Friday, September 9, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
How CEOs Do Engagement-From Cheife Executive.net
Note: This was published on Chief Executive.net and written by Susan Scott. We could not link to the original article so the contents are included below:
Step one, stop talking about inclusion and engagement and start doing it. Step two, conduct "beach ball meetings"(instructions follow). Step three, look beyond hard-wired assumptions and, yes, listen.
By Susan Scott
In early February, Engadget published an internal memo written by Nokia's CEO, Stephen Elop, in which he likens the once-dominant Finnish phone manufacturer to the oil worker trapped by a fire in the dead of night on the burning platform of a rig in the North Sea. He had seconds to consider the 150 foot drop into the ocean, the knowledge that there was floating debris and burning oil on the surface of the water, and that if the fall didn't kill him, he would die of exposure in 15 minutes. His only option for survival was to ignore what he had been told never to do and jump into the icy waters of the North Sea, a situation in which Nokia now finds itself after having made a series of poor decisions. Elop conveyed it this way:
"There is intense heat coming from our competitors, more rapidly than we ever expected.
The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product that is close to their experience. They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.
Android came on the scene just over 2 years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.
Our competitors aren't taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem.
How did we get to this point? Why did we fall behind when the world around us evolved? This is what I have been trying to understand. I believe at least some of it has been due to our attitude inside Nokia. We poured gasoline on our own burning platform. I believe we have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven't been delivering innovation fast enough. We're not collaborating internally.
Nokia, our platform is burning."
Pretty powerful. The candor with which Elop delivered his message is the reason his memo had Twitter, Facebook, and the blogging community abuzz, and his employees on the edge of their seats. But while the oil worker survived, Nokia may not be so fortunate. In what may prove to be a final strategic blunder, Elop, a former Microsoft executive, announced later that week that the key to Nokia's viability and success is to use Windows Phone 7 for its smartphone. At their joint announcement, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, said, "I am excited about this partnership with Nokia. Ecosystems thrive when fueled by speed, innovation and scale."
Tru dat. Unfortunately, with apologies to my friends in both companies, apart from Xbox Kinect, neither Microsoft nor Nokia has demonstrated speed, innovation and scale for at least a decade, so it's no surprise that Nokia's employees, customers, and shareholders expressed dismay at this decision; in fact, many employees took the next day off, as PTO, in protest.
With so many shocked employees, partners — think Intel — and shareholders, Nokia provides a current example of a company that has arrived, gradually, then suddenly, at the edge of disaster with a workforce of emphatically unengaged employees, one failed, one missing conversation at a time. It's unlikely that things will go smoothly in the execution department.
Elop may be brilliant and his decision may be the right one. I sincerely hope it is. But if he fails to re-engage his unengaged workforce, he is in no danger of a smooth implementation because he cannot mandate accountability, innovation or collaboration. No one can. These are private, non-negotiable choices individuals make about how to live their lives, about how much of themselves to bring in the door each day.
We all know that if employees aren't engaged, companies will suffer. Good people will quit, defect, disappear; or worse, they'll show up every day — in body — but only bringing a tiny piece of themselves in spirit. They'll become disgruntled, disenchanted, disillusioned, which profoundly affects the bottom line. Yet, despite all the hype about what companies are doing to promote employee inclusion and engagement (these go hand-in-hand), many still see this as a soft topic, nice to do, something that makes people feel good. Of course, employee inclusion and engagement makes people feel good. AND increases productivity and builds revenue.
I think of it this way: Inclusion + engagement = execution muscle ...plus happy people, but as far as I'm concerned, without execution muscle, you might as well hang it up. Let's define terms.
Employee inclusion suggests that people of every stripe — gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, aspiration, disability, position or title and whatever other differences are possible in the human population - feel that they have a place at the table, that they are seen, heard and valued and that, given stellar performance, they have an opportunity to advance. That they do not feel marginalized, "less than", left out, over-looked, invisible, made wrong, taken advantage of, disrespected, ignored or mistreated. At its heart, inclusion is about membership, belonging to a community.
The overriding theme of employee engagement is a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels for his or her organization, that influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort. And the direct relationship with one's manager is the strongest driver of employee engagement.
Employee engagement and inclusion isn't a cognitive issue. It's an emotional issue. The problem isn't out there. It's in here. We want employees to be engaged and feel included, while we ourselves are detached, distracted, disengaged, focused on our To Do lists and the stock price. We want others to bring that elusive, coveted "discretionary effort" in the door with them every day but we don't have time to engage in the kind of conversations that could enrich our relationships with them.
The fact is, not having those conversations will take longer and cost more in the long term. When you disengage from the world, the world disengages too, in equal measure. It's a two-step, you and the world, you and your organization. Your employees lost interest in you because you lost interest in them. Calling them associates or partners is often window dressing. If you want high levels of employee engagement you must gain the capacity to connect with your employees - at a deep level - or lower your aim. And that connection occurs or fails to occur one conversation at a time. If you're a fan of Angry Birds, the eagle is to Angry Birds what human connectivity is to the relationships central to your success. It gets the job done!
What gets talked about in your company, how it gets talked about and who is invited to the conversation determines what will happen. Or won't happen. Your conversations must be fierce — conversations in which you and others come out from behind yourselves, into your conversations, and make them real. Once an organization crosses the line into "fierce" territory, very little else is required to create a culture of highly engaged, kick-ass employees. Without such conversations, your platform may be smoldering.
This is where it gets personal. In a very real sense, the progress of your organization depends on your progress as an individual now. Want high levels of engagement, cooperation and collaboration throughout your organization? Innovation? Agility? Execution muscle? Look to the conversations you are having. Are they confined to the C Suite? What is your level of candor and that of your direct reports? Are you seeking agreement or do you want the truth? Are you different when your conversations are over?
And what if your company is doing fine? I recently gave a keynote to a company poised to distribute millions in profit sharing, a cause for celebration. Meanwhile, one of the divisions is troubled, unhappy. How much of the CEO's attention does this require, given that his board just gave him an A on his report card?
Let's revisit the oil rig, Piper Alpha.
Investigators traced the cause to a missing component on a condensate pump. The pressure safety valve on pump A was removed for maintenance. Paperwork prohibiting the pump from being used was lost or misplaced. When pump B broke down, pump A was switched on. Gas began to leak, alarms were triggered, and the platform was rocked by a huge explosion. At this stage there were probably only a few casualties, but things were about to get much worse. Despite a mayday call from Piper Alpha, two neighboring rigs did not shut down their operations. Oil continued to be pumped into a communal pipe and towards the stricken rig. You see where this is going. Another enormous explosion rocked Piper Alpha and the rig fell into the sea.
It is likely that the magnitude of the disaster would have been much less had the neighboring rigs shut down immediately. But with the huge losses incurred by shutting down production on an oil rig, it was a case of profit before safety, profit before lives.
What's to be learned? When Madeleine Albright was asked what advice she would give to world leaders. She said, "I would tell them that what matters anywhere, matters everywhere." Better men and women than I have written about the galactic implications. But let's point the telescope at your company. What matters anywhere in your organization, matters everywhere in your organization. Organizations are webs of relationships. Each conversation, each meeting creates a chain reaction, like a Rube Goldberg contraption.
You, all by your lonesome, are having an impressive impact on your world. Your conversations with your assistant affect his self esteem and his impression of what matters to you, which he conveys in every conversation he has with all of the people in your world. Your conversations with peers affect their willingness to collaborate and cooperate with you when they could fake it if they wanted to. They pass on their opinions and experience of you to others in the company. Your conversations with customers, partners, and vendors ultimately win or lose the day.
What to do? Stop talking about inclusion and engagement and start including and engaging! It may help to picture your organization as a huge beach ball.
Step one, stop talking about inclusion and engagement and start doing it. Step two, conduct "beach ball meetings"(instructions follow). Step three, look beyond hard-wired assumptions and, yes, listen.
By Susan Scott
In early February, Engadget published an internal memo written by Nokia's CEO, Stephen Elop, in which he likens the once-dominant Finnish phone manufacturer to the oil worker trapped by a fire in the dead of night on the burning platform of a rig in the North Sea. He had seconds to consider the 150 foot drop into the ocean, the knowledge that there was floating debris and burning oil on the surface of the water, and that if the fall didn't kill him, he would die of exposure in 15 minutes. His only option for survival was to ignore what he had been told never to do and jump into the icy waters of the North Sea, a situation in which Nokia now finds itself after having made a series of poor decisions. Elop conveyed it this way:
"There is intense heat coming from our competitors, more rapidly than we ever expected.
The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product that is close to their experience. They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.
Android came on the scene just over 2 years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.
Our competitors aren't taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem.
How did we get to this point? Why did we fall behind when the world around us evolved? This is what I have been trying to understand. I believe at least some of it has been due to our attitude inside Nokia. We poured gasoline on our own burning platform. I believe we have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven't been delivering innovation fast enough. We're not collaborating internally.
Nokia, our platform is burning."
Pretty powerful. The candor with which Elop delivered his message is the reason his memo had Twitter, Facebook, and the blogging community abuzz, and his employees on the edge of their seats. But while the oil worker survived, Nokia may not be so fortunate. In what may prove to be a final strategic blunder, Elop, a former Microsoft executive, announced later that week that the key to Nokia's viability and success is to use Windows Phone 7 for its smartphone. At their joint announcement, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, said, "I am excited about this partnership with Nokia. Ecosystems thrive when fueled by speed, innovation and scale."
Tru dat. Unfortunately, with apologies to my friends in both companies, apart from Xbox Kinect, neither Microsoft nor Nokia has demonstrated speed, innovation and scale for at least a decade, so it's no surprise that Nokia's employees, customers, and shareholders expressed dismay at this decision; in fact, many employees took the next day off, as PTO, in protest.
With so many shocked employees, partners — think Intel — and shareholders, Nokia provides a current example of a company that has arrived, gradually, then suddenly, at the edge of disaster with a workforce of emphatically unengaged employees, one failed, one missing conversation at a time. It's unlikely that things will go smoothly in the execution department.
Elop may be brilliant and his decision may be the right one. I sincerely hope it is. But if he fails to re-engage his unengaged workforce, he is in no danger of a smooth implementation because he cannot mandate accountability, innovation or collaboration. No one can. These are private, non-negotiable choices individuals make about how to live their lives, about how much of themselves to bring in the door each day.
We all know that if employees aren't engaged, companies will suffer. Good people will quit, defect, disappear; or worse, they'll show up every day — in body — but only bringing a tiny piece of themselves in spirit. They'll become disgruntled, disenchanted, disillusioned, which profoundly affects the bottom line. Yet, despite all the hype about what companies are doing to promote employee inclusion and engagement (these go hand-in-hand), many still see this as a soft topic, nice to do, something that makes people feel good. Of course, employee inclusion and engagement makes people feel good. AND increases productivity and builds revenue.
I think of it this way: Inclusion + engagement = execution muscle ...plus happy people, but as far as I'm concerned, without execution muscle, you might as well hang it up. Let's define terms.
Employee inclusion suggests that people of every stripe — gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, aspiration, disability, position or title and whatever other differences are possible in the human population - feel that they have a place at the table, that they are seen, heard and valued and that, given stellar performance, they have an opportunity to advance. That they do not feel marginalized, "less than", left out, over-looked, invisible, made wrong, taken advantage of, disrespected, ignored or mistreated. At its heart, inclusion is about membership, belonging to a community.
The overriding theme of employee engagement is a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels for his or her organization, that influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort. And the direct relationship with one's manager is the strongest driver of employee engagement.
Employee engagement and inclusion isn't a cognitive issue. It's an emotional issue. The problem isn't out there. It's in here. We want employees to be engaged and feel included, while we ourselves are detached, distracted, disengaged, focused on our To Do lists and the stock price. We want others to bring that elusive, coveted "discretionary effort" in the door with them every day but we don't have time to engage in the kind of conversations that could enrich our relationships with them.
The fact is, not having those conversations will take longer and cost more in the long term. When you disengage from the world, the world disengages too, in equal measure. It's a two-step, you and the world, you and your organization. Your employees lost interest in you because you lost interest in them. Calling them associates or partners is often window dressing. If you want high levels of employee engagement you must gain the capacity to connect with your employees - at a deep level - or lower your aim. And that connection occurs or fails to occur one conversation at a time. If you're a fan of Angry Birds, the eagle is to Angry Birds what human connectivity is to the relationships central to your success. It gets the job done!
What gets talked about in your company, how it gets talked about and who is invited to the conversation determines what will happen. Or won't happen. Your conversations must be fierce — conversations in which you and others come out from behind yourselves, into your conversations, and make them real. Once an organization crosses the line into "fierce" territory, very little else is required to create a culture of highly engaged, kick-ass employees. Without such conversations, your platform may be smoldering.
This is where it gets personal. In a very real sense, the progress of your organization depends on your progress as an individual now. Want high levels of engagement, cooperation and collaboration throughout your organization? Innovation? Agility? Execution muscle? Look to the conversations you are having. Are they confined to the C Suite? What is your level of candor and that of your direct reports? Are you seeking agreement or do you want the truth? Are you different when your conversations are over?
And what if your company is doing fine? I recently gave a keynote to a company poised to distribute millions in profit sharing, a cause for celebration. Meanwhile, one of the divisions is troubled, unhappy. How much of the CEO's attention does this require, given that his board just gave him an A on his report card?
Let's revisit the oil rig, Piper Alpha.
Investigators traced the cause to a missing component on a condensate pump. The pressure safety valve on pump A was removed for maintenance. Paperwork prohibiting the pump from being used was lost or misplaced. When pump B broke down, pump A was switched on. Gas began to leak, alarms were triggered, and the platform was rocked by a huge explosion. At this stage there were probably only a few casualties, but things were about to get much worse. Despite a mayday call from Piper Alpha, two neighboring rigs did not shut down their operations. Oil continued to be pumped into a communal pipe and towards the stricken rig. You see where this is going. Another enormous explosion rocked Piper Alpha and the rig fell into the sea.
It is likely that the magnitude of the disaster would have been much less had the neighboring rigs shut down immediately. But with the huge losses incurred by shutting down production on an oil rig, it was a case of profit before safety, profit before lives.
What's to be learned? When Madeleine Albright was asked what advice she would give to world leaders. She said, "I would tell them that what matters anywhere, matters everywhere." Better men and women than I have written about the galactic implications. But let's point the telescope at your company. What matters anywhere in your organization, matters everywhere in your organization. Organizations are webs of relationships. Each conversation, each meeting creates a chain reaction, like a Rube Goldberg contraption.
You, all by your lonesome, are having an impressive impact on your world. Your conversations with your assistant affect his self esteem and his impression of what matters to you, which he conveys in every conversation he has with all of the people in your world. Your conversations with peers affect their willingness to collaborate and cooperate with you when they could fake it if they wanted to. They pass on their opinions and experience of you to others in the company. Your conversations with customers, partners, and vendors ultimately win or lose the day.
What to do? Stop talking about inclusion and engagement and start including and engaging! It may help to picture your organization as a huge beach ball.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
