This is the eighth in the series of highlighting contributions from 1072 Business Leaders and Consultants from 80 countries in 19 Industry Sectors detailed in our book Focusing Change to Win. Each blog gives some of the key findings and a sample of useful tips. In this blog we are focusing on How Can You Lead to Thrive? Here are the other book sections we are highlighting:
Clearly from this survey, leadership skills that focus change to win are at a premium. Today, change is the norm. It is neither random nor regular but hovers somewhere between. How these interrelationships arise and how they challenge organizations is not well understood (IBM & KMPG Surveys endorse this)
Why should leaders focus on their organization’s essence?
An organization’s essence is the amalgam of mission, vision, values, intent and ethics. These components should be the focus of aligning and realigning people rather than delivering the corporate directives after a strategic planning retreat. Sustaining an organization’s essence is a dynamic that requires everyone’sengagement to define and redefine under changing situations.
It’s only by leaders “inter-reacting” that they can develop people’s shared clarity about the organization’s essence – “what we stand for!” From shared clarity comes confidence, from confidence comes cohesion and from cohesion comes the freedom to decide and act. That’s how organizations will stay on track today. Many people making many decisions true to their organization’s essence.
It’s also expected that some employees (including some executives) will not “buy into” an organization’s Essence once it is clearly defined. Leaders should then be ready for those employees and managers to transition out of the organization. This will benefit them and organizational cohesion
What are the dangers of using technology to increase control?
Technology increases the illusion of greater control which can feed a leader’s “Control Addiction”. More measurement equals more control. But measuring what is easy to measure can have the very opposite effect. The problem is that most of what is easy to measure has already occurred. What is difficult is dealing with the factors that are difficult to measure and with forecasting what is likely to happen down the road. We can’t spend more time looking through the “rear view mirror” when we have a winding road ahead of us. Technology’s cheapness and speed feeds this addiction with the past and “looking in the rear view mirror” by access to ever more data and information at the cost of acquiring knowledge and wisdom.
This condition is worsened by technologists clinging to largely sequential design and deployment processes which are not fully user or client inclusive, e.g. “Waterfall Process”. Contrast this with agile processes which are fully supported by our contributors. See the link to comparing the Waterfall Process with Agile Methodologies.
Why do we have difficulty developing leaders that can thrive in today’s conditions?
Today’s conditions are not good proving grounds for the leaders we need. More of doing more with less, multi-tasking and the growing doubt that we may be doing the wrong things means that decision-making, and expectations are now more compressed. Consequently, entrenched expediency leads us into solving one problem so quickly that we find we have now created five more problems. We are so busy trying to solve problems there’s no time for “Where the hell are we going?” These conditions are not good for selecting or developing leaders who can work well under fluid and complex conditions.
How do we develop leaders that can thrive?
The tension between what Leaders want to achieve and their current culture prevents traditional leadership training from making a significant impact. For example, many leaders’ previous training has left them feeling that they could do a better job doing it themselves. Of course, too often this has not happened together with little sign that they have addressed their own or their junior leaders’ performance issues. The consequence is that leading up to a change they lack confidence and skills to handle the natural uncertainty that change creates. Consequently, they default to avoidance and expediency and as a result staff resistance rises morale suffers.
The conclusion is that Leaders need to develop a better framework to assess their competence to lead people, make the next and later changes more effectively.
In this section we outline how leaders can be developed to increase their chances of achieving both measurable short- and longer term results than traditional leadership training. It is based on approaches:
Aligning People – Getting people on the Same Page
Action Learning – Solving Difficult Problems while developing leaders’ skills
A Final Thought
Our position is that it’s only by energizing people and harnessing technologies better than anyone else that organizations can survive and thrive. Genuinely aligned, empowered and collaborative people will outperform the competition every time. A leader’s role is to create successful change that fulfills people and avoids human casualties. Leaders need to create working relationships that are rewarding not just superficially productive.
Action Points 7: Leading to Thrive
A Leader’s greatest impact is when they motivate their followers to action by appealing to their shared sense of their organization’s essence. Use these questions to rate your leaders’ abilities:
To what extent do your leaders focused on developing rewarding not just working relationships?
How reliant are your leaders on “command and control”?
How well do they really engage those they lead?
How well do they foster a culture of collaboration? Consider both internally and externally.
Leading to the Essence
Do your people know what your organization stands for? Specifically:
How well understood is the organization’s essence? (mission, values, intent and ethics)
How well aligned are my people with the Organization’s Essence and where it’s headed?
To what extent do leaders use the essence to guide and coach their people?
Developing Leaders
To what extent are you distributing and empowering leaders at all levels.
What evidence do you see of true “inter-reaction” where success and failure are openly discussed?
To what extent do they then take lessons learned and use them to repeat success and avoid failure.
How well do they use processes to help people stand back, objectify problems and make people’s thought processes transparent?
To what extent does the urgent drive out the important and mask how things accumulate, misalign and make each subsequent more difficult?
Problem Solving
How often do your leaders try to solve complex problems with processes geared to “benign or simple problems”?
How often do leaders face complex or wicked problems?
Leading Learning
What expectations do we have of people to develop shared knowledge from similar situations?
How much effort have you put into helping people express being puzzled or misunderstood?
How well do they lead people on tackling problems and solutions by sharing understandings, resolving differences and producing agreed courses of action?
How well have leaders, especially senior leaders, consistently expressed their expectations of learning to all levels across the organization?
This is the fifth in the series of highlighting contributions from 1072 Business Leaders and Consultants from 80 countries in 19 Industry Sectors detailed in our book Focusing Change to Win. Each blog gives some of the key findings and a sample of useful tips. In this blog we are focusing on How Can Change Gain Competitive Advantage? Here are the other book sections we are highlighting:
Even after 30 years, the connections between change management and gaining competitive advantage are not well articulated. The disconnects between commitments to change and actual competitive behavior are a major factor in change failure. Getting beyond imitatorsrelies on understanding and measuring behavior that distinguishes competitive behavior from other activities.
As one contributor said
Learning keeps us ahead of the competition by getting us closer to selected customers
to gather competitive intelligence
The seriousness of these ratings is underlined by the fact that, many studies show that it costs six times more to get a new customer than it does to keep an existing one. Acquiring new customers is costly, and in many cases, the money earned on the first sale doesn’t even cover the acquisition costs.
For example in the table to the right, only 70% of contributors say they measure customer satisfaction effectively. Worst still are the low percentages for the benefits of measuring change related to customers (3%) and their feedback when it comes to change success (12%)
These findings have uncomfortable resonance with the lack of customer focus we see in other parts of this report. Change drives these leaders, while customers and competitive advantage are apparent afterthoughts.
We conclude that there are practical ways to avoid these pitfalls. Overall, contributors comment that managing change for competitive success is a continuous, systemic, repetitive and uncertain process. They recommend five areas to improve competitive advantage through change.
Action Points 4: Implementing Change to Gain Competitive Advantage
Market and Competitive Sensing
What do managers do at present to maintain awareness of your competitive environment?
How well do managers use this information to make more competitive decisions?
What should managers do to improve awareness and agility to the competition?
Leading Competitive Change
What changes should managers make to develop a competitive culture?
How are you going to build more leadership capability to bring about successful change?
Integrating Change into Operations
Building Competitive Human Capital
What should managers be doing to link competitive change to day-to-day operations?
What performance metrics are needed to track this integration?
What performance management measures should you be using?
How do you see learning being managed both individually and collectively at present?
What should managers be doing to improve both individual and collective learning?
Developing Competitive Agility
What do managers do to reshape and adjust strategies?
What should be done to manage strategic change and the emergence of threats and opportunities?
To Buy a Copy of Focusing Change To Win:
If you would like to contact Nick, please fill out the form below:
This is the forth in the series of highlighting contributions from 1072 Business Leaders and Consultants from 80 countries in 19 Industry Sectors detailed in our book Focusing Change to Win. Each blog gives some of the key findings and a sample of useful tips. In this blog we are focusing on The Why and What of Change. Here are the other book sections we are highlighting:
Most of our contributors do measure change, but 37% either don’t measure change or they don’t know if they do or feel measuring change is too difficult. So, here’s some evidence why this is worth struggling with. For example, learning is the most mentioned benefit of measuring change (27.1%). Yet, if this is so important then why the lack of focus on vehicles like coaching, mentoring and training to capitalize on this learning.[3]
Another striking disconnect is the low numbers of those who see benefits of measuring change’s impact on marketing and customers. This is curious, as our contributors’ most common reason for losing customers is not price but poor quality (92.2%), poor follow-up by sales people (76.5%) and making the wrong assumptions about customers (64.5%). After detailed analysis, it would seem that the relationship between change and competitive advantage is not as clearly visualized as one might think.
In addition, the use of employee metrics including personal performance, resistance to change, improvement to company culture and understanding our purpose, are low compared to satisfaction surveys. Most concerning is the lack of focus on individual behavioral change and tracking pay-related rewards. This is further evidence of little focus on accountability and establishing a requiring environment
Even when metrics are agreed upon, the next challenge is creating greater transparency so that they are used to create and sustain change momentum.
What Questions do Change Metrics Need to Answer?
Overall, there needs to be more focus on developing effective change metrics. The challenge is: How well do your change metrics accelerate learning, problem solving and decision making?
In Section 4, we distilled contributor questions on what they need change metrics to answer into a questionnaire. We ask readers to go through and rate their current metrics under three sections:
Navigating during a Change
Reviewing a Change
Planning the Next Change
Our contributors suggest establishing a change scorecard with their leadership team and key stakeholders. For example by:
Agreeing on those questions which the team needs to answer
Deciding what current metrics could be put to good use
Assessing during the change process how well they cover the risks of losing customers through poor product or service quality and poor sales follow-up.
And finally……Asking how well your scorecard helps you sell this and subsequent changes?
Action Points 3: Developing More Effective Change
Metrics
Protocol
Three themes were referenced in contributor comments about change metrics and how to test their overall effectiveness.
How well do your change metrics accelerate learning, problem-solving, and decision-making?
Establish Your Change Scorecard
It is strongly suggested that you go through this process with your leadership team and key stakeholders. (See section 7 for more details.)
Review the table Contributor Questions.
Agree on those questions your team need to answer when you are doing the following:
Navigating a change
Reviewing a change
Planning the next change
What current metrics could be put to good use?
How well do they cover the risks of losing customers through poor-quality sales follow-up during the change process?
How well do they inform you that the organization is reducing assumptions about customers’ view of the change and how the change responds to their needs?
To what extent do your selected metrics allow you to preempt or least respond quickly to competitors
How well do these metrics allow you to gauge and track employee stress around the change?
To what extent will your metrics allow you to respond quickly and effectively to employee stress before it hardens their change resistance?
To Buy a Copy of Focusing Change To Win:
If you would like to contact Nick, please fill out the form below:
This is the third in the series of highlighting contributions from 1072 Business Leaders and Consultants from 80 countries in 19 Industry Sectors detailed in our book Focusing Change to Win. Each blog gives some of the key findings and a sample of useful tips. In this blog we are focusing on Why Do People Resist Change. Here are the other book sections we are highlighting:
Here’s the reality, Leaders need employee support and trust if their change is going to stand any chance of success. Our contributors underscore this. If people are cynical about a change, pessimism will set in, and failure is assured. Our contributors show that there are no simple remedies, no sound bites or grizzly 7 step plans. Yet, at its core there are fundamental values that, if believed in, will offer a sound basis for planning and executing successful change. Change failures have left their mark on our contributors over the last eight years. Through their eyes, resistance is a brownfield site where change is synonymous with downsizing, doing more for less, and treating people poorly.
Accelerated change demands more of everyone. Such change has major consequences for employees. Accelerated change failure creates cultural toxicity. Crucially, leaders need to separate the symptoms of change resistance from the stress that causes it. If they don’t, they are just like bad sales people trying to overcome objections and not realizing 60% of those objections are of the salesperson’s own creation. These contributors, they are saying that change resistance is natural, but you don’t need to make it more difficult if you do some things profoundly well. The chart below gives a sense of the avoidable.
Change Resistance Factors
Once you recognize that Change Resistance causes stress then you can be more effective in reducing it. Our contributors say that, if leaders create clear and consistent frameworks, you help most people make informed decisions about committing to a change or not. Here’s what our contributors are saying:
Align Expectationsbetween leaders and people
Set Clear Direction:Leaders clarify their change’s What, Why, How and WIIFMs (What’s In It For Me) for different groups and people.
Develop Accountabilities: by developing the rewards and consequences that assure expectations of both leaders and their people are met.
These are sound practices for reducing and managing people’s stress, but only if leaders realize the importance of Walking Their Own Talk.
Action Points: Managing Change Stress and Resistance
All these contributors are saying that change resistance is natural, but you don’t need to make it that difficult if you do some things profoundly well.
This starts with recognizing that change resistance is caused by stress. So why not treat the cause and not the symptom? Stress is natural and good if managed. Stress is reduced if leaders create clear and consistent frameworks that help people make informed decisions about committing to a change or not. Here’s how we interpret what our contributors are saying
Clarifying the Direction:
Leaders clarify their change’s what, why, how, and WIIFMs¹ for different groups and individuals. What does this mean for me? This leads to aligning expectations.
Aligning Expectations:
This is a process flow in two directions between leaders and each individual.
Developing Accountabilities:
This step develops the rewards and consequences through performance measurement, management, and rewards that ensure expectations of both leaders and their people are met.
To buy a copy of Focusing Change To Win click:
If you would like to contact Nick, please fill out the form below:
Just like the disease, corporate change has a 50% mortality rate
Boise, Idaho, 10/07/14 – Local management and organization specialist publishes a fascinating new book Focusing Change To Win. It provides a prescription for combating the risks inherent in organizational change. Risks like poor revenues, lost opportunity, competitive vulnerability, increased employee cynicism and fear. The endemic nature of these risks led Nick Anderson and his Nigerian co-author Kelly Nwosu to ask:
Why do some companies thrive on change while other just survive?
Answering this question led to a global study of 6000 comments from 1072 business leaders from 80 countries in 19 industry sectors with over 10,000 years of change management experience provided some powerful and practical advice and tools.
To reach this point, you have to go back to Nick’s experiences with failed change. The list, many of us can relate to includes:
“Am I going to have a job tomorrow?”
“Why did they let Sue go?”
“How am I going to tell Bill he hasn’t got a job?”
“What am I going to do?”
“We tried this before…”
“This (change) is only for them …..not us?”
Since those early days, his work with organizations across the business and public sector encountered a litany of failed change. His ongoing research shows survey after survey reporting that “People are the problem” (as the main reason). Percentages of failed change continue to this day ranging from 40% to 80% and many commentators agree that more changes fail than succeed. Only last September the Project Management Institute’s 2014 Report found that 56% of projects fail to meet their goals.
What is really thought provoking is that Nick and Kelly’s book show that there are those who do get it right.
But, really, isn’t comparing failed change to Ebola ridiculous? Nick Anderson doesn’t think so. The cost of a failed change can be staggering. Organizationally failed change can be fatal to both the organization and their people. Individually the stress of failed change permeates people’s lives, emerging as cycles of addictive behavior, broken relationships and financial hardship. For example, one Swedish study showed increases of heart disease was linked to poor leadership. Job insecurity has been linked to several different outcomes, such as:
Negative attitudes towards work
Turnover intention
Health complaints.
Data from 400 nurses at a Swedish acute care hospital showed that job insecurity affects stress even after taking account for individual characteristics. (Naswall,Sverke & Hellgren)
A 22 country European study concluded that while job loss is traumatizing, it is not common. In contrast, the fear of job insecurity is widespread and its health impact is as bad as losing your job (Mathilde Godard). Or, how about a German study which concluded that after the 2008 recession
“People fearful of losing their jobs are 60% more likely to develop asthma”.
Closer to home, studies from Texas A & M and University of California add weight to the endemic nature of this corporate virus.
So, what can we do about this disease?
Clearly, the last 20 years demonstrates:
Current Theories and prescriptions are not working or user friendly.
The reliance on imported change processes alone are less effective.
Leaders are facing greater complexity, accelerating change, greater competition and more knowledgeable customers.
The critical point of staving off failed change is to recognize that there is no “cookie-cutter” “quick-fix”. Importing new theories from outside an organization increases people’s natural resistance. It truncates thinking about “why will this change work for us?” and creates divisions between the “Importers” from the rest of the organization.
So, this book advocates using facilitated discussions, questionnaires and other tools to engage people in creating their own change approaches, processes and protocols. You may be thinking.
“Why not use what’s worked from outside” “It’s cheaper and faster etc.”
Here’s what the authors concluded. Excluding people from deciding how their organization handles change risks creating greater resistance and less sustainability. Fundamentally, it excludes middle level leaders so they cannot develop to their leadership skills and risks their resistance to the point of ensuring that change will fail.
Those who thrive on change really understand this. They recognize that so many “imports” are too often seen as disrespectful of people’s skills and expertise, especially when those people have experienced failed change. Importing prescriptions needs far more thought on how to reduce the toxicity of past failures. So, why is this book important for leading successful change?
As Bill Connors, President & CEO, Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce) said: “Focusing Change to Win is a must read and reference for business people regardless of their company’s size. Whether you run a family business or public corporation, this book has thought provoking tools and questionnaires you can use immediately. Nick Anderson and his co-Author Kelly Nwosu have done a masterful job in distilling over 6000 business leaders’ comments into such a practical set of tools. If you want your next change to be successful, this is essential reading.”
To find out more go to focusingchangetowin.com or amazon.com. Also Nick will be at the Boise Chamber of Commerce for a book signing on Wednesday 29th October from 8 am to 10 am.
For more information, Nick Anderson (616) 745-8667 nanderson@thecrispianadvantage.com For more information on 10/06/2014: http://focusingchangetowin.com
The continued high failure rates of implementing change owe much of their origins to the fallacies of change management and how people view research (based on Korzybski). We would like to know how prevalent these fallacies are in your organization’s leadership team.
Please read the following and then click on the link to complete the survey.
1. Over-Simplification: The belief that complex organizations mirror what their leadership think .
“I think we have a pretty good handle on what people think, we don’t need a survey to tell us what we already know”
2. Re-definition:A propensity to cast strong sub-cultures as sources of weakness when they may in fact contribute to the organization’s identity.
“It’s the field technicians that’s the problem. They are still resistant to the newer products ans systems”
3. Missionary zeal:The belief that a complex community can be converted to a single purpose that overrides its fractional – often factional – interests and perspectives.”
“I am sure when the see the case for this change they will come along”
4. Displacement: the attribution to cultural causes of structural weakness. It is not the values but the organisation or control system that is faulty.
“You know if we had a fully integrated reporting system I think we could overcome many of communication problems”
5. Scapegoating: The attribution of group’s values to responsibility for failure.
“It’s sales responsibility to ensure good customer follow up but they just don’t seem to care and want to go on to the next deal”
6. False Attribution to one cause what is due to many causes. E.g.
“they didn’t adopt the new technology because they weren’t computer savvy”
7. Discounting: Concluding that because one factor plays a role, another does not; the fallacy of drawing negative conclusions from positive observations. E.g.
“Our exit interviews show that people are leaving for higher pay and so it’s not anything that management can do differently”
8. Myopia:The idea that change management can divorce the individual from their working environment. E.g.
“People are change resistant because they don’t like the new curriculum”
9. Gut over Data: Drawing conclusions on implied assumptions that when explicitly stated are rejected. E.g
“Yes, I know that’s what your findings say but I think it’s really a recruitment issue”
“You can prove anything with statistics”
10. Politics: Many assumptions influencing reasoning are of the hidden, unconscious type. E.g.
“When we presented our findings only Joe and Lisa said what they felt, the rest just looked uneasy”
11. Hereditary: Demonstrating that a characteristic is hereditary and not alterable by the environment E.g.
“We found that traditionally main land Chinese expect a “thirteenth month’s pay before Chinese New Year, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
“We wouldn’t have any of these problems if we could get more mid-westerners with their good work ethics”
12. Environment: Demonstrating that a characteristic is altered by the environment and claiming that it is not hereditary. E.g.
“We are getting more quality problems since we installed the new line. It’s the new displays they don’t understand”
Since all important human characteristics are environmental, therefore environment is all-important, hereditary unimportant, in human affairs E.g.
“It’s not so much their experience that matters it’s how they are led. We need our leaders to lead not shilly-shally around having more team meetings”
Great, but how can this help me?
This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog. How about asking us? The first call is free! Just email me to set it up. Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching improve bottom line results. If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.
_________________________________________________________________________ For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage
Intervention theory1 and the consulting process2 have developed to provide more effective methods by which organizational change is conducted. These methods have emerged in order to operationalize a theory of changing rather than a theory of change. The latter is what Bennis3 found to be the focus of most discussions on organizational growth and change; yet a theory of changing is needed to create planned change in organizations and not just to explain natural change after the fact.4
Developing successful partnerships can only be accomplished if there is a strong and shared sense of vision. It is the cornerstone, and launching point for successful partnering efforts.
Visioning in a partnership if different form other uses of the word. It is much more than a defined set of shared goals and aspirations. It exists to offer a tangible guidance system which provides direction to both parties and helps them carry out their larger goals. Such a system enables partnerships to overcome obstacles and achieve results. When they lack vision they tend to drift around, or fall apart.
A frequent and often crucial situation in management today is one in which one person is seeking to persuade another to accept proposals for change. This situation commonly occurs when a subordinate presents a case to his or her boss.
Unfortunately, people usually spend a great deal more time and effort in collecting supporting facts and figures than in planning for the face-to-face interaction on which the success of the whole exercise usually depends. Careful consideration of interactive strategy at the planning stage can both assist in the selection of effective arguments and result in more persuasive interactions.
Feature Dumping
This discussion of the issues involved concentrates on persuasion in the boss-subordinate context; but the principles considered apply equally well to any situation in which one person is seeking to gain the co-operation or the consent of another.
This is the forth in a leadership series – Complexity the New Norm. This series is looks how we implement successful change that fulfills people and avoids human casualties.
Our question is, how do we create working relationships that are rewarding? (Rewarding not just productive). Why?
It’s only by energizing people and harnessing technologies better than anyone else that companies can thrive.
Genuinely aligned, empowered and collaborative people will outperform the competition every time.
This month I consider probably one of the most difficult areas is sales, especially complex sales.
What makes sales complex?
Classically, “Many to Many” Think of it like a bow tie. On the left side you have the selling organization and on the right Complex Sales. Typical characteristics:
So, more people across the company need to communicate with customers and prospects before, during and after the sale. This increases complexity and the difficulty of “Keeping Everyone On The Same Page”
This is the third in a leadership series – Complexity the New Norm.This series is looks how we implement
Seeing the Wood for the Treessuccessful change that fulfills people and avoids human casualties.Last time, I asked how we create working relationships that are rewarding. (Rewarding not just productive). Our position is that it’s only by energizing people and harnessing technologies better than anyone else that organizations can survive and thrive.Genuinely aligned, empowered and collaborative people will outperform the competition every time.Many surveys show executives say that their people aren’t ready to handle this “new norm” So, what’s getting in the way?When the urgent drives out the important, many leaders ignore what their “guts” are telling them, even when they sense people aren’t on the same page. They’ve sensed it before and seen the results. Yet, complexity and urgency mask how things accumulate, misalign and make each change more difficult.You know that feeling yourself. We’ve all worked in dysfunctional work places. You pick up on people’s differences (often unstated in team meetings) and how they use their experience to justify their positions. They are oblivious of others views. Worse still they believe that their views are shared by everyone.If leaders are aware of these things, why don’t they do something?I think it’s like how people put up with physical pain and stress – take the pain killers and go on. And I am not implying they’re weak but their strength to persevere can be a two-edged sword. Here’s some examples of what leaders ignore and don’t realize their effect:It’s expecting things to be done and repeatedly being disappointed.It is the lump in your stomach when they are handed yet another impossible deadline.It’s feeling that they have to be a mind reader to figure out what is expected.It’s that welling anger they get when important decisions fall apart (because there really wasn’t any buy-in).These are all misalignments. People not being on the same page. It’s costly, pervasive and accumulates.Now, add increasing complexity and we need to say – we can’t go on like this anymore. The busyness of complexity masks misalignments especially when wicked problems get into the mix.You’ve mentioned wicked problem solving before….But why is it so important in leading in complexity?Wicked Problem Solving
Horst Rittel coined the term Wicked Problems as he found traditional approaches to design and planning were not effective. It’s how we solve benign or simple problems.
Gather data
Analyze data
Formulate Solution
Implement Solution
This apparently very reasonable approach starts faltering when you:
1. Don’t understand the problem until you have developed a solution.
You can’t search for information without having some sense of what a solution looks. Rittel said:
“One cannot first understand, then solve.”
And what ‘the Problem’ is depends on who you ask – different stakeholders have different views about what the problem is and what constitutes an acceptable solution.
2. Don’t have a nice neat ending.
If there is no defined ‘Problem’, there can’t be a definitive ‘Solution.’ So you can’t solve the problem with the ‘correct’ solution. Herb Simon, called this ‘satisficing’ — stopping when you have a solution that is ‘good enough’
Solutions are simply ‘better,’ ‘worse,’ ‘good enough,’ or ‘not good enough.’ How “good” they are will vary widely and depend on different stakeholder values and goals.
4. Can’t draw on past experience
There are so many factors and conditions that no two wicked problems are alike.
Here are a few examples of wicked problems:
Whether to route the highway through our city or around it?
What should our mission statement be?
What features should be in our new product?
How should we respond to a competitors new…fill in the blank?
The point is managing complex and wicked problems shifts the center of gravity toward peoples’ relationships and interactions. It shifts from relying on expertise and pride in accumulating knowledge to learning with and from fellow learners, honestly disclosing doubts and admitting ignorance.
I am thinking leaders who are listening will be saying: OK, I get, it but where do I start?
As I said last time, complexity and misalignment is best handled by those directly involved. So, leadership should be devolved to the lowest level. This means expectations you have of your leaders need to be clear, agreed and tracked. There are several alignment areas that senior people need to address with lower level leaders, which I will cover in later programs. But, I will start with a key competence that leaders need improve in their teams and activities. It’s a bastion against the confusion that comes from poorly managed complexity
Leading Learning
Leaders have to shed their prejudices and bad experiences of learning at school, – like cramming or memorizing, and that learning by doing is good enough. Many leaders will have to unlearn, and then learn about Leading Learning. There are five criteria you should expect your leaders to evidence in their learning expectations: Are they …..
Planned?
Action-Focused?
Constructive?
Social?
Time-Bounded?
Using these criteria, leader expectations need to specify what they expect of their people and draw out what their people expect in return.
What do you see as the main areas for leaders to think about when it comes to leading learning?
Here are four things to reflect on about your organization. Ask yourself:
How do we really match-up when it comes to leading learning?
Learning team-based sense-making process.
1. Learning is team-based sense-making process.
What expectations do you have of your people to develop shared knowledge from similar situations?
Why?
Shared situations builds shared sensing, which builds common frames of reference.
Shared situations builds shared learning and reduces the exclusivity of individual experience
Can you find expectations that say it’s OK for people to express feelings of being puzzled or being misunderstood:
Why?
Such expressed feelings are often the tender shoots of learning and if subject to making people feel stupid will stunt learning before it has even got going.
Sharing puzzlement develops learner ownership because there’s “gas in their tank” to do something about it.
You don’t know how many others have the same feelings until they are expressed.
Getting people on the same page only happens when people’s feelings are transparent to others. It takes the guesswork of where people are coming from. It reduces assumptions about people’s intention, motivation and agenda
2. Learning is a socially negotiated
Leader expectations need to specify that making sense of problems and their solutions needs to be negotiated with the intention of reaching understanding, resolving differences and producing an agreed course of action.
Why?
What’s agreed is far more likely to stick
Stakeholder and team member interests of are more likely to be respected and served
Better alignment leads to growing trust and openness which leads to people being less guarded
3. Learning is multi-level sense-making
Leaders, especially senior leaders, need to ensure that their expectations of learning are expressed to all levels both vertically and horizontally across the organization. The belief that knowledge is only in one person’s head went out with the craftsman and his apprentice. Knowledge and reasoning need to be used for collective sense-making.
Why?
It’s the social process that bonds people together. As we engage with others we influence and are influenced by our working community their beliefs and values.
This type of participation is how we absorb and grow a healthy culture.
This is how we grow as individuals and develop rewarding relationships
It’s crucial that leaders understand that activity constrains and defines the learning that can occur, so the last point
4. Learning is a product of activities, systems and processes
Learning through Activities
The blend of people, their experiences, values and beliefs are not reducible to individual actions in complex situations. So, leader’s expectations need to shift from the individual to the team.
Why?
It’s not about you; it’s about us – “Leave your ego at the door!”
Information isn’t any good if it is not shared, in ways that others can understand
If you don’t interact with others your chances of building trust, respect and other relational glue is remote
If I am a leader or business owner listening to this today I might be saying that’s all very well but I have a business to run. What advice would you give them?
Do what you’ve always done, get what you’ve always got! – Not!
1. Hire people who evidence lifelong learning – if people aren’t curious they are not for you.
2. Make sure you pay people for doing different things not just doing what we have always done – cos if you don’t you will get what you’ve always gotten.
3. Ensure you make sure all people know learning is a priority and it’s not something left to chance or the competition
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page Nick Anderson, Senior Partner, PDS Group LTD
This month I continue to look at different industries that have difficulty in implementing successful change. Last month we looked at the problems cutting red tape in local government, this month we look at large Oilsands construction projects
Ugh?? Why? Bear with me readers….here’s some facts
Fact: Canada has the largest reservoir of crude bitumen in the world. Making Canada’s total oil reserves the second largest in the world, after Saudi Arabia’s.
Fact: Crude oil prices will go through the $100 pbl this year. Making Canada’s oilsands economically viable once again, especially with advances in production technology.
Fact: Forecasts say Canada will 5.0+ million barrels per day by 2035
Fact: In the last boom (2005-08) these projects ran notoriously over budget and behind schedule.
So, what’s going to happen in the next boom AND why should anyone care about what happens in the barren lands of Alberta?
Basically, the more delay in these projects, the greater the cost and guess who’s going to end up paying at the gas pump. Here’s some disturbing evidence. In a recent survey of Oil & Gas Industry executives,most said they were:
Dissatisfied with project performance (40% of capital projects overrun); Highest ever level of dissatisfaction
Agreed that poor project performance is not acceptable when the market expects predictable strong returns.
Agreed that they can’t afford to miscalculate project risks, yet they don’t have a good grasp of how manage them.
(Booz Allen Hamilton “Capital Project Execution in the Oil & Gas Industry”)
You would think these executives would have their act together by now. What sorts of things did the survey identify were going wrong?
Good question. Another survey identified several things, including:
1. Late scope changes
2. Insufficient resources
3. Poor support
4. Poor contracting strategies
5. Poor communications
6. Poor project processes and controls
7. Poorly developed teams
8. High Team turnover
9. Lack of stakeholder identification and engagement
(PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2004)
It strikes me that lot of these come down to people not being on the same page. For example, to what extent are late scope changes the result of inadequate communication between different groups?
Quite often. We find people in construction projects aren’t aligned early enough. For example, the owner may expect the Contractor (EPC) to have conducted a thorough review of specifications prior to start of drafting only to find out later the review was inadequate. Andthe longer specification mistakes remain uncovered the more expensive they become to fix.
The key problem is layered change. It builds pressure to “to get on with it”. Under stressful conditions, the ramifications of meeting the latest change order are not fully considered. So, more change orders are approved without sufficient time or budget for professionals to consider their impact and cost. This sets up “wicked problem solving” – you “solve” one problem but create five more – and so on.( C. West Churchman, 1967)
We have seen this happen when three projects were running in parallel on the same site where increasing Change Orders led to increased Requests for Information (RFIs)
It reminds me of a Monty Python sketch – Mr. Creosote. Creosote is an impossibly obese man who is served an enormous amount of food After being persuaded to eat “just one more mint wafer”, he explodes in a very graphic way.
Another good example are Poor Partnering Strategies – Normallyperformance guarantees and risk sharing are agreed to contractually between, say, Contractor and Sub-contractor. But, invariably no one then takes preventative action align specific expectations to avoid their use. As many say, “if you have to get the contract out then we really are in deep do-do!”
What have you found to explain this a lack of specific expectations and how it contributes to these problems?
At the start of a project, construction people are under enormous pressure to “get on with it!’. So, they agree too readily to others’ expectations of them and accept others’ agreement of their expectations. This ready acceptance of expectations is especially true between professional disciplines and companies. The problem is people don’t really specify what is being agreed to. This only emerges when the expectation’s Receiver doesn’t deliver what was expected by the Originator and then the remedy is usually expensive. At its core is a lack of understanding of what alignment is really about. Alignment requires a Responsibility Shift between an expectation’s Originator and Receiver. Let me explain.
The Alignment Responsibility Shifts
When the Originator has an expectation, they are responsible to initiate discussion with the Receiver(s) (70% of the time this doesn’t happen – LOL)
Shift 1. If the Receiver agrees to the expectation, then the responsibility shifts to the Receiver. To tell the Originator what they will and will not deliver to meet the agreed expectation.
Shift 2. Now, the Responsibility shifts back to the Originator to assess the Receiver’s need for help to meet their expectation. (Contrary to what common sense would indicate):
Shift 3.and most importantly the Originator still has the responsibility to provide that help. For example, like briefing, coaching, advice, support etc.
Now, Originator and Receiver stand a chance of being aligned. The key is that success is more likely, replicable, faster and at reduced cost.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. (Chinese Proverb)
Why don’t project management processes cope with this sort of problem very well?
Two factors. As someone once said:
“If everything is going according to plan, something somewhere is going massively wrong’
First. There is an over-reliance on such processes like accountability matrices (A grid of who does what, who they should consult and inform etc.). They fail to reflect the dynamics of a complex construction project. Back to Mr Creosote….it’s not so much about adding more! (Reporting, processes, communication etc.) but having clear expectations on how we handle problems and opportunities as they arise. Such rational planning processes needs strong emotional glue to be really effective. Let me explain.
Emotionally intelligent glueconsists of compounds like trust, constructive criticism and holding each other accountable. And like glue needs “curing”. It needs controlled heat, and a blend of team members to initiate and harden commitments, just like using high-performance adhesives when you need strong bonding.
The second factor compounds the problems of over-reliance on traditional project management processes. It’s the number of lines communications and deciding which are needed under pressured dynamics. Just take a 100 person project, potentially you could have 9,900 possible communication links. Regardless of matrix, project or siloed command structures, you still need a way of managing the myriad number of cross functional, organizational and contractor expectations. And if not surfaced and managed will negatively impact project execution.
How do you respond to those that say, “ This is why we have all this technology available so that all those involved have access to what everyone else is doing?
But, somebody has to feed the technology. More reporting what’s been done comes at a price – Time and declining utility. Unfortunately technology has become a two-edged sword….efficient yet overwhelming. It produces so much data that it dilutes information and makes sense makingdifficult. This then hobbles a team’s ability to cope with problems, delays and change and what they need to do.
Teams are most productive when they are bonded by the following curing process:
1. Sustainable Trust leads to
2. Healthy Conflict which leads to
3. Solid Commitment which builds
4. Owning Accountability which enables
5. Keeping Focused under the pressure of delays and problems
If these are not present cracks appear and quickly team adhesion fails. These cracks occur because expectation gaps and misalignments are not addressed early enough.
Let me explain how team adhesion is lost:
Lack #1: Trust
When team members get unsure what others really expected of them; as opposed to what their company has committed them to legally. This uncertainty is then compounded by cynicism from previous project experience. A typical cause of which is when:
“People get so absorbed in what they are doing that Key Stakeholders are not actively involved. This has led to tension between them and the project team”
Lack #2: Conflict
Lack of trust stifles teams engaging in unfiltered, passionate debate about key issues. This can develop into resistance to following through with expectations. Negative attitudes and unstated resistance occur evidenced by politicking, and regressing into pure self interest. Effective teams need to have:
“Iron sharpening iron, so one person sharpens the wits of another. (after Proverbs 27:17)
Lack #3: Commitment
Without conflict, it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions and ambiguity becomes the default. The resulting lack of direction and commitment can make project partners and teams disgruntled, falling back on required formal communication and lead to slower response times.
“We are reactive and respond too quickly to changes to understand the implications and impacts on other elements and groups”
Lack#4: Accountability
When teams don’t commit to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven individuals hesitate. They hold back from calling their peers on actions and behaviors that are counterproductive. This procrastination means correcting a situation becomes very difficult without direct confrontation of the issue for the overall good of the project.
“We could be better at identifying problems and their solutions before they actually occur. We are too reactive and this slows us down”
Lack #5: Focus
Now the lines are drawn. Project team members circle their wagons. They fall back into the distraction of putting their own needs first. If a team has lost sight of the need for collective achievement, the project will ultimately suffer.
“We don’t reuse what has been done before – “Reinventing the Wheel” is costly and takes time” “Measuring the impact of what we do is too subjective and lessens our ability to stay within budget”
These five cracks are rooted in problems of not aligning and managing expectations.
“Expectation Gaps are like pot holes, the more you leave them the deeper they get. The impact of misalignment leads to cost and time overruns and then bleeds over into subsequent projects” (Nick Anderson, PDS Group LTD)
Successful projects are founded on:”Get Personal before you get contractual!”
In summary, no matter how well a project is planned, it is executing the plan that ultimately determines success. Project success demands authentic communication to align expectations and then track them methodically. Tools needed to measure, manage and facilitate easier communication and alignment of critical expectations among project participants
So, you’re saying that those managing complex projects, like oilsands, need to stand back and consider what they do differently…..if past delays and overruns are to be avoided?
Certainly, there’s a case to answer and look at a new way of Expectation Alignment for More Effective Project Management. Let’s face it, You Can’t Manage What You Cannot Measure
As many project people will us:
“Building the thing is not difficult compared to managing all the people involved”
So called “soft” skills need hardening. Effective Communication should not only be acknowledged, but recognized as a cornerstone of successful project management. Why then is it so metric and data starved? How can we manage what we cannot measure?
So, here are the questions that took us 10 years to answer effectively:
How do we develop measurable ways of effective Teamworking?
How do we assess people’s expectations of others with those others have of them?
How can we drive performance discussions between groups and individuals on their expectations and assumptions that result in:
Specifying clearer performance criteria against which individuals/groups will be measured
Removing expectations that are non-value added and not strategically aligned
Identifying significant issues to address for project advancement
Creating an accountability framework
How can we help people be more aligned and focused?
I guess the question in readers minds is: If you make such an investment what do I get in return?
The ROI for Oilsands Projects – Sources of Payback
Expectation Alignment has been successfully employed midstream to “projects in crisis”, but its highest ROI is realized as preventative medicine used in real time to ensure proper project planning and execution.
We’ve covered Late Scope Changes and Poor Partnering Strategies of the 9 sources of failure. Let’s see how the others can be avoided or protected against by applying Expectation Alignment:
Optimized resources / Better support – Early definition of resource expectations all the way down the chain of command can avoid costly delays and expenditures. Similarly, competency gaps can be identified sooner by engaging in expectation alignment processes.
Improved communications – With numerous stakeholders involved in an oilsands project, static project charters and the like are not designed to manage the thousands of changing expectations. Successful project execution rests on agreeing, discarding or identifying the unresolved… Expectation alignment methods identify teams and managers who are especially strong or weak at communicating . Coaching or other remedial actions can thus be undertaken and the results monitored.
Accountability Tracking – Expectation Alignment’s regular and measurable process of developing and agreeing project expectations are taken to a level needed for a given project. Unlike project reporting which can often identify symptoms, Expectation Alignment tools also make accountability for task execution highly visible. Expectation Tension Ratings may also reveal important tasks that are not necessarily on the critical path but can have huge ramifications to project schedules or budgets.
Better Team Development– The Expectation Alignment process demands that Expectation Originators ensure that Expectation Receivers have the competency and resources to complete the required tasks. In situations where senior managers are working with junior personnel, assumptions are often made on their level of process knowledge and industry practices. Expectation Alignment addresses these issues by facilitating the alignment conversations that reveal experience gaps early enough to develop people and avoid later termination.
Effective Contracting Strategies – Incorporating subcontractors and key suppliers in the Expectation Alignment process often reveals owner expectations and other stakeholders are not captured in specifications and contracts yet play a significant part in them being effective
Reduced Team Turnover – Again consider the 5 key” Project Dysfunctions”. (Absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability and inattention to results). Getting teams participating in facilitated expectation alignment sessions creates an objective assessment of team stressors and progressively builds a more robust and productive project team culture.
Based on this foundation , Expectation Alignment becomes an effective tool to getting new people up to speed and address competency gaps before their credibility is damaged
Improved Stakeholder Engagement – while inclusion of all stakeholders seems an obvious remedy to avoiding later project problems, the explicit definition of mutual expectations, especially of external stakeholders can yield big paybacks. The process that enables external stakeholders to explicitly state their expectations and have them acknowledged also build good relations both in the current and subsequent projects.
In summary, where project delays are millions of dollars per day, the simple alignment and monitoring of expectations to make the many thousands of required daily decisions more accurate, is strongly beneficial and has been shown to result in very tangible savings.
Tip of the Blog
Here are some questions that are crucial to successful project execution. The above benefits accrue when all people understand:
What is expected of them
What they can expect from others
How well they are strategically aligned
How their performance is measured and compensated
What they can stop doing
What they need to focus on
What information and resources can be used to achieve their goals
This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog. How about asking us? The first call is free! Just email me to set it up. Don’t wait, get PDS working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching on change, alignment and executive performance that improves the bottom line. If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page Nick Anderson, Senior Partner, PDS Group LTD E-mail I Web I Linkedin
Regular readers will remember I was talking about how many change projects started in response to the worsening economy yet almost half of the respondents said that a significant amount of change projects failed to meet their stated goals.
This blog’s topic looks at a cherished belief of many executives that pay for performance compensation schemes motivates people to higher performance. Yet, pay is just one thread in a tapestry that covers the state of motivation in organizations today.
In this piece, I want to challenge manager’s over-reliance on paying for sales performance to stop relying on this apparently sensible idea and. Let’s rethink what effective management has to offer in creating a Motivating Environment.
Just to give you how addicted US Companies are to pay-for-performance; here’s a couple of statistics:
Average incentive income for US Salespeople is 40% of their total compensation.
Overall, 85% of this group work under some type of pay for performance compensation plan.
W. Edwards Deming (1982) “Pay is not a motivator” He called the system by which merit is appraised and rewarded:
“The most powerful inhibitor to quality and productivity in the Western World”…..”it nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes team work, nourishes rivalry and…leaves people bitter”
“Money can nevertheless be a demotivator” Frederick Hertzberg
Pay for performance advocates obsess about “How should people be paid?” But it is not as important as managers think and is in fact a distraction from the things that really matter.
The real issue is how do people become motivated to produce competitively superior results:
Managers ask: ‘How do you motivate people? – Answer is ‘You Don’t’ (Douglas McGregor)
So, if you see books like “How to Motivate your work force” “Making People Productive” can be safely passed over because the enterprise it describes in wholly misconceived.
Of course, you can get people to perform using rewards, punishments and operational controls. But, the desire to do it well, simple cannot be imposed. It’s a mistake to talk about motivating other people. All Managers can do is set up conditions that can develop an interest in what they are doing and remove constraints to their improvement.
What are the ways of creating The Motivating Environment?
Probably one of the best authors in this field , Alfred Kohn, stated three Basic Principles.
Pay people generously and equitably – Do your best to make sure they don’t feel exploited. Then, do everything in your power to help them put money out of their minds! Problem with incentives is not that people are offered too much. It’s that money is pushed in people’s faces and offered transactionally, e.g. “You do this and you will get that” Getting rid of conditionality is the first step in fixing what’s wrong
The trouble with money is not itself per se but with the way people are made to think about money and the way it is use to control them.
We need to decouple the task from compensation
“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil… (People) craving money have wandered from the truth and pierced themselves with many sorrows… (1 Timothy 6:10)
OK. So, how should you pay people, other than well and fairly?
A good starting point is asking yourself:
What makes some people more valuable to the organization that most will see as fair and achievable? (e.g. not based on being a family member- LOL) Examples:
Deming, most Japanese and other countries follow this philosophy and now a minority of US Companies – the gradual realization that pay-for-performance is an inherently flawed concept.
But, what do you do about paying people if they perform better than their peers?
Well, it leads to another common practice of linking pay to the outcome of the dreaded annual performance appraisal. This is typically a stressful annual ritual and should have been retired long ago. OK. So what do we replace it with?
Let’s look at a second principle to creating the Motivating Environment, let’s Refocus Evaluation. An obvious question:
Why are people being evaluated? Possible answers:
“Performance Evaluation persists as a effective tool for controlling employees…(that) should not be confused…with motivation of employees”
It allows supervisors to shift the responsibility for solving problems to their subordinates
“Using Performance appraisal of any kind as a basis for reward is a flat out catastrophic mistake” (Peter Scholtes)
It is “foolish to have a manager in the self-conflicting role as a counselor (helping improve performance) when at the same time, he or she is presiding as a judge over the employee’s salary…”(Herbert Meyer)
The Insight is that the entire process of providing feedback, assessing progress, and developing development plans ought to be completely divorced from salary determinations. Such sessions must have no rewards or punishment hanging in the balance.
So, how do you get genuine motivation?
It’s a good question How do you create conditions for authentic motivation?
Significantly Alan Binder pulled all available research on this subject,Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence and concluded:
“Changing the way workers are treated may boost productivity more than changing the way they are paid”
Or to put it another way:
The Pay Cart is in front of the Motivation horse. Motivation produces results not pay.
In surveys there is a broad consensus on what managers should do to create the Motivation Environment:
WATCH: Don’t put employees under surveillance; look for problems that need to be solved and help people solve them.
LISTEN: Attend seriously and respectfully to workers’ concerns
TALK: Provide plenty of informational feedback as opposed to judgmental feedback. People need to reflect on what they doing right, to learn what needs improving, and discuss how to change
THINK: why do you use power they way you do?
What do managers need to be careful of when dealing with performance improvement?
The main failing we see in our work is the extent to which rewards are not made contingent on some specific desired behaviour change that impacts business performance. Many clients are concerned about the very subjective nature of rating performance and therefore allocating performance related pay equitably. Often we start by comparing the client’s existing competencies with how they rate performance with those selected from the PDS Competency Library. Candidly, the Client’s Competencies are a mixture of Competencies and Attributes. “So what,” you say. Bottom line, you hire attributes and develop competence! Typical definitions:
Competent: “The ability to do something successfully or efficiently.”
Competency: ”Having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully:”
Attribute: “A characteristic or quality of a person.”
Frequently, Competencies often contain a mixture of attributes which should be part of the recruitment and selection process, around which you choose a path of development for each individual. Relying on attributes as a basis for incentives naturally leads to the problem of subjectivity in performance ratings. Too many times people are swimming around in a sea of ink and rhetoric when it comes to recognizing and developing leadership and other competencies? Is more being written and discussed than applied to create the Motivating Environment?
Many authors of Competencies are not clear as to what a competency really is. (Is it a skill? Is it a behavior? Is it knowledge? Or, is it a value?). For example: A competency that deals with diversity has been described this way; “sensitivity to different races, cultures, nationalities, sexes and disabilities”. Many would agree this competency is more of a value (attribute). However, if that is the case, developing this competency presents a formidable challenge, since values tend to evolve over a lifetime.
The difficulty we have in agreeing on what competencies are required is practically dwarfed by the complexity of the motivational and therefore, the competency development challenge. Of course, the beliefs and customs of a culture play an incredibly significant role in influencing beliefs, attitudes and values. We have to recognize that behavior can be adapted, but attitudes and values are relatively rigid.
What we now know about competencies shows that matching behavior patterns and attitudes of people to the demands of a position is crucial to creating the Motivational Environment
This knowledge can also assist organizations to understand the challenges in trying to get people to adapt their natural behavior patterns and attitudes to accommodate organizational needs. Recognizing that competencies are configurations of behavior, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, intelligence and skills are essential in the people evaluation and development process.
It is a truism that if individual talents are matched with the most important job requirements it can create optimal motivation and therefore superior performance. People whose natural behavior matches the requirements of their jobs and are rewarded for their true aspirations and passions naturally:
Perform better
Enjoy the intrinsic rewards of their work
Are loyal and enthusiastic
Often need to be told to go home
The main responsibilities in managing these people are to:
1. Keep them informed to align their efforts with changes
2. Make sure the building is open
3. Make sure they have the resources to do their job
4. Encourage them to maintain balance with activities outside of work.
As a rule, a “hands-off” leadership style tends to work best with people who are well matched to their positions. Micro-management or command and control techniques may drive these people to the competition. Although this kind of a “hand-in-glove” fit between people and positions may be difficult to maintain in the face of continuous change, the effort promises to return rich dividends in terms of self-directed performance, positive morale and commitment.
The matching process starts by identifying position requirements in terms of the competencies required for superior performance (built on and around attributes, whatever they may be). Every effort must be made to ensure this process is objective. Position requirements must be analyzed in terms of:
Behavior
Competencies (including soft as well as hard skills)
Attitudes (attributes)
Knowledge or experience.
An objective process for analyzing position requirements is needed whether the focus is leadership or management, technical, professional or driving a truck. What does this mean in terms of assessing the context, skills, competencies, attitudes and experience?
Summary
Creating the Motivation Environment and produce competitively superior results relies not so much on pay for results but these key factors:
Build a firm foundation for your organization based on values, principles, servant leadership,
Create and reinforce a “needs-driven” purpose or mission that is consistent with potential employees philosophy and values.
Skip incentive pay and pay people fairly or even generously for the position,
Hire good life skills (attributes) and teach job skills (competencies).
It is crucial to properly matching peoples’ gifts, talents, expertise and passions to the job.
Hire the “right” person for the “right” job,
Coach positively for improved competence, and avoid annual performance appraisals which are linked to pay
Develop servant leadership that clears away the barriers to people’s success and avoids command and control leadership
Tip of the Blog
Ask yourself:
Do you have competencies for those positions which are crucial to your organization’s performance?
How well do they separate the Knowledge, Skills that are developable vs. those attributes that you need when hiring or promoting?
Honestly, how well are these attributes used to objectively anchor the recruitment process?
How about asking us? The first call is free! Just email me to set it up. Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching on change, alignment, personal and executive performance that improve the bottom line. If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.
Sustainable change is based on leaders having a radical vision and building a pathway to that vision one step at a time.
Just as you wear a pair of shoes, this change walk has the left shoe – radical, right shoe gradual – Radical Gradualism
That got me to pose this question:
“What is the glue that holds an organization together while it goes through change?”
Relationships – the golden triangle of your people, your customers and your partners.So, that’s the pathway today – creating and holding on to that human glue that produces success
“Where’s the evidence to support your track this month?”The answer seems obvious…but…why is this facet of business becoming more important?
Traditional rationalization and cost cutting strategies fail too often – too many business turnaround failures. These traditional approaches, which are predicated upon cost efficiencies, have left companies demoralized, distracted and less productive.
If you look at the data – pure light
Successful leaders transform their organizations doing several things, like:
Building closer relationships with customers while harnessing human talent to deliver greater customer satisfaction: HP’s competitive strategy vs. IBM Mini Computers
Leveraging internal resident talent and expertise to resolve business problems and capitalize on opportunities: 3M Post-It Note
Fostering a climate that results in personal ownership for doing what’s needed: HSBC’s Customer First Change Process in the UK
Devolving responsibility to groups and teams create a project based organization: Volvo pioneered work cells – one team-one car
Raising the importance of individual and organizational learning, ensuring learning and working are integrated: KPMG link learning to career progression
Secure changes in attitudes and behavior: Fred Smith, FedEx“Anywhere,Overnight, Guaranteed”
“In the military, leadership means getting a group of people to subordinate their individual desires and ambitions for the achievement of organizational goals. And good leadership has very measurable effects on a company’s bottom line.”
My call to action: Challenge your attitudes, values and your behavior. They are the sole of your change shoes, rather than just focusing on your technology, products and services – all of which can be copied.
Some would say that other things like the right “goto” market strategy with the right distribution channels etc. So, have we got a chicken and egg situation like what comes first
People or Process or Structure?
Good point, but consider this: the days of ready, aim, fire have long gone, it’s been ready, fire, aim for some time. Few startups succeed – e.g. new restaurants close before their first anniversary. The change paradox is this “hurry slowly” – radical gradualism is a simple concept rigorously implemented
Let’s put it another way: At least three separate disciplines drew essentially the same conclusions about change and project management:
WYSIWYG-( What you see is what you get) is no longer reality. It’s IWKIWISI (I’ll Know it When I see It!) that reflects our world today
Like a lot of what you say seems common sense…why don’t more companies take this approach…?
Many factors….one telling fact is that average age of senior executives while falling is between 46-50 yo.So, they graduated between 1978 – 1982….Who had a laptop let alone a cell phone? At that time business schools still held on to a Fortune 500 view of the world and seeing the world through the lens of the Harvard Business Review. Let me ask you – What percentage of businesses is of this size in West Michigan? – Not many. So, the enculturation of managers was still “ready, aim, fire”
Bosses are turning still turn a deaf ear…Bosses are ignoring a wealth of creative ideas from their employees
1:4 people believe that they are never listened to by superiors
Among older people the proportion rises to nearly 1:2!
1:4 never been asked by their bosses for their opinion or actively encouraged to offer up ideas, no matter their length of service.
1:2 Canadians surveyed believe that their companies use half or less of their brain power
Surveys – NOP Survey 1000 (London & South East) & “Report on Business” Magazine Dec 1998)
Do you see this trend getting worse?
Employees want bosses to listen better
In the Leadership Digest, in 2006 – While employees gave their bosses “high marks” in a recent study of worker satisfaction, staff still suggested areas for improvement:
43% want bosses to use their employees’ skills and abilities better.
More than 35 % want the boss to step in more often to resolve conflicts.
Just over 25 % wish bosses would ask for their ideas and listen more readily.
So, it depends on how business leaders react. Let me explain, based on James Brian Quinn, Philip Anderson, Sydney Finkelstein,with rare exceptions, productivity lies more in intellectual and systems capabilities than say raw materials, land, plant, and equipment. Intellectual and information processes create most of the value-added for firms in the large service industries–like software, medical care, communications, and education–which provide 79 percent of all jobs and 76 percent of all U.S. GNP.
In manufacturing as well, intellectual activities–like R&D, process design, product design, logistics, marketing, marketing research, systems management, or technological innovation–generate the real value-add. McKinsey & Co. estimates that by the year 2010, 85 percent of all jobs in America and 80 percent of those in Europe will be knowledge-based. Yet few managers have systematically attacked the issues of developing, leveraging, and measuring the intellectual capabilities of their organizations.
What are the other pitfalls in creating this service based economy and how does it relate to relationship development?
The more knowledge workers, the flatter the organization which impacts the style of leadership and how wealth transitions from one generation to the other or to new owners. This economy is and will become more dynamic.
Can you explain what you mean wealth transition?
Dynamic = more transitions – buying and selling, merging acquiring. But, What gets missed? Capital is no longer about bricks and mortar – it’s Human Capital
So, what challenges does this present? What can you do to build value in these circumstances?
The greater reliance on human capital for valuing an organization the more PE firms, M & A need to look at tools to assess the real value. This means doing the obvious things of doing inventories of the people, their skills, competence and certifications, where needed to redress findings like:
Only 1 in 10 can consistently achieve their Strategy’s full potential
Non-Financial Factors valued most by investors
Strategy Execution
Management Credibility
Innovativeness
What are the main things executives have to do better?
Fulfills others: Take risks, trust each other, take proactive approach that we will work together on solving problems, share considerable confidence in their own and others abilities, have enthusiasm for their jobs.
Providing effective feedback is one of a manager’s most important tasks; it’s also one of the most difficult. Here’s a six-step model, proposed by Jack Stahl, current CEO of Revlon and former president of Coca-Cola, to facilitate feedback and make it more effective.
Value the individual. Begin by affirming what the employee contributes to your organization. Be sincere and thorough. This step is critical because it frames the conversation.
Ask the person to identify his/her biggest challenges. Ask the employee to assess his/her performance, including both strengths and challenges. This will help you pinpoint areas for targeted coaching.
Provide targeted feedback. Give specific examples of behaviors to change.
Agree on areas to develop for the future. The objective here is to focus the individual’s development and encourage him/her to practice specific new skills. You could also point him/her to training opportunities.
Agree on the benefits of improving and the consequences of not improving. This step is designed to fuel the employee’s motivation to improve or change.
Commit your support and reaffirm the person’s value. “When people feel valued, they can hear difficult feedback without being demoralized by it.”
Great, but how can this help me?
This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog. How about asking us? The first call is free! Just email me to set it up. Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching improve bottom line results. If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.
_________________________________________________________________________ For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage
This is the second in a series which goes to the heart of the challenge facing our economy – Implementing Successful and Sustainable Change.
Since 1996 when Kotter’s research revealed that only 30% of change initiatives succeed. Even today, when McKinsey surveyed 3000 business executives this ratio of 1 in 3 still applied in 2009.
In both surveys, the number one reason was people not being or willing to be on the same page. At the heart of this issue is that people are not clear on their expectations of others and they don’t understand the change from their perspective. The problem is that managers use rational models which they think just makes a common sense and why things go wrong from the get-go why?
Because when they simply implement their prescription, they disregard or are not aware of certain, sometimes irrational- but predictable elements of human nature. Unfortunately, Yes. I say that because only 30% of change works and only 10% of such initiatives deliver everything intended by those planning the change.
Why has this lack of success been so difficult to improve upon?
At its core is this quote from Rabbie Burns:
Rabbie Burns
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us” “O would some Power the gift to give us, To see ourselves as others see us! It would from many a blunder free us” (Robert Burns)
A translation. In times of change conventional wisdom suggests that the leaders of change should model the desired change to mobilize influential leaders to drive change deep into the organization.
So, you’re saying before leaders start walking their talk they need to be careful. What do you see as the pitfalls leaders should be aware of?
Two spring to mind.
First, Leaders think they have already made the change and they just need to get everyone on side. They forget that all those retreats, strategy sessions and closed door meetings with advisors, consultants etc. weren’t easy. Conflicts arose and concessions were made. So, in their arrogance they think that their people should “Get It” with little chance to go through the “Storming and Norming” that the management team went through. That is not to say all people should be involved all the time but you have to allow for them time to adjust, question, object and be answered in a respectful way.
Second, leaders think they are the panacea rather than mobilizing others to get things to happen.
Let’s take the first one.
Most senior executives generally buy into Gandhi’s astute observation:
“Be the change you want to see in the world”
Yet knowing something and committing oneself to change too often don’t lead to significant results
So, leaders change their behavior and yet nothing happens…I am confused…
And so are leaders…..when they make a change. Too often most leaders don’t count themselves among those who need to change.
Like if you pulled them to one side and whispered “Are you really customer focused?” they would say “Not really” (I don’t have time to be…have you seen the paperwork I have to get through or ….P & L)
The fact is we all consistently think we are better than we actually are – in psychology it’s called“self serving bias”
For Example, 94% of men rate themselves in the top half of male athletic ability
So, when it comes to change Walking your Own Talk it’s not so much as a desire to show people what to do BUT the real bottleneck is leaders knowing what to change at a personal level.
It sounds like many leaders don’t take a cool hard look at themselves before embarking on “Walking the talk” and prescribing what others should do?
Exactly, we often see this in our alignment work. Consistently, leaders have 70%+ more expectations than others realize and leaders are often oblivious of what their people expect of them.
What can leaders do to overcome this potential blind spot?
There are several ways using surveys like 360 degrees feedback, or simply asking regularly what should I be doing differently? Or one large company has what they call the “Ring of Fire”
Direct feedback in answer to
1. “What makes you great?”
2. “What holds you back?”
Are people really going to reply honestly?
No, not if the climate has not been set. Yes, if the Leaders don’t believe they are the cure all for their organizations problems.
Yet, it’s sound advice that they should mobilize others, who by experience, respect and ability can become influential it getting things to happen. Yet, too often the influential leader’s role has shifted from being that helpful element to a broad set of actions, to being a cure all.
It’s a mindset problem leaders have. They forget they need to create the framework for changes not persuade people to adopt their prescriptions for change.
That sounds like leaders should let people come up with their own solutions…
No & Yes.
Persuasion or selling the need for change and what the change needs to acheive has to get welded together in leaders’ minds.
Leaders need to create receptivity for change (Framework) and not stray into the debilitating arena of “I know what we need to do…..”
The dangers are that you are seen to be part of the problem, you risk cutting off the growing motivation to do something differently and focus people on being spectators of change rather than being players in the game.
In reality it is often unexpected people who feel compelled to step up to drive change e.g. Like in Genzink Steel where customized job shop scheduling software didn’t work. It was the work scheduler who stepped up and said basically “The Emperor has no clothes”. Her colleagues were so fed up with the system that they stopped using and went back to their old ways. They certainly didn’t like her saying that because it brought back all memories of the hassles and frustrations they went through trying to get it to do what it was supposed to do.
That’s why keeping leaders focused on creating the framework of lasting change is vital.
Too often we see leaders vested in their narrow focus unwittingly excluding the very people the need to create this framework.
So, what does effective leadership look like?
If you turn to Robert Greenleaf’s philosophy it can help leaders create the frame and not try to build their house on their own.
“Greenleaf – The servant-leader is servant first… Becoming a servant-leader begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first… The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is this:
Do those served grow as persons?
Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?”
Robert Greenleaf’s most important work, Servant Leadership (1977/2002), is subtitledA Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness. Though his terms are secular ones, his definition of leadership is the clearest statement of this idea that the needs of followers are holy and that legitimate use of power arises from the consent of followers.
Like Christ washing the disciple’s feet – what did this do for their perception of his leadership?
Great leaders like Montgomery, Schwarzkopf, Washington, and MacArthur all engrained their officers to “Look after your men”
So, ask yourself:
How often do I proactively ask for feedback? (Remember alignment is a two way street)
What you expect of me?
What I think you expect of me?
What I expect of you?
What you think I expect of you
Great, but how can this help me?
This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog. How about asking us? The first call is free! Just email me to set it up. Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching on change, alignment, and personal and executive performance that improve the bottom line. If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.
Since 1996 when Kotter’s research revealed that only 30% of change initiatives succeed. Even today, when McKinsey surveyed 3000 business executives this ratio of 1 in 3 still applied in 2009.
You see for people to be clear on their expectations of others they need to understand the change from their perspective. The problem is that managers use rational models which they think just makes a common sense and why things go wrong from the get go Why?
Because when they simply implement their prescription, they disregard or are not aware of certain, sometimes irrational- but predictable elements of human nature. Unfortunately, Yes. I say that because only 30% of change works and only 10% of such initiatives deliver everything intended by those planning the change.
Why has this lack of success been so difficult to improve upon?
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us”
“O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us”
Robert Burns
Another translation
The name of this radio program is “Walk the Talk” or translated “Do what I do” But what talk?
In times of change conventional wisdom suggests that the leaders of change should model the desired change to mobilize influential leaders to drive change deep into the organization yet….
So, you’re saying before leaders start walking their talk they need to be careful. What do you see as the pitfalls leaders should be aware of?
Two spring to mind.
First, Leaders think they have already made the change and we need to get everyone on side. Elaborate – behind closed doors – advisors, consultants etc.
Second, they think they are the panacea rather than mobilizing others to get things to happen.
Let’s take the first one.
Most senior executives generally buy into Gandhi’s astute observation:
“Be the change you want to see in the world”
Yet knowing something and committing oneself to change too often don’t lead to significant results
So, leaders change their behavior and yet nothing happens…I am confused…
You might as well talk to yourself!
And so are leaders…..when they make a change. Too often most leaders don’t count themselves among those who need to change.
Like if you pulled them to one side and whispered “Are you really customer focused?” they would say “No” (I don’t have time to be…have you seen the paperwork I have to get through or ….P & L)
The fact is we all consistently think we are better than we actually are – in psychology it’s called “self serving bias”
For Example, 94% of men rate themselves in the top half of male athletic ability
So, when it comes to change Walking your Own Talk it’s not so much as a desire to show people what to do BUT the real bottleneck is leaders knowing what to change at a personal level.
It sounds like many leaders don’t take a cool hard look at themselves before embarking on “Walking the talk” and prescribing what others should do?
Exactly, we often see this in our alignment work. Consistently, leaders have 70%+ more expectations than others realize and leaders are often oblivious of what their people expect of them.
What can leaders do to overcome this potential blind spot?
The Ring of Fire
There are several ways using surveys like 360 degrees feedback, or simply asking regularly what should I be doing differently? Or one large company has what they call the “Ring of Fire”
Direct feedback in answer to
1. “What makes you great?”
2. “What holds you back?”
Are people really going to reply honestly?
No, not if the climate has not been set.
Yes, if the Leaders don’t believe they are the cure all for their organizations problems.
Yet, it’s sound advice that they should mobilize others, who by experience, respect and ability can become influential it getting things to happen. Yet, too often the influential leader’s role has shifted from being that helpful element to a broad set of actions, to being a cure all.
It’s a mindset problem leaders have. They forget they need to create the framework for changes not persuade people to adopt their prescriptions for change.
That sounds like leaders should let people come up with their own solutions…
No & Yes.
Persuasion or selling the need for change and what the change needs to be get welded together in leaders’ minds.
Leaders need to create receptivity for change (Framework) and not stray into the debilitating arena of “I know what we need to do…..”
The dangers are that you are seen to be part of the problem, you risk cutting off the growing motivation to do something differently and focus people on being spectators of change rather than being players in the game.
In reality it is often unexpected people who feel compelled to step up to drive change e.g. Genzink Steel – work scheduler
That’s why keeping leaders focused on creating the framework of lasting change is vital.
Too often we see leaders vested in their narrow focus unwittingly excluding the very people the need to create this framework.
Ok. Got that. So, What does effective leadership look like?
If you turn to Robert Greenleaf’s philosophy it can help leaders create the frame and not try to build their house on their own.
“Greenleaf – The servant-leader is servant first… Becoming a servant-leader begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first… The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is this:
Do those served grow as people?
Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?”
Robert Greenleaf’s most important work, Servant Leadership (1977/2002), is subtitled A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness. Though his terms are secular ones, his definition of leadership is the clearest statement of this idea that the needs of followers are holy and that legitimate use of power arises from the consent of followers.
Like Christ washing the disciple’s feet – what did this do for their perception of his leadership?
Here’s a tip for now:
How often do you proactively ask for feedback?
Remember alignment is a two way street
What you expect of me
What I think you expect of me
What I expect of you
What you think I expect of you
Great, but how can this help me?
This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog. How about asking us? The first call is free! Just email me to set it up. Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching on change, alignment, and personal and executive performance that improve the bottom line. If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.
To Buy a Copy of Focusing Change To Win: 
st Churchman
lligent glue
The ROI for Oilsands Projects – Sources of Payback
oney out of their minds! Problem with incentives is not that people are offered too much. It’s that money is pushed in people’s faces and offered transactionally, e.g. “You do this and you will get that” Getting rid of conditionality is the first step in fixing what’s wrong
ten contain a mixture of attributes which should be part of the recruitment and selection process, around which you choose a path of development for each individual. Relying on attributes as a basis for incentives naturally leads to the problem of subjectivity in performance ratings. Too many times people are swimming around in a sea of ink and rhetoric when it comes to recognizing and developing leadership and other competencies? Is more being written and discussed than applied to create the Motivating Environment?
The Crispian Advantage 