonality. Commonality between your approach and theirs and commonality between their suggestions. Leaders who utilize this method report that out of hundreds of individual ideas, they can be edited down into a dozen or so common responses. Different words but same processes or suggestions.
The final step of this collaborative innovation model is the only public airing and it is a relatively brief one compared to traditional brainstorming. A group meeting is conducted and all the ideas are presented equally. The leader can include his or her suggestions and ideas on equal footing with other input and feedback at this time. With each idea out in the open, the leader or facilitator will begin reconciling ideas by pairing people, then in groups of four, groups of eight and finally the entire group to build ideas and suggestions that represent the entire group. Everyone participates and everyone is represented in this reconciliation. Ideas are formulated, documented and fully vetted. Each of the consolidation steps are time sensitive with short deadline periods to avoid over-pontification by any one group member. The team leader often excuses himself or herself from this process because of the influence they carry among team members.
Collaborative innovation takes a little more time and work but the results and the buy-in of affected stakeholders is dramatically better than dictated ideas and solutions.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 32-Overuse of Expert Power
The overuse of expert power is one of the most common challenges among new and emerging leaders and can lead to some serious disconnects with a work team.
Expert power is the technical skills, knowledge and expertise that you have amassed during your career. It is your experience and understanding of how things get done and how they should be done. It is you being an expert in your field. It is also the organizational savvy you have grown to understand during your tenure with your company. It is the who does what to whom and what can and cannot be done within the organizational culture.
As indicated previously, some expertise is needed to preserve credibility with your team and within the organization. You must know the basic functions of what goes on and how it is done but you do not have to know everything. That is why you have team members.
The challenge with new and emerging leaders comes from the fact that most of them are promoted from the ranks in which they will now supervise and manage. They were expert doers so now they will become the leader of doers. It is the promotion of people for technical abilities and success and not based on leadership skills and competencies that cause problems here.
It also is a challenge in smaller environments when the owner, founder or original entrepreneur begins to hire team members.
New and emerging leaders often struggle with the awkwardness of leadership. The communication, tone setting, coaching and decision making needed to be effective is difficult for them so they retreat back to where they were previously successful. Doing things. Things that should be done by team members. After all, they were promoted because they were the best doer. What occurs in this environment is a complete drain of leadership and results will suffer shortly.
The other phenomenon attached to the overuse of expert power is that team members have room to participate or contribute. This will lead directly and quickly to sheep breeding. Why should they make suggestions or innovate, when you have all the answers and expertise? The effective leader must be more concerned with sharing expertise and growing the knowledge base of team members rather than protecting and reinforcing their own expert power.
Expert power is the technical skills, knowledge and expertise that you have amassed during your career. It is your experience and understanding of how things get done and how they should be done. It is you being an expert in your field. It is also the organizational savvy you have grown to understand during your tenure with your company. It is the who does what to whom and what can and cannot be done within the organizational culture.
As indicated previously, some expertise is needed to preserve credibility with your team and within the organization. You must know the basic functions of what goes on and how it is done but you do not have to know everything. That is why you have team members.
The challenge with new and emerging leaders comes from the fact that most of them are promoted from the ranks in which they will now supervise and manage. They were expert doers so now they will become the leader of doers. It is the promotion of people for technical abilities and success and not based on leadership skills and competencies that cause problems here.
It also is a challenge in smaller environments when the owner, founder or original entrepreneur begins to hire team members.
New and emerging leaders often struggle with the awkwardness of leadership. The communication, tone setting, coaching and decision making needed to be effective is difficult for them so they retreat back to where they were previously successful. Doing things. Things that should be done by team members. After all, they were promoted because they were the best doer. What occurs in this environment is a complete drain of leadership and results will suffer shortly.
The other phenomenon attached to the overuse of expert power is that team members have room to participate or contribute. This will lead directly and quickly to sheep breeding. Why should they make suggestions or innovate, when you have all the answers and expertise? The effective leader must be more concerned with sharing expertise and growing the knowledge base of team members rather than protecting and reinforcing their own expert power.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 31-Building Relationships with Team Members
Building appropriate and genuine relationships with team members is also an important skills and competency for leaders. These relationships are built on establishing commonalities, listening effectively, providing respect and knowing a little bit about each team member. These relationships represent the core ingredient in loyalty and the desire for someone to push them in working for you.
When building relationships with team members, remember to spend significantly more time in finding out who they are as compared to telling them who you are. To paraphrase Covey: seek first to understand and then seek understanding. Also be very in-tune with the clues that your team gives you. Look for pictures, bumper stickers or clothing themes that provide a hint about someone’s interests, passions or family composition. Largely, people enjoy talking about their family, their pets, where they are from and in what they are interested. Let them and use that information for future follow-up.
Being an effective leader does not require superhuman memory skills as much as it requires the desire to be interested and the desire to remember team member information. In the pre-proliferation-of-computers era, leaders made index cards that included some key information from relationship building as well as important dates such as work anniversary, promotion date and birthday. That information was reviewed periodically prior to interacting with team members. In the more modern world, many leaders note key information about team members in contact management software and databases for future reference.
One great dividing line of good leaders and a very challenging line for new supervisors is the difference between friendly and friends. Effective leaders bridge the pitfalls related to the appearance of favoritism, clouded judgment and poor perception by being friendly with all their employees but friends with none of them. This is an important distinguishing line that often requires the use of “no, I am sorry I can’t” when responding to an after work drink invitation.
When building relationships with team members, remember to spend significantly more time in finding out who they are as compared to telling them who you are. To paraphrase Covey: seek first to understand and then seek understanding. Also be very in-tune with the clues that your team gives you. Look for pictures, bumper stickers or clothing themes that provide a hint about someone’s interests, passions or family composition. Largely, people enjoy talking about their family, their pets, where they are from and in what they are interested. Let them and use that information for future follow-up.
Being an effective leader does not require superhuman memory skills as much as it requires the desire to be interested and the desire to remember team member information. In the pre-proliferation-of-computers era, leaders made index cards that included some key information from relationship building as well as important dates such as work anniversary, promotion date and birthday. That information was reviewed periodically prior to interacting with team members. In the more modern world, many leaders note key information about team members in contact management software and databases for future reference.
One great dividing line of good leaders and a very challenging line for new supervisors is the difference between friendly and friends. Effective leaders bridge the pitfalls related to the appearance of favoritism, clouded judgment and poor perception by being friendly with all their employees but friends with none of them. This is an important distinguishing line that often requires the use of “no, I am sorry I can’t” when responding to an after work drink invitation.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 30-Leading Others Through Change
Just because you are comfortable and supportive of a change does not mean your job is done. You have to lead others through that change.
A couple of common pitfalls to avoid in leadership include assuming that everyone else is as comfortable with change as you are and that you cannot have any impact on the cycle of change. The truth is that you have great influence over how the cycle of change impacts your organization and no two people will react to change in the same manner. Your role as effective leader compels you to guide your team through the change event with the minimum loss of results and with maximum effectiveness.
Your role in leading others through change has an interesting little rub point. Just suppose for a moment that you do not agree with or support the change and cannot reconcile even the slightest elements of it. That does not let you off the hook in guiding your team through the change. Whether you support it or not, you must be a willing and enthusiastic leader during changing times. This is your responsibility to your team and your organization.
There are three primary ingredients needed to helping others and an organization as a whole deal with change. The first and a very critical element is input. The best time to seek input on change is before change occurs but that is not always possible because of business needs or issues outside of the control of the organization. Input from those affected is the biggest cure to the depth of the mourning phase in the change cycle.
In the most simple terms, it is allowing team members and other stakeholders to define key elements of the needed change. It is soliciting opinions about how to accomplish the desired outcomes and looking for the unintended consequences that were previously discussed. The effective leader lays out what the desired outcome is and then allows team members to provide input on how to accomplish those objectives.
This is not allowing the inmates to run the prison but rather an attempt to achieve full buy-in and support for a change initiative. Just because you are seeking input does not imply you are running your company or department as a democracy. You are still free and empowered to enact the direction or change that you choose. People are far more likely to embrace change when they have input and feel as if they were part of the decision making and direction.
This cannot be overstated. Input equals buy-in. It cannot be bought. It cannot be achieved in a slide show. Buy-in only occurs with input.
The second key ingredient of leading others in change is communication. Input reduces or eliminates the depth of mourning in the change cycle and communication will reduce the amount of time the mourning and embracing parts of the cycle last.
As a person in a leadership position, you have heard things like “no one likes surprises” or “I wish someone would have told me this was coming.” Those statements and those like it are cries for information. Information that can only be delivered through frequent communication.
In order to guide team members through a change event, communication prior to the event occurring is critical. Your team needs time to process the changes, see how it impacts them and find the positive outcomes. Through your personal communication, you will provide them with the answers and give reassurances that the changes are needed and the impacts will be minimized. Without the communication, they will fill in the blanks for themselves and you risk them focusing only on risk based or failure based outcomes.
The standard rule of thumb for change based communication is to over-communicate. If you meet with your team twice a month, double that in a changing environment to focus on those changes and provide redundant information. Send out weekly or even daily status updates that talk about the change and how it is going. Be more open than ever to answer questions and address concerns.
The most surefire way to raise anxiety about change and lengthen the time of coping and embracing is to effect the change behind closed doors. Changes need to occur with transparency and in full view.
The final element of leading others through change is developing cultural tolerances and conditioning about change. Without the consultant speak, that is putting your team or the entire organization on notice that you and your team will be nimble and in a constant state of evolution.
Easily said but a little bit harder to actually pull off. There are several techniques to utilize including reminding team members about the previous changes that they have encountered, worked through and embraced. Another technique is not to focus on the history of the company or department and focus more on the future or vision and the need to change to in order to achieve that future view.
Change tolerance can also be achieved in a daily operational manner. If you routinely change and modify work flows and assignments (i.e. rotating jobs and schedules), dealing with larger scale organizational change is easier. Condition nimbleness by rotating assignments, hours and even where a person sits. That also helps with reducing the comfort to complacency equation.
The final reminder about leading others in change is about you. Remember that the example that you set in change management is extremely important and the team you lead will take a big clue about how to deal with change from how you deal with change.
A couple of common pitfalls to avoid in leadership include assuming that everyone else is as comfortable with change as you are and that you cannot have any impact on the cycle of change. The truth is that you have great influence over how the cycle of change impacts your organization and no two people will react to change in the same manner. Your role as effective leader compels you to guide your team through the change event with the minimum loss of results and with maximum effectiveness.
Your role in leading others through change has an interesting little rub point. Just suppose for a moment that you do not agree with or support the change and cannot reconcile even the slightest elements of it. That does not let you off the hook in guiding your team through the change. Whether you support it or not, you must be a willing and enthusiastic leader during changing times. This is your responsibility to your team and your organization.
There are three primary ingredients needed to helping others and an organization as a whole deal with change. The first and a very critical element is input. The best time to seek input on change is before change occurs but that is not always possible because of business needs or issues outside of the control of the organization. Input from those affected is the biggest cure to the depth of the mourning phase in the change cycle.
In the most simple terms, it is allowing team members and other stakeholders to define key elements of the needed change. It is soliciting opinions about how to accomplish the desired outcomes and looking for the unintended consequences that were previously discussed. The effective leader lays out what the desired outcome is and then allows team members to provide input on how to accomplish those objectives.
This is not allowing the inmates to run the prison but rather an attempt to achieve full buy-in and support for a change initiative. Just because you are seeking input does not imply you are running your company or department as a democracy. You are still free and empowered to enact the direction or change that you choose. People are far more likely to embrace change when they have input and feel as if they were part of the decision making and direction.
This cannot be overstated. Input equals buy-in. It cannot be bought. It cannot be achieved in a slide show. Buy-in only occurs with input.
The second key ingredient of leading others in change is communication. Input reduces or eliminates the depth of mourning in the change cycle and communication will reduce the amount of time the mourning and embracing parts of the cycle last.
As a person in a leadership position, you have heard things like “no one likes surprises” or “I wish someone would have told me this was coming.” Those statements and those like it are cries for information. Information that can only be delivered through frequent communication.
In order to guide team members through a change event, communication prior to the event occurring is critical. Your team needs time to process the changes, see how it impacts them and find the positive outcomes. Through your personal communication, you will provide them with the answers and give reassurances that the changes are needed and the impacts will be minimized. Without the communication, they will fill in the blanks for themselves and you risk them focusing only on risk based or failure based outcomes.
The standard rule of thumb for change based communication is to over-communicate. If you meet with your team twice a month, double that in a changing environment to focus on those changes and provide redundant information. Send out weekly or even daily status updates that talk about the change and how it is going. Be more open than ever to answer questions and address concerns.
The most surefire way to raise anxiety about change and lengthen the time of coping and embracing is to effect the change behind closed doors. Changes need to occur with transparency and in full view.
The final element of leading others through change is developing cultural tolerances and conditioning about change. Without the consultant speak, that is putting your team or the entire organization on notice that you and your team will be nimble and in a constant state of evolution.
Easily said but a little bit harder to actually pull off. There are several techniques to utilize including reminding team members about the previous changes that they have encountered, worked through and embraced. Another technique is not to focus on the history of the company or department and focus more on the future or vision and the need to change to in order to achieve that future view.
Change tolerance can also be achieved in a daily operational manner. If you routinely change and modify work flows and assignments (i.e. rotating jobs and schedules), dealing with larger scale organizational change is easier. Condition nimbleness by rotating assignments, hours and even where a person sits. That also helps with reducing the comfort to complacency equation.
The final reminder about leading others in change is about you. Remember that the example that you set in change management is extremely important and the team you lead will take a big clue about how to deal with change from how you deal with change.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Monday Mentor Week 29-What You Need is Not What They Need
Another stumbling block in the correct application of positive feedback is using your own need for it as a model for giving to everyone else.
Leaders have greater self-management. Leaders have a greater resiliency. Leaders have greater mechanisms for providing honest feedback internally. You know when you have done well. You may even have a small, internal celebration. Unfortunately, many leaders assume that all team members have the same internal dynamics.
People need to feel appreciated and that their contributions are valued. This goes beyond a paycheck and they desperately want to hear some positive feedback from their leaders.
In a perfect organizational climate and culture, line level leaders are hearing positive feedback from mid-level managers. Mid-level managers are hearing positive feedback from division leaders. Division leaders are hearing positive feedback from senior executives. That is the way it should be.
Reality check. Sadly, in many organizations, positive feedback needs to be provided to team members even when that leader is not hearing any positive feedback. It is easier when you receive it but just because you might not, it is not an excuse to not provide it to your team members.
There is another message here as well. Some team members will attempt to rebuff or minimize any positive feedback. They will even tell you that they don’t need it. Don’t buy into their shtick. They want positive feedback and need it as much as any other person.
Leaders have greater self-management. Leaders have a greater resiliency. Leaders have greater mechanisms for providing honest feedback internally. You know when you have done well. You may even have a small, internal celebration. Unfortunately, many leaders assume that all team members have the same internal dynamics.
People need to feel appreciated and that their contributions are valued. This goes beyond a paycheck and they desperately want to hear some positive feedback from their leaders.
In a perfect organizational climate and culture, line level leaders are hearing positive feedback from mid-level managers. Mid-level managers are hearing positive feedback from division leaders. Division leaders are hearing positive feedback from senior executives. That is the way it should be.
Reality check. Sadly, in many organizations, positive feedback needs to be provided to team members even when that leader is not hearing any positive feedback. It is easier when you receive it but just because you might not, it is not an excuse to not provide it to your team members.
There is another message here as well. Some team members will attempt to rebuff or minimize any positive feedback. They will even tell you that they don’t need it. Don’t buy into their shtick. They want positive feedback and need it as much as any other person.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 28-Corrective Feedback
The polar opposite of positive feedback is corrective feedback. The purpose of positive feedback is to achieve the replication of a valued event or behavior. Therefore, the purpose of corrective feedback is to reduce or eliminate a poor event or behavior.
Corrective feedback, in large part, is the process of establishing expectations and boundaries for team members. It is not punitive. It is not a form of discipline. It is rather a very direct response to a situation when a team member does not produce or behave in needed areas.
A great disconnect occurs in many organizations because of a hesitancy or fear in providing regular corrective feedback. When asked, team members will pretty universally want to know where they stand. They want to know what they are doing well and what they could do better. In the other corner, many leaders have trepidations and fears associated with providing corrective feedback and would rather defer or save the information for later. Some would rather put it in writing or surprise a team member with the corrective feedback in an annual review.
The remarkable thing about corrective feedback is that the many of the skills and techniques associated with positive feedback are used for corrective feedback. Immediacy in corrective feedback is very important to make sure that the risk of a poor piece of performance or bad behavior is not replicated. In corrective feedback, this risk takes on a multiplier effect because other team members see when a team member errors and is not coached about the event. This could cause greater performance slippage among the team and now you will be coaching multiple people instead of a single team member.
One of the reasons that immediacy of corrective coaching is often missed is because of an avoidance tendency in many leaders. Fearing a confrontation or not wanting to risk their likeability, some leaders will defer a corrective coaching interaction until later. Unfortunately, later rarely happens and some leaders use justifying statements such as “I will talk to her if she does it again” or “the next time he does that, I will talk with him” or “it really wasn’t that big of a deal.” These types of deferrals must be fought off and the feedback must be provided immediately when performance or behavior is unacceptable.
Another shared skill with corrective feedback and positive feedback is using a direct and matter-of-fact communication method. In positive feedback, a direct approach is used to improve clarity and make sure team members understand what they have done well in the most simple terms. With corrective feedback, clarity is also important but directness is used to make sure the leader does not use too many words or paint themselves into a corner. Simply indicate the failure point, iterate the expectation and make sure the message was understood.
In narrative form, that sounds like “Bob, you were late today. I need you here every morning at 8:00am. Are you clear with that?” Or in another form it is “Mary, your report is not accurate. You need to go back and check the numbers in the farthest right columns. This report must be accurate because of the impact it has on our financial statements. Do you understand what I need?”
Some people will look at this type of dialog and perceive harshness. Harsh is a tone element and not the words you use. Direct is necessary to insure the team member clearly understands the intent of the coaching interaction and clearly understands the expectations for performance or behavior. It is not harsh but just direct and to the point.
Corrective feedback, in large part, is the process of establishing expectations and boundaries for team members. It is not punitive. It is not a form of discipline. It is rather a very direct response to a situation when a team member does not produce or behave in needed areas.
A great disconnect occurs in many organizations because of a hesitancy or fear in providing regular corrective feedback. When asked, team members will pretty universally want to know where they stand. They want to know what they are doing well and what they could do better. In the other corner, many leaders have trepidations and fears associated with providing corrective feedback and would rather defer or save the information for later. Some would rather put it in writing or surprise a team member with the corrective feedback in an annual review.
The remarkable thing about corrective feedback is that the many of the skills and techniques associated with positive feedback are used for corrective feedback. Immediacy in corrective feedback is very important to make sure that the risk of a poor piece of performance or bad behavior is not replicated. In corrective feedback, this risk takes on a multiplier effect because other team members see when a team member errors and is not coached about the event. This could cause greater performance slippage among the team and now you will be coaching multiple people instead of a single team member.
One of the reasons that immediacy of corrective coaching is often missed is because of an avoidance tendency in many leaders. Fearing a confrontation or not wanting to risk their likeability, some leaders will defer a corrective coaching interaction until later. Unfortunately, later rarely happens and some leaders use justifying statements such as “I will talk to her if she does it again” or “the next time he does that, I will talk with him” or “it really wasn’t that big of a deal.” These types of deferrals must be fought off and the feedback must be provided immediately when performance or behavior is unacceptable.
Another shared skill with corrective feedback and positive feedback is using a direct and matter-of-fact communication method. In positive feedback, a direct approach is used to improve clarity and make sure team members understand what they have done well in the most simple terms. With corrective feedback, clarity is also important but directness is used to make sure the leader does not use too many words or paint themselves into a corner. Simply indicate the failure point, iterate the expectation and make sure the message was understood.
In narrative form, that sounds like “Bob, you were late today. I need you here every morning at 8:00am. Are you clear with that?” Or in another form it is “Mary, your report is not accurate. You need to go back and check the numbers in the farthest right columns. This report must be accurate because of the impact it has on our financial statements. Do you understand what I need?”
Some people will look at this type of dialog and perceive harshness. Harsh is a tone element and not the words you use. Direct is necessary to insure the team member clearly understands the intent of the coaching interaction and clearly understands the expectations for performance or behavior. It is not harsh but just direct and to the point.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday Mentor Week 27-The Levels of Decision Making
It is important to note that not all decisions are created equally nor do they require the same type of thought and analysis.
To improve the ability to make decisions, effective leaders must first analyze and determine the decision level in which they are dealing. There are basically five levels of decision making and each have a different set of consequences and impacts.
Rudimentary decisions are those base levels of decisions that you process on a reactionary and almost automatic mode. Should I go to the bathroom? Should I eat now or later? Should I use this word or another, more colorful word? These are processed in very quick terms with little thought and usually very little impact. The sphere of impact is limited usually to you and you alone.
Operational level decisions are those decisions that are usually produced in the day-to-day flow of business operations and many times dictated by a formalized authority matrix. Approving checks, signing requests for time off, authorizing refunds, providing credit and allowing overtime are common examples of operational level decisions.
A significant issue in many businesses is that too many operational level decisions require far too high of a level of approval. The most healthy organizations press down decision making authorities to the most appropriate level and require line level team members to make the bulk of operational decisions, especially those that affect customers or end users. When decisions are consistently pressed upward, organizational efficiency is dramatically reduced and the ability of a company to respond to customer needs and changing environments is impaired.
Ninety percent of all operational level decisions should be made at the team member level. If more than ten percent of operational decisions are coming up to a leadership level, there is wasted time and efficiency could be improved. Some leaders, not the effective ones, are very comfortable in making more than ten percent of the operational level decisions because it insures their importance and reinforces their need to the team.
Tactical decisions are those that affect how business is done. This is more related to the mission than to the vision of an organization. Common tactical level decisions include staffing levels, scheduling, budget submissions, procedural elements and processes. Tactical decisions should be left to the leadership level that is most closely connected to the front line team members. This level of leadership is most expert in the tactics needed to deliver products and services and should be charged with the lion’s share of tactical decision making.
Like with operational decisions, some more senior level leaders like to insert themselves into tactical level decision making. Even with one-up approvals on tactical issues, this will hamper effectiveness and neuter lower level leadership innovation, decision making and ownership.
The next level of decision making is strategic. Strategic decisions define overall direction of an organization or unit within an organization. These are the very important decisions with major impact such as strategic planning, growth or contraction, product lines, pricing, locations and overall corporate strategy. This type of thinking is not limited only to senior and c level leaders but it is most commonly associated with that level in an organization.
With each of the four levels of decision making identified above, there is an increasing bar of impact for each level. Impact increases as the decision level increases and with that, the amount of time, thought and analysis must increase as well. It should not take weeks to make an operational level decision and strategic decisions should not be made in thirty seconds.
Another dynamic of the decision making levels is the longevity of the outcome. Operational level decisions have short life spans while strategic decisions will have lasting and sometimes legacy levels of life. Also with these levels is the ability to unwind the decision. Operational and tactical decisions are relatively easy to reverse while strategic decisions are much harder, more complicated and have a greater cost to change.
As a strategy to reduce rash and arbitrary decision making, triage decisions into the categories above before moving into other decision making steps. This will assist the effective leader in determining the amount of input from others and time required to effect a great decision.
To improve the ability to make decisions, effective leaders must first analyze and determine the decision level in which they are dealing. There are basically five levels of decision making and each have a different set of consequences and impacts.
Rudimentary decisions are those base levels of decisions that you process on a reactionary and almost automatic mode. Should I go to the bathroom? Should I eat now or later? Should I use this word or another, more colorful word? These are processed in very quick terms with little thought and usually very little impact. The sphere of impact is limited usually to you and you alone.
Operational level decisions are those decisions that are usually produced in the day-to-day flow of business operations and many times dictated by a formalized authority matrix. Approving checks, signing requests for time off, authorizing refunds, providing credit and allowing overtime are common examples of operational level decisions.
A significant issue in many businesses is that too many operational level decisions require far too high of a level of approval. The most healthy organizations press down decision making authorities to the most appropriate level and require line level team members to make the bulk of operational decisions, especially those that affect customers or end users. When decisions are consistently pressed upward, organizational efficiency is dramatically reduced and the ability of a company to respond to customer needs and changing environments is impaired.
Ninety percent of all operational level decisions should be made at the team member level. If more than ten percent of operational decisions are coming up to a leadership level, there is wasted time and efficiency could be improved. Some leaders, not the effective ones, are very comfortable in making more than ten percent of the operational level decisions because it insures their importance and reinforces their need to the team.
Tactical decisions are those that affect how business is done. This is more related to the mission than to the vision of an organization. Common tactical level decisions include staffing levels, scheduling, budget submissions, procedural elements and processes. Tactical decisions should be left to the leadership level that is most closely connected to the front line team members. This level of leadership is most expert in the tactics needed to deliver products and services and should be charged with the lion’s share of tactical decision making.
Like with operational decisions, some more senior level leaders like to insert themselves into tactical level decision making. Even with one-up approvals on tactical issues, this will hamper effectiveness and neuter lower level leadership innovation, decision making and ownership.
The next level of decision making is strategic. Strategic decisions define overall direction of an organization or unit within an organization. These are the very important decisions with major impact such as strategic planning, growth or contraction, product lines, pricing, locations and overall corporate strategy. This type of thinking is not limited only to senior and c level leaders but it is most commonly associated with that level in an organization.
With each of the four levels of decision making identified above, there is an increasing bar of impact for each level. Impact increases as the decision level increases and with that, the amount of time, thought and analysis must increase as well. It should not take weeks to make an operational level decision and strategic decisions should not be made in thirty seconds.
Another dynamic of the decision making levels is the longevity of the outcome. Operational level decisions have short life spans while strategic decisions will have lasting and sometimes legacy levels of life. Also with these levels is the ability to unwind the decision. Operational and tactical decisions are relatively easy to reverse while strategic decisions are much harder, more complicated and have a greater cost to change.
As a strategy to reduce rash and arbitrary decision making, triage decisions into the categories above before moving into other decision making steps. This will assist the effective leader in determining the amount of input from others and time required to effect a great decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
