Reeves's results:

Team Tips - 5 {Trust me!}

2011-11-23T17:39:00.001-04:00

We're having a snow day; first of theseason.

So it's a good time to tackle this challenge for teams fromJose R.:

"How can you recover trust insidea team that has lost it?"

Trust between team members and betweenthe team and their boss is critical for great teams. In fact it is adeciding factor, we have learned, between great teams and those othergroups. When we see individuals on the team trusting each other touphold their commitments and decisions, then we know the team hasmoved into that “sweet spot” or the “greatness zone”. This isbecause the energy freed up from dealing with the emotional drama oflack-of-trust issues can be directly applied to producing a greatproduct on time. It is the difference between team energy beingwasted in a downward spiral, and having that energy provide creativeideas, the perfecting and execution of those ideas, and the upwardspiral of success.

Additionally, that trust releaseseveryone from managing each interactive transaction as if there werea high risk of misunderstanding, mistakes, waste, and allows thattime and energy to be spent where it is most productive.

We call this model “Trust versusControl”.

This becomes very obvious with a bossthat is “micro-managing”. If the boss believes he or she has tobe involved in everything the team does, then the team can almost bereplaced with machinery. They end up doing each task under closesupervision like robots. Alternatively, if the boss has confidence inthe team's ability to perform the basic tasks, that can be extendedto the team determining their own workflow, quality, deadlines, etc.In the ideal case, for example after attending a Great TeamsBootCamp*, the team is proficient in managing their own affairs. Allthe boss need do then is accept the team's status reports, confirm tohis or her satisfaction that the product is on time and will begreat, and... take the rest of the day off.

Whenever that level of trust is lostthen we are back to the more common case of groups in organizationseverywhere.

So to Jose's question: What can we doto build or recover trust?

What we have observed over 15 years inthe Simple Rules and Tools for Great Team Immersion* – a.k.a.BootCamp – is that the adoption of the Rules – the CoreCommitments – and the use of the Tools - the Core Protocols – isa great starting point. These provide a foundation for the desiredend result which is a persistent track record between team members,and between the team and the boss, of successful personalinteractions. That is: commitments kept, ideas shared, supportprovided, results delivered, etc., all of which indicate that trusthas been earned, like deposits in a bank account.

A significant starting point is theteam agreeing on a shared vision. The ideal method to get to thisstate is the development of personal goals, or wants, by eachindividual on the team that each team member agrees to support. Thesharing of these personal alignments leads to a state of sharedvision – people in alignment with each other – and enables thedevelopment of a shared vision statement. What we have experienced isthat individuals in a state of shared vision have the basis of trustbetween themselves which can then be amplified across everything theydo.

By individuals keeping their CoreCommitments, supporting each other's Personal Alignments, and goingfurther to engage each other regularly by Asking for Help,Investigating, sharing and Perfecting ideas, etc., the team memberskeep making trust deposits. The nature of these deposits is: I can becounted on to act responsibly as an adult, to avoid emotional drama,to meet my promises, to engage with others in every question ofproduct delivery and quality.

If trust needs to be recaptured, thesesame tools are effective. Particularly Ask for Help.

Individuals following the CoreCommitments can be depended upon for adult, engaged behaviour. Asking these individuals for help, on any question, develops arelationship with him or her based on respect and inclusion. Thisexercise supersedes just getting information. This is an act ofconnection which starts to rebuild trust. Keeping promises, beingopen to diversity of ideas, including others in gatheringinformation, sharing ideas are all positive influences for regainingtrust.

And based on our experiences with greatteams you can trust me on that. :)

Click here for your own copy of theCore Protocols – the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams.

To add your team challenges to the listadd a comment below or message me @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Team Tips - 4 {Is this for me?}

2011-11-15T16:49:00.001-04:00

Another challenge for teams comes fromJose R.:

“Can everybody work in teams?”

I am so very tempted to reply with asarcastic answer, except that wouldn't be helpful, and this is areally tough challenge.

Some people I have observed over theyears just don't seem suited to work with others at all. I leave itto psychologists to analyze and guess why. But most of us haveencountered those who simply like to work independently or even havea difficult time making conversation with one other person, let alonea team.

In fact, some people, like myself,chose to work in fields like computer science to reduce the amount oftime needed to deal with other humans, their emotional states, theirfoibles, etc., and maximize their time dealing with the pure,rational, logic of computing.

And some, like myself (again! ?), findthemselves so disappointed and de-motivated working in organizationalgroups where there is no clear vision, objective, approach, sharingof ideas, focus on results, etc. that they can't functioneffectively. In those kinds of organizations I am un-employable (andhave the severance packages to show for it.)

So if we view the challenge as “Canteams provide a work environment for everyone?” we can see why teambuilding, team work, team success is difficult for lots oforganizations and anyone who is stuck on those teams.

For those teams that can demonstratesuccess through the delivery of great results on time every time*, wecan revert back to the original question and ask: “Can anyone atall become part of that team?”

And unless the product or service thatyour organization delivers to its customers can be built by oneperson only, never interacting with anyone else, we need to addressthis challenge.

What we have found in our work withteams using the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams* is that no,not everyone will want to be part of a given team's shared vision,and adopt the rules and tools to deliver great results. Some justaren't ready to step out of their comfort zone, give up theirpreviously learned models and behaviours for mediocre results, acceptthe responsibility and accountability to be their best. This isn't ajudgemental statement; it's just fact.

We all become ready to be our best inour own time, at our own pace. Unfortunately, in my opinion, some runout of time before they get to a decision.

What we have also found so far is thatthe best way to know if one IS ready to be part of a team is toattend the team building session known as BootCamp from McCarthy Technologies. There one is immersed in the Simple Rules and Tools ofGreat Teams and can discover for themselves if they are ready, andwhat it means to be part of a great team. As covered in the previousposts, this also allows the boss to recognize which people are creating which team, and for an existing team to determine their members.

Another choice is to join a great teamfor a probationary period to see if one is up to the challenge. Animportant team work practice is prototyping: building versions of therequired product or service to be “perfected” (using thePerfection Game tool). Similarly, a probationary period for a newmember is a use of prototyping.

Being part of a team isn't about grouphugs or being in constant agreement with the rest of the team.Sometimes independent behaviour by a team member is the best choicefor the team in a particular situation. Further, if the team's sharedvision isn't shared by someone, then it is best that they leave theteam – to possibly form their own team.

So if you are one of those extremelyrare people who never needs to work with anyone else, you don't haveto concern yourself with team work. Happily for the rest of us thereare really excellent options.

Click here for your own copy of theCore Protocols – the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams.

To add your team challenges to the list please add a comment below or message me @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Team Tips - 3 {Who gets to play?}

2011-11-08T12:58:00.000-04:00

The next challenge for teams I havechosen is from Ben N.:

New member ?
“How to select members for a greatteam?”

The smartest way we have seen peopleget selected for a team is to have all potential team members attendthe team building workshop: Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams.This session is also known as BootCamp by the originators of theevent, Jim and Michele McCarthy, and is based on their book Softwarefor Your Head.

By inviting potential team members toparticipate in this workshop the boss* is setting some initialconditions which help define the basis for the team. (*see Team Tips - 1)

The workshop is NOT mandatory. Accordingly, the people who attend are only those who want to be there; hence, want to be part of the team
By participating in the session attendees are immersed in the Core Protocols – the Simple Rules and Tools. This helps everyone involved get to experience and practice these foundational behaviours for great teamwork, and some will invest energy in this learning and thrive in it, and some may choose not to
During the session, the team members develop a Shared Vision for that team. If someone doesn't wish to share that vision they are free to follow their own dream and so move out of the original team
The team members that find that the Core Protocols as used by the team deliver on the promise of high band-with communication, fast decision making, the development of trust, a focus on results of high quality, etc. become their own self organized team. Any attendees who don't are again free to not participate, possibly forming their own team working in other ways

The boss gets the result: a selforganized team, following Simple Rules and Tools that are repeatablein any situation, scaleable for any size of group, reliably workingto produce the best results on time every time. Any attendee whochooses not to be part of this, effectively self-selects themselvesoff the team.

Our experience with this approach isthat:

a) bosses have used the session to “dothe hiring”. That is the immersion becomes the hiring process, andthe check for personality chemistry, and the probation period, andany other scrutiny one wishes for in a hiring process. (And the costof a “normal” personnel search, interview and hire, and possiblefailure after three months of probation more than pays for thesession.)

b) or alternatively, they have seenafter the session who should be, or remain, “on the bus” [Good toGreat, Harper Collins, Jim Collins] and can identify those who don'twish to work on the team using the Core Protocols. (Again this savesconsiderable energy and cost dealing with employees who have turnedout not to be a good fit.)

Team

The quick answer then is: Have the teamselect their own members.

If the team already exists, then they arethe best people to determine who will fit well on that team, who canaspire to the team's shared vision, will use the team's commitmentsto responsible behaviour, and follow the team's protocols forinformation sharing, decision making, self improvement, developmentof great products or services, etc.

And just as the great teams work with abias toward action instead of discussion, and incrementally buildingprototypes, and perfecting them, they can do the same thing inconfirming new members. That is, work with them over a probationaryperiod for everyone to confirm that the newly expanded team isfunctioning as well or better, and similarly the team is a good fitfor the new member.

Great teams learn to let ideas go, andsimilarly can accept that their world isn't perfect for everyone.Sometimes the shiniest, prettiest, smartest new hire just shouldn'tbe on this team. The Core Protocols provide the tools to deal withthat.

Again, the underlying premise in allthese answers is that the team is using the Simple Rules – the CoreCommitments in the Core Protocols – and the Tools – the Protocolsthemselves for their day to day operation. This is simply thesmartest approach for any team that we have found.

So here is the “catch”. If what Iam suggesting doesn't seem workable in your situation, then you needto use the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams (or somethingbetter).

To add your questions to the list add acomment below or tweet me @ReevesResults.

Team Tips – 2 {Where's the Boss?}

2011-11-04T10:51:00.000-03:00

Assuming you've read the previous post– Team Tips - 1 – you know the definitions I'm using for “teams”,“boss”, etc. and can guess that I will be relying on the SimpleRules and Tools for Great Teams – the Core Protocols – in myanswers.

Indeed, the underlying premise in allthese answers is that the team is using the Simple Rules – the CoreCommitments in the Core Protocols – and the Tools – the Protocolsthemselves, for their day to day operation. This is simply thesmartest approach for any team that we have found.

So here is the “catch”. If what Iam suggesting doesn't seem workable in your situation, then the organization needs to use the Core Commitments and Protocols (or something better).

Let's start with one of the mostcomplicated situations Vickie and I have had to work on with a team,the question Jose R. asked:

“Does the boss belong to the team, orhe just must work for it?” (I believe for the last part Jose meant“or does the team just work for the boss?”)

(Remember: “boss” as used here isdefined in the prior post Team Tips - 1).

Boss

The simplest rule is NOT to have theboss be part of the team. The team works for the boss, and deliversthe product or service the boss requires, in the timeframe the bossrequires, with the quality the boss requires. And in large enoughorganizations the boss is on his or her own team with other bosses ofother teams.

Team

In fact the teams working for a bossARE THE PRODUCTS of the boss, and the teams across the organizationare the products of the team of bosses. In the purest arrangement thebosses don't produce any final product or service for sale to theirretail customers – their teams do.

And to get even more precise, the bosssets the initial conditions for the team – what must be producedand delivered by the team, and when, and within what constraints(resources, values, legislation, policies, etc.). The mostexperienced and mature teams can take responsibility for decidingwhat can be produced and delivered against a given deadline, oralternatively, what deadline they can meet for a given productrequirement.

All of this works smoothly when thereis a high level of trust and a high level of communication both waysbetween the team and the boss. And, of course, individual commitmentand responsibility from each team member. (We'll explore trust andcommitment more in future posts.) These elements are all comprehendedand provided for in the Core Protocols.

But the situation gets trickier whenthe organization is smaller and, for example, the owners of thebusiness are the bosses AND are also contributors to the team and itsproducts.

In this special case the boss or bosses have tooperate in two modes: explicitly as the boss, and explicitly as ateam member. The modes have to be crystal clear at each moment ineach transaction between all parties – that is why I emphasize“explicitly”.

In all cases,the boss's job is to have the team produce a result on time that isgreat in the opinion of the team and the boss. The boss does not haveto be concerned with how that is done, what tools or methods areused, etc. as long as the initial conditions – the non-negotiableitems – are met. If the result exceeds expectation or is finishedearly – fantastic. If there is any doubt that this will happen, theteam should be reworking their methods, their focus on deadlines,their quality, etc., without expecting the boss to intervene orrescue them, unless they specifically ask the boss for help.

Similarly, in daily operation, the teamrelies on the merit of the best ideas from any team member at anytime to proceed to producing the team result. The bossas a team member cannot have any special standing or influence, otherwise theother team members will eventually stand back and wait for the bossto propose all ideas and make all the decisions, and the hugeopportunity for individual leadership, innovation, and energy islost.

Accordingly, as the boss the businessowner states the end result required or the deadline, then stepsaside to let the team get on with it. As a team member, the owneracts as an equal with all the other team members to determine howbest to produce a high quality result, or when the result will becompleted as appropriate.

To be crystal clear about what mode thebusiness owner is in – boss or team member – he or she may use aspecial name, put on a particular hat, etc. or simply say: “As theboss I need...” or “As a team member I propose...”

Needless to say, this special case canadd a layer of extra effort and confusion, and so we recommend thesimplest scenario for teams that are just getting accustomed to usingthe Core Protocols for team building and operation. But if there is no choice, we have anumber of ways of accomplishing the special case.

If you already are knowledgeable aboutthe Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams – the Core Protocols –then you can see how this boss / team model works.

If not, then you will probably havemany more questions on how this model can possibly work! So pleasesend in your questions via the comments section below or @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Team Tips – 1 {Some challenges}

2011-11-02T18:21:00.000-03:00

Since my partner, Vickie Gray, and Ihave been working with Jim and Michelle McCarthy on developing GreatTeams over the last 8 or so years, it occurred to me to collect thethings we have learned observing successful teams and create a seriesof blog posts.

These observations might be called TeamTips.

(They are actually recommendations forteam members collected over the 15 years that the Simple Rules andTools for Great Teams – the Core Protocols – have been gatheredand used. But “Team Tips” is more catchy. :-) )

And then I thought: Why not ask myTwitter world for suggestions for posts – what are the challengesthat people have about team work?

Here are some replies so far:

From Jose R.:

“Can everybody work in teams?”
“Which is the best road to high performance teams?”
“Does the boss belong to the team, or he just must work for it?”
"How can you recover trust inside a team that has lost it?"

From Ben N.:

“How to select members for agreat team?”

Nothing like starting off with somereally important questions!

So while I am working on the answers tothese questions (and setting aside all the other recommendations Ihave for the moment) it seems worthwhile to get some terminologystraight so we are all clear on the words.

Here are some definitions we use:

“Team”: A team is a group of two ormore people working on a common goal. Immediately that moves usbeyond groups at work into any situation: sports obviously, communitygroups, church groups, families, couples, etc. There shouldn't be anycircumstance where the team practices we use – the Core Protocols –won't work. Nor have we found culture, language, arbitrary socialclass rankings, etc. prohibitive.

“Boss”: A generic term covering allthe organizational words for someone in authority over the team, e.g.manager, director, team lead, project manager, etc. The bossrepresents the power that sets one or all of the goal, resourcebudget, time deadline, etc. In Human Systems Dynamics terms the bosssets the “initial conditions”. We often refer to these items asthose that are non-negotiable by the team. In a typical workplace theboss represents the owner / president / CEO who has the finaldecision making authority. In a family the boss is the combined andagreed decision making authority of the parents or couple.

“High performance teams”: In mycorporate career I previously used this term very loosely as meaningany team operating with some awareness of their own performance andhaving some techniques to intentionally direct their own work. (And Ithought it was a big deal to get that far.) Having since experiencedwhat excellent teams can do I now use “high performing” to referto teams that are committed (scary word!) to intentionally (notmaybe) delivering great results (as considered by themselves andtheir boss) on time, every time. In other words, teams thatconsistently and continually use the Core Protocols (or better).

And finally, for now...

“Member”: Any one who considersthem-self part of the team, and whom the team agrees is part of theteam, not because of any assignment by organizational grouping or task, but because of their behaviour. And that behaviour includes their owncommitment to intentionally great results from the team.

I'm sorry if you were hoping for quick and easy answers instead of this preamble. In Human SystemsDynamics (HSD) terms a team, as any group of people, is a complexadaptive system. That is, it is a system constantly adapting to achaotic environment. Which is why self help books and blogs, weekendretreats, climbing ropes in the woods, facilitated intervention canhelp momentarily but typically doesn't last or grow. These things arenot maintainable, repeatable, scalable for the chaotic, dynamic worldwe live and work in.

HSD also teaches us that simple rulesand tools are important for people in complex adaptive systems. (Simplemeans a short list that is clear and concise – not necessarilyeasy).

That is why Vickie and I refer to theCore Protocols for team building and operation as the Simple Rulesand Tools for Great Teams.

And why I'll be referring to the CoreProtocols in the next posts as I answer your questions about teams.

To add your questions to the list add acomment below or tweet me @ReevesResults

ITIL in The Cloud - 3

2011-09-21T15:34:00.000-03:00

ITIL in The Cloud (part 3)

In this series I have been discussing the usefulness of the ITIL Framework when dealing with the model of computing referred to as “the Cloud”. (Definition provided in part 2).

It's always interesting to see a tidal wave of articles about a phenomenon where the terminology or jargon is readily waved about, positions are staked out, bets placed, opinions posited before we even come to terms with what the topic actually is about.

For example:

From “CIOs lack adequate cloud computing knowledge"
http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/cios-lack-adequate-cloud-computing-knowledge/143661?sub=390801&utm_source=390801&utm_medium=dailyitwire&utm_campaign=enews
By: Stephanie Overby - 02 Aug 2011

A survey of cloud providers and outsourcers returns some embarrassing scores on the cloud skills of IT executives.

Traditional IT outsourcing customers are struggling with cloud computing, according to IT service providers and outsourcing advisors surveyed by KPMG Sourcing Advisory. IT service providers and advisors rated their IT executive customers' facility with various aspects of cloud computing on a scale of one to five, where one represented "very unskilled" and five represented "very skilled." IT executives earned embarrassing scores from their providers and advisors: None garnered even a middling score of three.

When it comes to managing and governing cloud initiatives, IT leaders earned their lowest scores from respondents: 1.69 from advisors and 2.19 from providers.

(Note the precision in the scores of two places of decimal – very scientific indeed! Unfortunately we aren't given the sample size or information on the demographics.)

The article continues to point out that it is the pace of technology change, including the development of the Cloud environment, that is a big difficulty, and that the IT management skills required need to be learned and practiced more.

Hmmm. Smells like a framework of best practices in this area could be helpful.

A framework like, say, ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library)?

And how could that learning and increased used of the best practices help?

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the U.S. the Cloud has

five essential characteristics (On-demand self-service, Broad network access, Resource pooling, Rapid elasticity, Measured Service)
three service models (Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS), Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS), Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS))
and, four deployment models (Private cloud, Community cloud, Public cloud, Hybrid cloud)
key enabling technologies include: (1) fast wide-area networks, (2) powerful, inexpensive server computers, and (3) high-performance virtualization for commodity hardware

Compared to that list of essential characteristics, ITIL practices can be applied

in understanding the customer demand for self-service, profiling the IT Service Provider's resources and capabilities to meet that demand, managing the customer & supplier interface
in determining the network access policies, procedures, security requirements, contingency planning
in managing capacity and availablity not just of the technical infrastructure but of all the resources and capablities of the organization
in ensuring changing customer requirements are well managed through responsive change management and deployment
in determining and monitoring service levels and performance to those targets

With respect to Service models, ITIL is all about IT Services – understanding all the customer's interests and requirements, and the corresponding capabilities of the IT Service Provider.

Finally, ITIL doesn't speak to enabling technology choices because the IT Service Management thinking isn't altered by the choice of technology.

And all of the ITIL practices apply to whichever side of the Cloud edge one is on – Customer buying Cloud services or Cloud Provider delivering services. We just have to sort out who does what for whom in the steps of each process. Which is pretty darn important in any business deal whatever model one uses.

So if your score was in the 1.69 range, don't despair. Help is available!

For more about ITIL and IT Leadership please contact me at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/where.html

ITIL in The Cloud - 2

2011-08-14T17:23:00.001-03:00

ITIL in The Cloud (part 2)

In part one I introduced the notion that taking advantage of good business practice in all its forms like ITIL just makes sense, and even more so as one considers operating in, or with, the Cloud.

But when we talk about “the Cloud” what the heck do we mean?

How about this definition from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the U.S.:
“Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.”

Aha! We are talking about a model for the use of computing resources.

How does that fit with the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)? Well, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is best probably about a 10.

Why so high?

ITIL is indifferent to the device technology used because it is concerned with the strategic, design, transition, operations, and improvement levels or layers working above the technology. ITIL deals with the thinking, organizing, and procedural aspects of running the IT business.
It recognizes the most critical resource left out of the above definition – the people involved, as both a resource and a source of capability.
Rapid provision of services depends on strong design, controlled transition, sound operations, continual improvement (particularly keeping in mind that fewer lifecycle errors leads to higher overall speed of provision).
Being able to release with minimal management effort / service provider interaction hinges on sound, well executed process as encouraged by ITIL.
And, availability (as well as the other warranty areas of capacity, contingency, and security) are well covered in the ITIL practices

In general, the more complicated the situation, the more benefit can be derived from other's experiences and best practices. Why make all their mistakes – again?

So then if an organization has a solid foundation of ITIL practices and processes, their various roles and responsibilities across the organization figured out, their IT Services catalogued, change and deployment activities under control, etc. then everything is perfect?

“Perfect” is a stretch (unless I am their Advisor). :-)

But I think the question boils down to:
Would you like to take advantage of the terminology, common understanding, thoroughness of checklists and process steps, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and structure of the lifecycle perspective that the best practices from ITIL have to offer, or be mediocre on purpose?

And that can be the difference between seeing the sun above the Cloud or getting rained on.

For more about ITIL and IT Leadership please contact me at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/where.html

ITIL in The Cloud - 1

2011-08-03T16:38:00.001-03:00

ITIL in The Cloud (part 1)

At the risk of sounding like one of the Four Yorkshiremen in the Monty Python sketch talking about how rough their childhoods were...

When I was a lad I had to get up before going to bed, walk barefoot through ten foot snowdrifts, and write Assembler code and such for mainframes such as the IBM 360, DEC PDP-10, and Xerox Data Systems Sigma 7. (Yes; Xerox Corporation was briefly in the mainframe business after buying Scientific Data Systems. And their research facility really did inaugurate desktop networked Personal Computers etc. long before anyone else. All fascinating stories for another time.)

And in those days of mainframes closeted in well protected data centres we had to play by the rules – for access, usage privileges, changes, etc. - because the strict governance of these million dollar babies was crucial to the owning organization, and careers.

Today we have, ta-da, the Cloud.

So as we begin to operate “in the Cloud” should we toss away everything we learned fifty years ago, including solid business practice for managing computing resources and services such as the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)?

A business associate, Will Shook, writes as he starts up another information technology and services company [Accelerence, LLC]:

The issue at hand for me is this: we built a model around computing many years ago and very good practices were developed in the glass house. Then we went to client / server computing and everybody forgot everything about controls and processes. Skip forward to the cloud and it seems everyone has forgot about good governance once again as they get focused on the technology, but not predictable results from the technology. Good governance is more important than ever now, given the sharing of workloads, the mixed model of asset ownership and operation, and the preponderance of devices, data, and access methods. ITIL should be a huge win in the world of the cloud.

Absolutely should be!

As the technology gets more complicated, and the management of it gets more complicated, and the difficulty of understanding what is done for whom, by whom, and under what circumstances increases, doesn't it make sense to take advantage of good business practice?

In fact, for those organizations who have developed thorough IT Service Management processes with ARCI tables, Service Portfolios and Catalogues, strong Operating Level Agreements and Service Level Agreements (just to note a few) moving to the use of Cloud services is easier. At least they know what services they are talking about, can plug in new roles and responsibilities readily, and pinpoint service level requirements and dependencies.

If you are about to change some or all of your computing model isn't it nice to know in detail what you do today, how you do it, and have insightful and directed questions for your new Cloud suppliers?

Beats walking barefoot through ten foot snowdrifts!

For more about ITIL and IT Leadership please contact me at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/where.html

Simple Rules and Tools - Ask for Help

2011-05-29T19:09:00.001-03:00

Asking for Help even when you (think you) don't need it.

I just cleaned out one of the eves-troughs on our house. It seems hardly worth a blog post to announce that. Nor was it particularly remarkable in any way:

it wasn't higher than the reach of our standard ladder
it was above the deck at the back of the house so the footing for the ladder was solid
the blockage was ordinary – just some accumulated leaves
and the spot requiring attention was self evident because that's where the water was overflowing the lip of the trough on to my feet on the deck

On the other hand, yes, it was pouring rain at the time. (After all a hole in the roof only leaks when it is raining.)

So why did I go out in the rain, in a rain slicker and boots, scramble up a wet ladder with the slicker's hood blocking my vision, reach over backwards to grope blindly in the eves-trough, in very cold water, to find the blockage of soggy leaves, to deal with this problem?

Well; the point of the eves-trough is to direct water away from the basement wall so it doesn't end up in the cellar, and that clearly wasn't working very well. And the waterfall from the trough onto the deck made this disconcerting “water-is-running-into-the-house-and-all-is-lost” sound.

But, of course, the underlying reason is that I hadn't cleared the leaves away during the lovely warm sunny weather this past weekend. In fact I hadn't even checked to see if there might be leaves in the trough, even though I have to do that for my Mum almost every time I visit her at her house.

Aren't humans fascinating? We have the capability and resources to plan in advance the most outrageously complicated stuff, but we still wait until its raining to fix the roof – or eves-trough.

We see this effect when it comes to Asking for Help. It's startling clear when there's a problem and a solution is needed that asking someone else for thoughts or advice is a good idea. In our Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams Immersion session that becomes obvious, particularly when we tell folks at the start of the session that the tool “Ask for Help” is the single most important and valuable one to learn.

But it's trickier to appreciate that Asking for Help is even more valuable when it is not raining problems. Because the steps in the tool aren't simply ones to get answers, but are also ways to open oneself to others – their knowledge, insights, experience, and contributions. And that helps us to put our own knowledge into perspective, take ourselves a little less seriously perhaps, and forge a stronger more meaningful connection with that other person.

And you don't have to wait until it's raining to do that.

Find out more about the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/news.html and get a free copy of all the rules and tools known as The Core Protocols at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/whatresults.html

Simple Rules and Tools - Perfection Game

2011-05-10T15:03:00.001-03:00

Making something better and better

The other night at the Aikido dojo some members were tested and successfully achieved their next level of ranking. Immediately before the tests all of us worked through a regular class which usually has us start with practicing a very basic and simple technique and build on it towards a pretty startling movement.

To the casual bystander this approach can seem odd. If I am learning to spin my opponent around me almost horizontally, force them to the mat, and then secure them immobile, why should I spend time practicing having them grab my wrist over and over... and over?

Where's the cool drag them one way, clothes line them across the neck in the other direction, take them off their feet using their own momentum, and have them slam down on the mat, all with a flick of the wrist, twist of the hips, hardly needing a deep breath?

Well, of course, Aikido isn't about being “cool”, or slamming your opponent, who is actually more your partner in an intricate dance than a real threat. At least in the dojo.

And the whole development of these intricate moves occurs step by step, just like learning to fly an aircraft, or any other criteria-based instruction. When one can demonstrate satisfactory performance of one task or movement, then one can progress to the next step.

In particular, at each step one can review, evaluate, and improve to develop a firmer foundation for the next step.

This continuous building and adding to achieve a startling amazing result is one thing Great Teams practice doing during the the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams Immersion. The Tool is called the Perfection Game. The initial “movement” is simply whatever idea or proposal is suggested for the team to consider from one of the team members. That person asks one or more of the others to “Perfect” it, and the protocol begins.

It's a very special, structured, and positive form of feedback:

it only occurs at the requestor's asking
it indicates how much value the responder is hoping to provide to improve the suggestion
it covers the aspects of the suggestion the responder likes with only positive comments
it indicates any improvements the responder would like to see to make the suggestion as close to perfect for them as it might be – the value the responder is adding

That last step is where the continual building, improvement, and adding value occurs, particularly when the whole team is involved – either at the same time or in stages.

So if you like the opportunity for continuous improvement – kaizen – in your martial art, your flying, driving,... whatever, or are just looking to make an idea better in any situation the simple tool the Perfection Game protocol is ideal.

Find out more about the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/news.html

Get a free copy of all the rules and tools known as The Core Protocols at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/whatresults.html

See our example of the Perfection Game at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40a4Lf0hsaI&NR=1

Effort vs. Results on a Great Team

2011-04-26T17:38:00.000-03:00

There's another interesting and important exchange underway in the Core Protocols Group forum (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheCoreProtocols). This one is about the relative merits of effort versus results.

As with all these discussions – in this forum or any other medium – a lot of the debate revolves around the meaning, and the implications, of the words used. For example, from Peter A.:

I think we're getting caught up on multiple interpretations of "effort". On the one hand effort refers to "the number of hours spent doing something", which is how it's being used in the results/effort ratio. On the other hand, I think the article is primarily using effort in the sense of "applied oneself diligently against a defined standard with realtime feedback" (i.e. Deliberate practice). While more is better in some sense here, the key point is that this kind of practice is a good thing vs. not practicing or ineffective practice.

and:

... there are multiple interpretations of what "results" mean. If results include the ability of the individual/team to produce more/better output in the future at less cost, the strategy/math for optimizing results/effort is different than if you only value output for the current time interval.

The “article” referred to above is The words that could unlock your child (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13128701) which has the punch line

This reveals a radical new approach to the way we engage with children - that we should praise effort, never talent; that we should teach kids to see challenges as learning opportunities rather than threats; and that we should emphasize how abilities can be transformed.

and even a comment left on behalf of Einstein!:

This from Einstein:

"I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my ideas."

Since my operating slogan is “It's not about effort – it's about results”, I can't avoid weighing in on this issue.

Let's set aside the unanswered questions from the article about how we encourage children versus adults, and whether or not we praise talent, or ability, or hard work, etc., and the words we choose in each situation, and with each personality – all complex adaptive systems!

My slogan is to make the point that in any enterprise, effort that doesn't finally produce a satisfactory result isn't truly effective and hence worthwhile. We can't get distracted by claims of hard work, and even true hard work, if it doesn't deliver. And please note I added the word “finally” to cover the obvious examples of practicing, failing, recovering, trying again which are all necessary efforts for most of us to build skills and competence to achieve a goal.

The real point is that effort all by itself with no achievement except fatigue is not a valuable commodity. At least in the exercise gym fatigue is an indicator of potential muscle development.

Nonetheless, when did you last go to the store to buy “effort”?

Well, Mr. Reeves, our company employees worked night and day to design, fabricate, and ship this product. We didn't actually get it operational, but we worked really hard at it. How many would you like?

Jeez, boss, I was here till midnight working on that analysis for you and I know you needed the answer for that important client sale this morning. Although I didn't get it done, I really worked hard at it.

You know I haven't taken a vacation in 3 years!

It is certainly NOT that effort isn't required. We don't go to the “Results Tree” and pick results off the low hanging branches. But if we praise effort without results, or in place of the required results, then we are not being smart. At the worst we are deluding ourselves that somehow hard work (and what is truly hard?) is an acceptable alternative to an actual achievement. (Scan all the news reporting from the United Nations, and governments in general, to see examples.)

And if we are in business, and only concentrating on effort, then there will definitely be a final result and that will be failure.

Leadership on a Great Team

2011-04-04T19:44:00.003-03:00

In the Core Protocols Group forum (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheCoreProtocols) Jose Ramón Diaz started an interesting thread on the question of leadership on a team using the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams – the Core Protocols.

His question is:

“What's the role of leader on a team of this kind [one using the Core Protocols]? I am thinking that a true team using ... the Core Protocols, doesn't need a leader, but on the road to perfection, it will be needed, I suppose.”

After some answers from other forum members, Jose Ramón continues:

“The work of a leader in this kind of situations, is to not be necessary. I agree, but I find much resistance to this idea.

For you, that I suppose have experience with *great teams*, is it negative to have a leader? If there is a leader, is the team in pursuit of a shared vision, or could it be that some people follow the leader instead of their own (shared) vision?"

Since the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams – the Core Protocols – provide for dynamic leadership behaviour from any team member, the issue of the boss / manager / leader role can be a sticky one.

Particularly before one attends the Immersion session and learns the Simple Rules and Tools.

Particularly for the team leader!

To answer Jose Ramón, I find it helpful to be more precise and explicit about the use of the term "leader". We often use the word to mean a role in a hierarchy, and also to mean a behaviour with outcomes, such as people following.

In the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams Immersion (aka. BootCamp) the Managers in the simulation play the role of leader in that they assemble the team, hire consultants to help, provide the team the assignment, and monitor progress and quality of the product. At the same time, anyone on the team can behave as a leader by, for instance, proposing a course of action in a Decider (the Tool used by Great Teams to make unanimous team decisions) which the team decides to follow or not.

So the first is a leader position in an organization chart sense, the second is dynamic, changing, emergent behaviour.

The resistance Jose speaks of is usually organizational position protection. For example: I declare myself the team leader, or I have been appointed the team leader, and am going to protect my position and resist being declared unnecessary. And usually with good reason, since in most organizations teams want and wait for the leader to tell them what to do. Or at least are expected to – by the leaders!

In the Great Teams Immersion session, it is ideal to have the organizational leader present. This lets them realize that they can share the leadership behaviours with the team and be an equal with the team members in matters of developing and improving the vision, ideas, product quality, etc. It's like getting the leader's paycheque without having to do all the work.

The hard part is often getting the leader to accept that meritocracy (starting with them learning to listen well, and not get in the way), and sometimes just as hard, getting other team members to step up to the responsibilities and accountabilities of the Core Commitments to let their leadership behaviours emerge.

So having the leadership behaviours in the team is wonderful; they just don't have to come from the organizational leader on the team.

Agile vs. ITIL

2011-03-22T13:51:00.006-03:00

A little while ago an associate in the Agile Coaching community, Yves Hanoulle, asked me about the contention often raised that Agile software development practices don't mesh with the ITIL Framework.

On the surface, Agile practices are a solution to provide faster speed of software delivery than alternative development techniques, and the ITIL Framework with its focus on process appears to slow things down.

For example: Yves had a conversation on Twitter where someone said that continuous deployment is not possible with ITIL. Yves wrote me to say that he thinks that is “horsefeathers” [my word] because they don't understand ITIL. He continued: “I think a lot of ITIL people are using it as a prescriptive way of working. And I don't think it has to be like that.”

I agree.

We have always believed there is no discrepancy between Agile and ITIL. In every conversation with Project Managers and Agile folks about how Agile is not “waterfall development” and therefore doesn't fit with ITIL processes, we have shown them that this makes no difference.

Consider the questions of automation or traceability.

Both the Design and Operations books in version 3 of the ITIL Framework are very clear on the interdependency of Design & Development and Operations, in terms of:

the design meeting specifications,
that all of this can be confirmed by tests,
and that Operations staff need to be able to provide input to Design to ensure the systems are operable, robust, and maintainable.

It is much more than the question of automation or traceability - it is a mindset / mental perspective of the integration of knowledge - and finally teamwork.

Let's break this down into more detail:

continuous deployment is of course possible, even if one, incorrectly, took ITIL as prescriptive.
even the so called "ITIL experts" argue about "implementing" ITIL word for word from the book which is not the intent
ITIL recommends using - adopting - the best practices, as they suit the organization and its needs. Again it is not law, it is a Framework. One uses the best practices as they make sense, just as you do in Agile. And where an ITIL practice can make an improvement one should use it, just as in Agile.
it all boils down to keeping the Great Teams commitment to not do anything dumb

Often people believe that rapid deployment / continuous deployment / daily builds etc. can't work in a an environment that is highly process oriented, where rules and process have to be followed. (Usually they just don't like someone else's rules.)

Well, the process is there to ensure consistency, responsibility, accountability, communication, traceability, etc. and of course it CAN be designed to be a hinderance. It. alternatively, CAN be designed to allow quick passage of releases. People blaming process or ITIL are just being immature. They may as well blame the weather.

The meaningful question in such environments is: What has caused the development of process controls to ensure such an approach for the management of risk?

are the controls in place to reduce the error rate?
was the previous situation causing buggy software to be released which impeded the business?
has someone mis-interpreted the intent of the ITIL Framework and used it as law?

I'd be delighted for someone to find me an example of how ITIL recommends that the process gets in their way. So far in these conversations I find the combatant has yet to read the ITIL books.*

How does Agile play with other frameworks in your experience?

*By the way: I haven't read books on Agile either. However, the Core Protocols include the Intentional Development Protocol (an Agile foundation stone), and I am informed by Agile coaches such as Christophe Thibaut, Gino Marckx, Yves Hanoulle, and Esther Derby who recently posted STILL NO SILVER BULLETS (http://www.estherderby.com/2011/03/still-no-silver-bullets.html) on Agile methods.

Software for Your Head 4

2011-03-11T18:29:00.003-04:00

Finishing the project team kickoff meeting story from Software for Your Head by Jim & Michele McCarthy.

(from page 8):

Well, hell, if he did all that, you would consider him to be all the way checked in. Hmmm. What’s more, you think maybe, just maybe, that scenario might just do the trick for the whole damn team. Tell you what, you’d bet your bottom dollar that his teammates will at least respond with their fullest, focused attention. That’s just what people do whenever someone reveals himself a bit. If he’s talking and acting with just the least little bit of enlightenment, something new, they’re going to listen up and watch closely. As long as the person says what he says and does what he does with thoughtfulness and truth. But if it is true, you’d predict that the team, just by witnessing a more honest, genuinely new engagement level, will then be much more likely to act on questions of shared vision (which, you remind yourself, is the top-level symptom). At least, you figure, they’ll be more likely to act on things they care about, anyway, and that would be all to the good. Moreover, everybody who watched this thing unfold from just one person will have been really informed, and maybe even inspired, by the difference made by his acceptance of personal accountability for how he has been spending his own life. Really, not only for his own results, but for the results of all.

You half listen to the team struggling to cram everything in the agenda in the last few minutes. Maybe the others would also begin to experiment with the new power they are seeing and feeling (and there is tremendous power in accepting individual responsibility for achieving results together). If your guidance would help one or more of them to engage more deeply, and not to waste any time and never to do anything dumb on purpose, why, you’d have made a huge difference. Hell, the dumb quota can always be met by doing things you thought were smart to begin with. You don’t have to do anything dumb on purpose to meet the quota.

You imagine that a newly awakened team member would see a whole bunch of things, maybe all at once; the problem is not a case of a team without a shared vision, a case of just another stupid project, or another example of bad management or poor leadership. No, when he thinks it all the way through, he’ll see that the trouble is not “too few people,” or “not enough time,” or some other cockamamie story about how the mediocrity was out of his control. The crux of the thing is that he, personally, has been accepting less than he wants, and less than he deserves. What’s more, he has been doing so without making any genuine creative effort to get what he requires to efficiently create what he wants. He’ll see that the problem is his own lack of integrity and his shallow engagement. The problem is rooted somewhere near his deficient caring about his own life. To persist as it has, the problem requires his repression of passion, it mandates that he fail to accept his own wisdom, and it seduces him into daily acts of cowardice that promulgate rather than abolish the general foolishness of which he is such an important part.

But should just this one person truly check in, you think, the whole team will be moved to a better ground. Even if team members backslide, and all do,they won’t forget this vivid instance of accountable behavior and the simple, unambiguous actions that supported it.

One self-respecting person, you reflect, with even a modest degree of personal engagement, is all it takes to start this team on the path toward much greater achievement. No permission is required for the pursuit of greatness, no consensus to improve your own results. All the orgs and re-orgs in the whole damn corporate universe, all the resources consumed and processes proceeding can’t stop one honest person from making sure he spends his time wisely. And that’s all that is needed to get the ball rolling.

Why not believe, you think. Pretend. OK. So from this one moment of surpassing individual and dawning team clarity, this whole group will quicken, will revive. Of course, team members will need some new supportive structures; they’ll require whatever information there is about highly effective connection and collaboration. In particular, they’ll damn well want more moments of clarity, and will be willing to adopt whatever practices create just the right conditions for genuine checking in.

They can’t hold it, probably. And would they spread it around? You have a spike of unease, but then you reassure yourself that the team you are envisioning would of course look for any behavior patterns that would achieve its goals. If there weren’t any, team members would just figure a way to create them. And put them in a book.

But first, one of them must check all the way in. Just one. Who? All this, after one of them has decided that his life, time, and creative output really do matter. But not before.

Interrupting your reverie, your nascent vision, the meeting suddenly stops as people scatter and depart, ceasing to meet rather than finishing their work. Finishing is way different from ceasing, you muse. As you gather yourself, one of the team newbies, together with the team’s most infamous cynic, approach you. You bet they want your take on things. Your help.

So that's the kickoff meeting that we've all been to, and all have wished was better.

What have you done in this situation? Thoughts? Comments?

Software for Your Head 3

2011-02-28T11:28:00.003-04:00

The project team kickoff meeting from Software for Your Head by Jim & Michele McCarthy continues.

(from page 7):

The problem with this team is that not one damned person on it is speaking the truth. They don’t really lie, not much; they just focus on the smaller stuff, because the bigger stuff is too scary. So they don’t tell the truth. Not all of it, anyway. Hell, not even the pieces of it they have.

So now what? You lean back and think. Well, your first impulse—to get them going on a shared vision—was wrong. And the second impulse to get someone to say something about the Case of the Missing Vision, or even better, get someone to do something about it, this impulse is also wrong. After all, these people are smart: They know they lack a compelling vision. They don’t need that tidbit from an advisor, or even from one of their own. Who really wants more meetings and retreats in which people don’t speak the truth, even if the topic is vision? More going through the motions won’t help.

Then what? What would be most helpful? You reason, the most helpful thing you could do would be to encourage someone—just one—to examine his1 own personal failure to speak the truth at this meeting.

Now you’ve got your guidance. Anyone smart enough to ask for it gets it. It would be simple but difficult at the same time. You would tell him that he should think, feel, and engage more deeply, and really participate as if it mattered, as if he cared, as if his time counted. You would advise him to examine what he believes in right now, what’s happening in his own heart and mind, and to honestly assess his engagement with his work, values, and team. And then, he would want to seriously question his evident willingness to tolerate— hell, endorse—wrong action. Does he act on his beliefs? Or does he just like to believe in them?

That sounds about right. You wonder what impact this question might have had on teams where you and your teammates expended large amounts of effort for only mediocre results. If just one person on this team who believed in something that the team was neglecting, something important (like, say, the necessity of a team having a shared vision)—if just one person who knew he was doing the wrong thing and yet let himself go on doing it; if he would just answer this question: Why is he willing to accept less than the best possible results, even though he is the one investing his time and effort in this project?

If he answered that and also really saw how this self-betrayal wasted his time, then he couldn’t say he was “too busy at work” to the family anymore. He’d just have to say he was “too wasteful” or “too cowardly” the next time his little girl wanted him to play pretend with her on a Saturday. If he answered that, you figure he’d probably nearly soften up enough to actually engage with the others.

But wait. That’s not the important thing, the talking with others. That’s a trap, a diversion, like fighting for quality instead of creating it. It’s what he does about it, not just what he says about it. They have to balance; what he says has to mostly be like how he acts. But, geez, if he just shared his true thoughts and feelings with the rest of them without preaching or dictating; if he could just tell them what he actually believes about the vision problem, say, and could describe how he hasn’t consistently acted on his beliefs in a way that makes any difference, then he could tell them what he is going to do. He could say, “I’m not ever going forward with another project on a team without a genuine shared vision.” Or, even better, he could say, “I’m going to work on this vision, starting at x time and place, and I’m going to keep working, with whoever wants to work on it with me until I clearly know where we’re taking this product. Will you help?”

Thoughts? Comments? More soon.

Software for Your Head 2

2011-02-23T13:47:00.006-04:00

Continuing with the stereotypical project team kickoff meeting from Software for Your Head by Jim & Michele McCarthy.

We left off (from page 5) with:

My, but you’re feeling anthropological today, aren’t you? Is it maybe the presence of the cynics nee idealists? Does it touch you somehow?

Whatever. The scarcity of vision does strike you as interesting, even though it’s not a major topic of conversation (or even a minor one, for that matter). You know that most of these team members would agree that “shared vision” is a vital thing for a team. Why, if you went around the room and asked who was for and who against a shared vision, almost all would vote for it. Some would hedge or go technical on you (define this, what do you mean by that, it depends). But none would vote no. And yet, despite this general conviction, no one seems committed to a particular shared vision, or attempts to achieve one on this team. Of course, catching a shared vision, that’s a tough problem. Who knows where lightning will strike? Who has mapped the rainbow’s end? You note that there are a few who absolutely believe that a shared vision is the vital ingredient for a successful team. Still, no one speaks up about this obvious vacancy.

Instead,while you drift in and out, they plod on through the usual meeting follies, cracking a few minor jokes, interrupting without reason, talking overlong and repetitively, sporadically fighting for control, while somehow meandering through a poorly conceived and prematurely written agenda. Yet all the while the people on this team are somehow numbing themselves to a frightening lack of vision of where it is they are going. You wonder, why doesn’t anyone speak up? Don’t they care? You are willing to bet dollars to dog biscuits that plenty of perfectly good beliefs and values are lying dormant within the members of this team—beliefs and values that would make all the difference, if only they were put into practice.

But, because you are acting as a kind of mentor or coach, and are really troubled by this curious vision oblivion, you decide that the obvious first step is to get them going on a shared vision.

This would help. Short-term, anyway. Now that you’ve decided how to help, you can barely restrain yourself from saying something that might awaken their somnolent vision-building potential. But you say nothing now, and not only because of the difficulty of fighting the others for precious airtime, and of suborning the agenda, but because you intuit that jumping in with that straightforward and inarguable direction (get a vision, people!) might be a long-term mistake. You are having a growing belief that there just may be bigger, tastier fish for you to fry here. No sense settling for little crappies, you think, when some big ole lunker bass might be about.

You are increasing your degree of presence.

The problem, you think, is not merely that they ought to acquire a shared vision. Clearly, they need one, and they aren’t about to get one, not with their present behavior, anyway. And yet, your intuition whispers that the lack of a shared vision is not the most important issue to address. So, trying that on, you think some more. What was that about fish to fry? Teach a man to fish, etc. Yes, that’s it.

You know that some of these team members do believe in having a common purpose. You know the whole team would really catch fire if team members just had this one big, energizing, lightning-striking, all-solving vision! But here, on this team, almost unbelievably, not one person will even say anything about this AWOL vision.

You wonder why would they lie and betray their beliefs. A little more of your dwindling supply of innocence goes poof. There must be some explanation.Maybe the lack of shared vision is the symptom here, not the problem. The problem with this team is that not one damned person on it is speaking the truth. They don’t really lie, not much; they just focus on the smaller stuff, because the bigger stuff is too scary. So they don’t tell the truth. Not all of it, anyway. Hell, not even the pieces of it they have.

So now what?

Continues soon. Sound familiar? Please comment.

Software for Your Head 1

2011-02-19T18:03:00.008-04:00

As we prepare for our “Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams” Immersion (aka McCarthy Technologies's BootCamp) I re-read the foundational book “Software for Your Head” (online version). I think of it as the book based on the “movie” the team is about to make in the immersion simulation.

The authors, Jim and Michele McCarthy, set the stage for the development of the Core Protocols for great teams in the book with the following story.

I always find myself transported into this story as the central character, agreeing ferociously with his thinking having been there so often in the past. I hope you will resonate with it too.

From page 4 on:

“Imagine a team at the beginning of a new project.

Pretend this team is having a meeting. A kickoff meeting for a new product team members have been asked to build. And you—because of your experience with so many teams over so many years here; because you’ve been to so many kick-offs; because you’ve seen what was the greatest that happened here, and the absolutely not-so-great so many times; because you have worked shoulder-to-cubicle with many of the people on this team; because you have fought for quality so noisily and so consistently, for so long, even though the victories were minor and infrequent; because you are a good thinker and a sensitive person; because you are now finally a bit more accepted by senior management; and because you have shown your loyalty, they feel, and show some promise as a more senior mentor—have been asked to observe this team at this meeting at the beginning of this new product creation effort.

It is a meeting more like other meetings than unlike them. For the most part, the atmosphere is like the dozens of other project starts: There’s a drop of hope to go around, and a squirt of suspended disbelief (maybe this time things will actually go right), and a dollop or two of slippery new belief in the promise of the rare blank sheet, of the chance to do it right this time. Of course, there is the old bucket of dilute scars and cynical vapor being pumped into the air by that whining dehumidifier, and the great pool of dispassion is nearby, too (gets a lot of use). But there’s some of it all, anyway, in the usual proportions.

Dampened by these ambient team fluids, the team members are discussing many things at this kick-off meeting: process, schedule, costs, risks, competition, time lines, and the like. Company politics. The expected disputes are here, contained within the acceptable bounds of conflict, but left mostly unresolved. Handled so-so, but as per usual. You readily discern the rivalries, the alliances. You can feel the newbies’ poorly hidden excitement and fear, and you can smell the repressed hope of the cynics. Your mind drifts in and out of the meeting when the classic technical issues, the old standbys, resurface for another great gulp of communal airtime. Hello, old friends. We’ll discuss you inconclusively once again, once again.

One thing gets you thinking. You notice that the vision behind the product is mentioned only in passing. You see that any discussions about purpose here are strictly pro forma, dispassionate. Technicalities and the usual resource constraints are the real bread and butter of the discussion, the things people care about, fight about. To the extent they care about anything, you think, they care mostly about the things that they believe stop them. They’re creating some sort of blame scenario out of real and imagined deprivations— in advance. It’s like shaking rattles at the evils beyond their control. Go away, bad gods. But they always win, don’t they, if you believe in them at all. That’s why they’re there. To win.

My, but you’re feeling anthropological today, aren’t you? Is it maybe the presence of the cynics nee idealists? Does it touch you somehow?”

I'm pausing here to let us both carry on with our lives. Please let me know when you are ready to continue. More to come!

HSD 2.1

2010-12-07T07:05:00.003-04:00

Luke's comment on HSD 2 is:

'So to take one example: what if there was no interaction with consultants and managers (from the Exchanges) - how much less successful would a BootCamp be?

Possibly related question: how do you know which Differences/Exchanges are most useful/relevant?”

Luke: Thanks for your comment and great questions!

My quick reaction is that every BootCamp is so different in our experience that one can't say what changes would have what result. The learning in BootCamp is so rich, that every group surprises us with it's creativity and response to their learning, and so the detail of every BootCamp result is different.

Nonetheless; we do follow the Instructor Protocols carefully because experience has shown us that this approach always leads to great results no matter what group of people participates. And we are aware of groups attempting to run their own second BootCamp without the consultants and managers. My understanding is that they found the session less satisfying and effective.

So what is missing without the Exchanges from the consultants and managers? Actually, most of the learning opportunity!

Without the Consultants, the Camp becomes an experience without expanded learning – a repetition of what one has already learned. An analogy would be learning a new language from a book or software program and talking to yourself or speaking it only with someone else would had learned the same way. Immersion in the language's country of origin just can't be beaten for the practice, gaining new vocabulary, formation of expressions and ideas, etc.

The Consultant role in BootCamp provides all the external guidance and experience to practice the Protocols, expand one's understanding of them, appreciate the nuances, gain insight, resolve any difficulties of understanding or execution. Those Exchanges are the “instruction”.

Without the Managers, the Camp lacks the drive toward a great product delivered on time. Each organization / enterprise exists to produce and provide a product or service. The Managers provide that direction and focus. The BootCamp team needs to experience and practice how to do that effectively, without drama and fog and pretence. The Exchanges with the Managers make the simulation “real” - how “Work” should work.

As to “which Differences/Exchanges are most useful/relevant?”: ALL of them! :-)

BootCamp provides a learning experience at the individual level, the team level, the Container of the Consultants and the team, the Container of the Managers and the team, the Container of the Consultants, Managers, and the the team, and often beyond that when family members are participating or involved remotely.

At any moment, in any instance, at every turn, a given Difference or Exchange can provide the subtle learning, or the life changing AHA! that makes the Camp meaningful and successful for a participant and the team as a whole.

In Human Systems Dynamics we talk about “the difference that makes a difference”. What makes BootCamp exciting for me is that any Difference or Exchange or Container can be that difference. One just needs to be open to the possibility.

Thanks again, Luke!

HSD 2

2010-12-05T10:43:00.004-04:00

Last week I was talking about the Human Systems Dynamics course I had attended.

I'm actually still “attending” in that we are in between the class room sessions – the next week comes up soon – and I am supposed to be working on my assignment. The assignment is to, uh, er... What is the assignment? I'll have to look it up!

Anyway, I am sure that it involves continuing to practice the tools we started to learn and exercise.

For example:

Last time I was talking about some of the things that we learned and the intersection of that research with what we had experienced in our Teamwork BootCamps.

That is exciting because we always experience success with every group becoming a fully functional high performing team within a week, but we can't describe why to someone who hasn't experienced it.

(How does one describe falling in love to someone who hasn't?)

The Human Systems Dynamics (HSD) learning, and the research and experience that it is based on, helps us understand what we see occurring time and again, and provides insights as to what is going on in language that is useful. The terminology provides descriptors that make the dynamics of a group transforming into a true self organizing team more clear, and more explainable.

And that was an example of a delightfully simple tool: “What?, So what?, Now what?”

What?:

“... things that we learned and the intersection of that research with what we had experienced in our Teamwork BootCamps.”

So what?:

“... That is exciting... but we couldn't describe why.”

Now what?:

“Human Systems Dynamics terminology provides descriptors that make the dynamics of a group transforming into a true self organizing team more clear, and more explainable.”

In this example, nothing has actually changed – the team performance statistics stand on their own – but now we have better language – a model – that helps us to talk about it.

Additionally, we are learning about the three necessary and sufficient variables to change a human system: the Container, the Differences, the Exchanges - another model to not only better understand, but to also choose effective courses of action.

In BootCamp, some of the Containers are:

the group of people itself (the team to be),
the week of immersion using the tools,
the simulation of a work environment,
the physical space the group is using, etc.

The Differences from other teamwork sessions include:

the simulation which immerses one in the tools,
the freedom from risk,
the requirement to be responsible and accountable,
the activities of building a team product,
the deadline to ship or deliver that product by the end of the week

The Exchanges are:

the sharing of one's emotional state at any time,
the use of the rest of the Protocols to make decisions, resolve conflict, align oneself to improving a virtue, build shared vision, or choosing to pass on any of these and any activity one doesn't wish to participate in,
the interaction with the simulation's consultants and the managers.

How do these observations help?

Human Systems Dynamics teaches us that these three categories are all we need to concern ourself with in our analysis. Further, when we wish to determine the “Now What?” we only have to alter the formulation of one of these at a time: change the Container, change the Differences, change the Exchanges. Clearly that still covers a lot of ground. And it provides manageable clarity from which to act.

Working from our list we can see that BootCamp is successful because it provides that simulation Container, and the Difference of individual safety, and the Exchanges of the Core Protocols. And so on, with all the possible combinations. (Which emphasizes how much in human relationships BootCamp covers.)

And most usefully, it provides clarity on how BootCamp is a completely different type of team work experience, and why it is consistently successful.

“And then a miracle occurs....”

HSD 1

2010-11-17T10:11:00.006-04:00

So you know how you can come home from a course all pumped up with new learning, new insights, energy from the participants, new connections, etc., etc.?

That's me!

And then you have to deal with “reality” back home, and the questions of how to share the new learning with friends, associates, loved ones, etc., etc. and it all starts to slide downhill, leak away through your fingers?

That's NOT me!

When I came home from the certification course in Human System Dynamics last week, I had the joy of continuing to learn, gain insights, get energy because my sweetheart, and business partner, had attended with me (or more precisely, I with her, since it was her idea in the first place). And we have continued our great discussions about the intersection of the consulting / training work that we do with the concepts of HSD. [www.hsdinstitute.org]

Did I mention that she is also my business coach? [www.adaptivecoach.com]

So we have been rockin'! – bouncing ideas around, reviewing past experiences and work, playing with new “what if's” in the context of “patterns”, “containers”, “differences”, “exchanges”, etc., etc. [“patterns, containers, differences, exchanges” are all part of the HSD lexicon]

Yeah; I know – kids with new toys.

AND, our work is our play (Work = Play)
AND, we've got all these great case studies of previous and current consulting engagements we've shared
AND, we're seeing connections expand exponentially between the areas in which we work: IT Service Management best practices, Teamwork best practices, business Coaching, and Leadership behaviours
AND, the science of Human Systems Dynamics is explaining to us how

some best practice adoptions go well / don't go well / do both
the teamwork retreat “BootCamp” accomplishes so much in just a week [www.liveingreatness.com]
some organizations are open to new ideas & practices / some aren't / are both
and so on...

Just in case you are thinking that HSD is only for organizations, consultants, change agents, folks who like new mental toys, ... keep in mind that the first word is “Human” and that, hopefully, applies to all of us. :-)

More to come...

Customer Service 2

2010-04-13T16:45:00.001-03:00

Our story last time was riddled with opportunities for Customer Service excellence or failure.

Let's see what some of them were...

But first, we should have an understanding of what we mean by customer service. And that means sorting out who are the customers in the story, and what we mean by service.

To keep things simple we can say service is the provision of product or activity that delivers a described value to the customer. And that implies that the next person in the chain of provision from the suppler is the customer – whomever is next.

So that use of the word customer does not include notions of purchase or payment, simply the next recipient in the chain. Obviously, the customer of one transaction can then become the supplier of the next.

In our story we have the following customers:

the ITIL course participants (who incidentally have paid National Training for the course, and so are automatically perceived as customers)
Vickie, who is supplying the training, and is also the customer of National Training in the sense of using their facilities and course materials
National Training, who is selling the training, and is also a customer of Way Behind Technologies for training materials, and a customer of Vickie's for training capability

... and the opportunities?

satisfaction of the participants with the trainer's capabilities (i.e. Vickie)
satisfaction of the participants with the training materials (i.e. National Training through Way Behind Technologies)
satisfaction of the participants with the training facilities (i.e. National Training)

Now if you were the trainer, wouldn't you try to do everything in your power to have the participants satisfied with all aspects of the training (as Vickie did) so you would be asked to provide training again?

Similarly if you were National Training you would want to have participants satisfied with the trainer, facilities, and materials.
This suggests the following opportunities:

review potential suppliers of ITIL materials with a highly experienced trainer (as National Training may or may not have done)
include a probationary period in the materials supply contract
have an agreement with the supplier to have materials issues resolved quickly and satisfactorily to the trainer's and participants requirements

And finally if you were Way Behind Technologies wouldn't you want to support your purchaser (National Training) and your potentially best advocate as the delivery vehicle, the trainer?

And even if this trainer didn't fit your pattern or mold, why not consider providing an answer to an immediate question which makes your organization appear competent and attractive instead of inflexible, lazy, and indifferent?

Aha! You say: Way Behind didn't recognize Vickie as their customer. Probably not; however, that is for them to say.
Even if they did, they certainly didn't behave according to our old chestnut:
Rule #1: The Customer is always right
Rule #2: If the Customer is wrong, read Rule #1

The evidence is that they perceived the trainer's difficulty with their material as the trainer's problem, not theirs. So be it. Even if we were to agree with that perspective, the potential end result is:

participants and trainer dis-satisfied with the materials
participants at risk of failing their exam as a consequence
participants and trainer not recommending Way Behind Technologies's materials
National Training not continuing to use Way Behind Technologies as their supplier
Way Behind Technologies going out of business

All for the sake of providing a quick email with the hidden answer revealed.

But then as we said last time: who can afford to try to meet all the various, and sometimes apparently unreasonable, customer wishes?

Customer Service 1

2010-03-14T13:05:00.005-03:00

Yikes; where does the time go?
My last blog was LAST YEAR! Not bragging, not complaining, just observing... with shock.

Happily I have some great excuses. And not that the dogs ate my blog notes (my laptop is indigestible – Vista Home Edition - and still intact – Dell makes 'em tough). The first excuse is that we have been overrun, in a nice way, with work leftover from the recession pull back.

And that in turn has inspired me to comment on observations lately about Customer Service.

Let's start with the old chestnut:
Rule #1: The Customer is always right
Rule #2: If the Customer is wrong, read Rule #1

But of course, that is silly – right? That's for folks who want to go out of business. After all who can afford to try to meet all the various, and sometimes unreasonable, customer wishes?

A story...

My talented and lovely partner, Vickie Gray, among many other skills, is an accredited instructor in the ITIL Framework of best practices for Information Technology and Service Management. (Catch the word “Service”?)

As instructors, we have an arrangement with a supplier of course materials who have to get their product validated by the appropriate governing body. This ensures that the course content is “up to snuff” and fit for human consumption. Or, at least, matches the defined syllabus for that course.

Also, as independent consultants and trainers, we partner with training organizations who sell seats in the various courses, then have us provide the training.
All good so far.

Now once upon a time... this past January to be precise, Vickie was asked to teach an ITIL course in a city far, far away by a training organization far, far away using their training materials. (I am disguising the location and names to protect the innocent.)

To be more exact, the training organization we will call National Training had just entered into an agreement with a materials supplier we will call Behind Technologies, or perhaps Way Behind Technologies (first plot clue). Unfortunately for everyone concerned we weren't consulted on this choice – the first “Moment of Truth” in our tale. If we had been, we would have recommended our own supplier, ITSM Academy, who produce the best material and support we have experienced; and they know about Customer Service.

But no matter; Vickie is a master at teaching these courses, understands adult education methods, is certified at the highest levels in the ITIL Framework, has had pass rates of over 90% to date... how hard could this be? (Second plot clue).

As the training date approaches all are expectantly awaiting their course materials, including our instructor Vickie. This might be the right time to point out that accreditation of the materials says nothing about Way Behind's capability to package them and ship them on time. (Another "Moment of Truth"). Not only does the instructor need a copy of what the student will use, but also the presentation slides to be displayed electronically during the course. I know that seems obvious, but.... (Third plot clue).

The first morning of the course Vickie is at National Training's facility bright and early, setting up the classroom, then greeting the students at the door as they arrive. (Another "Moment of Truth"). This gets a puzzled look of admiration from the boss at National Training. Apparently their other trainers don't do this.

And then the class starts.
Did I mention that Vickie's copy of the student binder didn't arrive? Of course you saw that coming (at the Third plot clue). No matter; Vickie can manage that, and carries on without blinking. Nonetheless, the dead rhino waiting in the swamp of quicksand for her was the just released and downloaded instructor slides.

The dead rhino is that the instructor slides are written in Powerpoint. The swamp is that Vickie uses a Macbook Pro without Microsoft Office (we use OpenOffice quite successfully in all situations.) This Powerpoint file wouldn't open, so Vickie had arranged for a PDF copy of the slides (Fourth plot clue).

All was well until a particular slide contained a hidden pop-up answer to an exam question which the class, and the instructor, were to discuss before proceeding. Let's see: electronic instructional material, that is being displayed via laptop, with no instructor notes, won't show the required pop-up, and of course no reference in the student binder. And Information Technology departments need Service Management best practices – why???

Now most reasonable folks would contact the supplier, Way Behind, and ask for the hidden content which isn't supposed to be permanently hidden, and that is what Vickie, then National Training, then Vickie and National Training did. And in all cases the answer was no – the material was in the Powerpoint slide and if the instructor wouldn't purchase Microsoft Office, and the secrets wouldn't pop up that was too bad. (Remember the first five words of Rule #2?) It can't be copied out and emailed, printed and faxed, or sent by post – nada, zip, zilch.

Now:

How many opportunities have you found so far for Customer Service excellence or failure?

And what would you have done as Way Behind Technologies to make this a successful event?

We'll post your thoughts and add some next time. :)

Leadership 13

2010-01-05T10:19:00.004-04:00

You can't beat having your own coach, soul-mate, and historian right at your finger tips. And it's wonderful when she – Vickie Gray, www.adaptivecoach.com – throws a wrench into my half baked thinking about Servant-Leadership with one comment.

Like: I think servant-leadership is attempting to solve an issue with authority.

Ooops! Another solution for symptoms – not the cause?

Let's continue the investigation on Servant-Leadership then and see what we can find.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Greenleaf

"Larry Spears ( in the “Ten Characteristics of the Servant-Leader” ) distills Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) instrumental means into ten characteristics: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (pp. 3-6). It is important to note that these characteristics are not simply traits or skills possessed by the leader; a century of research has rejected what Bass and Stogdill (1990) referred to as an “approach [that] tended to treat personality variables in an atomistic fashion, suggesting that each trait acts singly to determine the effects of leadership” (p. 87).

"Rather, servant-leadership is an ethical perspective on leadership that identifies key moral behaviors that leaders must continuously demonstrate in order to make progress on Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) “best test.” The “best test,” which gives us the ethical ends for action, combined with Spears’ distillation of traits that identified the means, create a powerful framework for a review of the literature that furthers the conceptual framework for servant-leadership.

"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?"

As Vickie and I discussed the evolution of leadership thinking that got Greenleaf and Spears to the servant-leader concept and traits, the question became: What prompted all this?

If we take the idea at face value, it all seems quite nice, and perhaps too idealistic. I know I haven't encountered one of these animals personally. Mohandas Ghandi is the best candidate I can think of.

But if we consider the historical context of leaders, rulers, kings, princes, generals, etc. behaving in their own best interests, using their position to exercise power, and that leading to excesses of manipulation, subjugation, even slavery, the need for a kinder, gentler approach becomes clear.

Even in the lightest case of employees working for a domineering boss, the concept and traits of servant-leadership become appealing.

But not necessarily for everyone.

Some are very content to be led, directed, told what to do.
Some are looking for strong leadership in the form of an appealing vision – a picture of the future.
Some want a clear course of action laid out in a mission statement.
Some want the bounded responsibilities of specific tasks that don't include tactical or strategic thinking.
Some want a well defined “day job” that lets them have a life of their own outside of work.
Some don't want the boss asking them their opinion.

The point that Vickie and I got to was: In reaction to absolute power corrupting absolutely (or less disturbing versions of that), servant-leadership makes sense.

But the servant-leader traits listed should be part of any leaders behaviours because it simply just makes sense. They are the smart things to do. They get the best results.

And for more reasons than we might recognize on the surface.

From: http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/MargaretWheatley.html
Margaret Wheatley gave a talk on “The Work of the Servant Leader” at the 1999 conference. In her talk, which was published in Focus on Leadership, she said:

"There are many patterns, many beliefs, out there about leadership, about people, about motivation, about human development. The essential truth I’m discovering right now is that when we are together, more becomes possible. When we are together, joy is available. In the midst of a world that is insane, that will continue to surprise us with new outrages…in the midst of that future, the gift is each other. We have lived with a belief system that has not told us that. We have lived with a belief that has said, ‘We’re in it for ourselves. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there. Only the strong survive and you can’t trust anybody.’ That’s the belief that’s operating in most organizations if you scratch the surface. The belief that called you to be a servant-leader, I believe, is the belief of who we are as a species. We have need for each other. We have a desire for each other, and, more and more, I believe that if the real work is to stay together, then we are not only the best resource to move into this future—we are the only resource….We need to learn how to be together: that is the essential work of the servant-leader."

I like letting Margaret Wheatley have the last word.

Leadership 12

2009-12-26T13:01:00.003-04:00

Luke Schubert, Adelaide, Australia asks:
“Have you mentioned servant leadership in this series yet? That's a concept that interests me. Listening to others is a fundamental part of authentic leadership IMHO.”

In further conversations Luke said, “If I remember correctly, servant leadership starts with serving - working out what the needs of others are and how to meet them. Similar to the Alignment protocol [from the Core Protocols] though maybe from a different angle. Perhaps the motivation is different from conventional leadership as well. I was thinking that it lined up with Authentic Leadership as you described it in a few ways but hadn't thought about specifics.”

Thanks Luke (beauty, mate)!

Since, for Christians Jesus is the exemplary Servant-Leader, the Christmas season seemed a good time to get to this question.

Luke and I both went off to research more on this topic and met at the same places from which I have extracts below.

Before we even get to them it's important to distinguish between what I'll call “assigned” or “conferred” leadership – as a CEO or prime minister or boss – and Authentic Leadership as previously discussed – where any one can adopt leadership behaviours based on passion and taking responsibility.

The distinction between them is important to better understanding the notion of Servant-Leadership. One way to clarify the distinction is to see the “assigned” leader as a structural position – a job – where one may or may not exhibit leadership behaviours. I think this is often the cause of confusion between the descriptors “leader” and “manager” and their actions. The positions and behaviours of leaders and managers get muddled in many discussions, blogs, and instances of expectations not met.

I've covered this before in prior blogs; however, the key point is that a position alone does not guarantee, nor does it prevent, the desired behaviours. The concept of a role taken on being a different thing than a position or job assigned is at the heart of keeping the words, and hence the thinking, straight. Using that foundation, one can more readily see how Authentic Leadership is about a role assumed and behaviours demonstrated rather than a title or position conferred.

So a management position is different from a leadership position, and a person in either, or neither, position may demonstrate leadership behaviours.

And all of this preamble plays into what Luke and I found on servant leadership.

At http://www.greenleaf.org/ Luke found:

The servant-leader is servant first… It 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, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions' (Addressing the motivation of leaders ...)

Here the extract is differentiating between one aspiring to lead through a desire to serve (adopting a role) and one who is “leader first” (by virtue of their position).

Luke continues:
“Maybe the connection between this and authentic leadership as you define it is that they're both "emergent and spontaneous" - not formal or authoritarian. Perhaps servant leadership addresses a different aspect of leadership, more the emotional and social side ... (Which I think the Core Protocols also address)”

And, yes, the adoption of the leadership role is emergent – not formalized – because I have inserted the word “role”. As to the emotional and social side, more later.

Turning to Wikipedia, I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership:

The modern servant leadership movement was launched by Robert K. Greenleaf in his 1970 with his essay, “The Servant as Leader,” in which he coined the terms “servant-leader” and “servant leadership.”

The general concept is ancient. Chanakya wrote, in the 4th century B.C., in his book Arthashastra:

“the king [leader] shall consider as good, not what pleases himself but what pleases his subjects [followers]” “the king [leader] is a paid servant and enjoys the resources of the state together with the people.”

This matches a teaching from Laozi (Lao-tzu) in the Dao (Tao):

The ideal ruler restrains his desires, doesn't codify his own subjective standards of right and wrong, and treats all people with goodness and sincerity*

Aha! The wisdom of history pokes its head up. Time to turn to my coach, soul-mate, and historian, Vickie. And that generated a conversation that sharpened my thinking, provided more insights, and will start my next blog as we continue on Servant-Leadership.

*The Tao Speaks translated by Brian Bruya, Doubleday, New York (1995)

Leadership 11

2009-10-19T12:56:00.003-03:00

A comment from last week's blog “Leadership 10” from Pixie Stevenson, www.enigmawellness.com:

“Are you saying you wish the paradigm of formal leadership would change to authentic leadership?

What I meant in my last comment is that leadership is also a part of the organic, evolutionary, and every expanding process of life.

Have there been cycles in leadership? Is the current formal leadership a relic from the past that is now suffering the labor pains and transition of birth into authentic leadership? Are you midwifing a new era of leaders?”

Pixie; thanks again for your comment – let's continue the discussion. :)

“Are you saying you wish the paradigm of formal leadership would change to authentic leadership?”

I believe we need both, and realistically it is unlikely that those in formal leadership positions would simply fade away. Nor should they. What I am advocating is that formal leaders recognize, and take advantage of, is the phenomenon of emergent and spontaneous leadership. That can occur

by recognizing their own passion and responsibility that might be part of their formal assignment – why they are in their current leadership assignment – or might be in addition to their formal assignment, and / or
by relinquishing their presumed need or task of maintaining control and being charge and letting someone else's passion and responsibility for action take over

The key is to allow both to operate as required to get the job done; i.e. move toward the shared vision.

“Have there been cycles in leadership? Is the current formal leadership a relic from the past that is now suffering the labor pains and transition of birth into authentic leadership? Are you midwifing a new era of leaders?”

I'm not qualified to speak to historical cycles; however, others have written, for example, about forms of “tribal” behaviour, and self organizing systems where leadership occurs outside of our commonly held model of organizational strata. The message here again is that while a hierarchical structure continually evolves to determine the “pecking order” - the formal leader being the one currently most dominant – that structure co-exists with spontaneous leadership emerging from any member. And the hierarchical structure is also fluid over time as the dominance of any individual ascends and wanes.

It may be that our current dependence upon the formal leader model is a carry over from the World Wars. To mobilize and direct armies, materials production, and countries, formal leaders were needed to provide clarity of purpose, consistency of message, a rallying point for focused effort. We sought out those who would carry us forward up the hill, or over the cliff, in a very directive, black and white, manner.

Similarly today, we look for those who offer to lead us out of the quagmire of difficult, unsolved problems. That makes it easier for us: follow the strong formal leader and sidestep our responsibility. If their solution works, we win by tagging along, and if not then push them aside and look for the next hopeful candidate.

So, in my view, today's focus and dependence upon the formal leader is a carry over from the recent past. Or more precisely, we have experienced success and comfort with that model and so continue to endorse it. And because we gravitate to the simple answer, the short version of the story, the sound-bite, we ignore the authentic leadership that was happening simultaneously through that history. The formal leaders – Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin – were the rallying points, but they engaged others who emerged according to their passions and desire to exercise their responsibilities.

It seems to me that both models were operational then, and continue to be today. The challenge for us is the mind shift from an exclusive “either / or” perspective to an “inclusive” perspective where both models are necessary and co-exist. And instead of the “hero worship” of the formal leader as saviour, we recognize that the norm, the natural or default model has been, and should continue to be, authentic leadership through passion and responsibility.

But, darn it! - that requires work and engagement on our part. We can't just simply leave leadership to others to do it for us. We can't just hide in our cubbyholes, and daily routines.

We have to think, expend energy, act.

We have to determine our passion and take responsibility.

Leadership 10

2009-10-11T21:22:00.004-03:00

A comment from last week's blog “Leadership 9” from Pixie Stevenson, www.enigmawellness.com:

“Great post, Paul! My take on it is that leadership (life) is organic which to me is not mechanistic. Is that what you're saying?”

Pixie; thanks for your comment!

My answer is: Sorta. Kinda. Maybe. Perhaps. :) I'm not sure what you mean by "leadership (life)".

Certainly life itself is organic. Leadership may or may not be.

The FORMAL LEADER strives be in control and operate in a systematic way: inputs transformed into outputs by procedural activities. This person is leading by virtue of their appointment – by themselves, or conferred – to a particular position in the chain of command. In their thinking and behaviour they strive to fulfill a notion of the leader who is instrumental for success, who can't be absent, who should not make mistakes, who can't be surprised, who can't be vulnerable, without their part of the world – their business, their department, their family – falling apart.
Because they view their part of the universe as a system, then certain inputs – events, transactions, people types, etc. - can be dealt with by the appropriate activity. These inputs become “problems” that can be “solved” by the smart leadership action. In this manner the FORMAL LEADER can regain control of the system, after any disturbance, by the right move, the correct application of expertise, charisma, power, intimidation...

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP as described by Harrison Owen, and fostered by the Shambhala Institute, and taught by the McCarthy teamwork BootCamp is not procedural, nor founded in organizational authority, but emergent and so spontaneous.
Realizing that life – and organizations – are organic, with spontaneous connections and interplay, with surprises, apparent chaos, etc. working, perhaps invisibly, with, around, underneath the formally defined structure, provides a different perspective. This perspective doesn't have to completely replace the systemic view, in my opinion, but does need to become our default, or instinctive view, in spite of all prior organizational training and conditioning.

Harrison Owen describes beautifully the confusion and consternation possible among those brought up in the framework of the Whole System Hoax when confronted with Open Space Technology (OST) leading to authentic leadership. The freewheeling, self organizing that occurs in OST just goes completely against the grain for us nurtured in command and control, firm directive behaviour, keeping the ducks in a row even when doing something as gooey as “facilitating”.

In our systematic world we may stretch our minds and take the risk of assembling a team – carefully picked, mind you – to allow some brainstorming – bounded, of course – toward a solution - already identified by the boss. But, dang, even then it could get tricky and get out of control, er... out of hand, I mean... unproductive! Someone may start going off on a tangent to our well prepared session. And what if the boss – the FORMAL LEADER – doesn't like the results? That team is now history, and our facilitator's certificate is in the dumpster.

But in an OST environment there are just four nonsensical principles and one law – and then it's everyone for themselves. Authentic leadership simply emerges. YIKES!

Of course, just like so many great ideas and experiences, if you only read about them it doesn't seem reasonable that some useful outcome can result. OST, BootCamp, etc. sound good, make interesting reading, appeal to our intellect. Aircraft and bumblebees are fascinating concepts, but they won't really fly.

But as my wise friend and associate George Abbot during my Xerox life shared with me: A mind is like a parachute – it works best when it's open.
Or even: don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
Etc.

If, after 20 years of OST, 15 years of Stuart Kauffman's insight into self-organizing systems, as many years of the Core Protocols developed in teamwork BootCamps,... if we haven't yet heard of, learned about, digested, implemented, practiced Authentic Leadership, what will it take to do so?

Leadership 9

2009-10-04T21:14:00.006-03:00

Here's a crackerjack job description of The Leader (or more precisely The Formal Leader) as provided by Harrison Owen in his book Wave Rider (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2008)

"deals easily with massive diversity
comprehends mind-bending complexity
works simultaneously on multiple levels
rises above chaos, confusion, and conflict
tolerates tidal waves of change
never loses their cool
always in control
mixes all of the above to produce wholeness, health, and harmony"

Why this over-the-top description is “Mission Impossible”, even without the hyperbole, is nicely revealed as Harrison Owen works through the implications for leadership when we are knocked off track by some of the common organizational muddy thinking, such as:

defining every business issue as a problem we can fix
dealing with the unintended consequences of our fixes
the Closed System Hoax
the Whole Systems approach
Process Re-Engineering
we can control everything that is moving

If we hang onto these models and paradigms, and our common approaches to deal with them, then we truly need the Mission Impossible Leader.

But, of course, this leads us to the reductio ad absurdem dead end. There is no such Leader, and if anyone claims that they are – well, shame on you for paying any attention to them.

Happily, Harrison shares an alternative with us he has seen in action over the years of observing his brain child in operation – Open Space Technology. He has observed exactly what we have seen in our teamwork development BootCamps (ref. Leadership 1 blog, January 2009). That is, “Authentic Leadership”.

In other words, the Formal Leader (someone in charge due to their title, job grade, or the organization chart) is absent, and not only not needed but actually an impediment to productive results. But other leaders emerge as required to provide “the stimulus, direction, and focus for useful activity”.

And this type of leadership appears due to

“... Passion and Responsibility. Or more precisely, Leadership emerges from the confluence of Passion and Responsibility.”

“... passion united with responsibility create the needed sense of direction and focus that can get the job done. That is Leadership.”

How interesting that in his 20 years of observation of high performing groups he has seen the same emergent properties as we see in teamwork BootCamps. Even more delightful, Harrison recognizes these emergent properties as similar to those noted by Stuart Kauffman dealing with questions on the origin of life in his study of self-organizing biological systems. (At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press, 1995)

How scary that we still cling to notions of the organization as a mechanistic system, and Leaders being in charge in a command and control model.

Leadership 8

2009-09-27T17:36:00.002-03:00

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away... er... at least a long time ago, not so far away, in this blog actually, we were writing about Leadership.

The closing entry, before we launched into a discussion on Management, asked you to submit your stories on Leadership.

I asked you to let me know by Comment on this blog the answer to “Who do you perceive as a leader and why?”.

Luke Schubert of Adelaide, Southern Australia commented with his examples of great leadership. I have chosen his entry to post now, after a summer hiatus from this blog, to get back to the Leadership question, and start with some popular examples of what people consider Leadership.

Luke's reply was also the most significant one received. I can say that with total assurance because it was the ONLY one. :) That is an indication that:

Leadership is an uncertain, undefinable thing, or
good, lasting, examples are hard to find, or
many are not brave enough to voice an opinion, or
there are very few who follow this blog!

Here are Luke's comments from last February:

“One of my favourite leaders is Vaclav Havel, poet, dissident and then president of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. Some quotes:

"We introduced a new model of behavior: don't get involved in diffuse general ideological polemics with the center, to whom numerous concrete causes are always being sacrificed; fight "only" for those concrete causes, and be prepared to fight for them unswervingly, to the end. In other words, don't get mixed up in backroom wheeling and dealing, but play an open game." - from Disturbing the Peace

"Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance." - Letter to the downthrown Czechoslovak Communist Party chairman Alexander Dubcek (August 1969)

(both sourced from Wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel)”

Luke continued with thoughts on charities, probably in reaction to my appeal to help support the leadership actions taken by the Deep Griha Society in India. (www.deepgriha.org)

“Two of my favourite charities are Kiva (one of the founders, Matt Flannery, is a software developer who's created a P2P lending charity with explosive growth) and AcumenFund (led by Jacqueline Novogratz) which has been investing in building developments in Pakistan, amongst other things. And then there's Forge (www.forgenow.org) which was much discussed on blogs recently after its founder went public with just how much financial trouble it was in ...”

Thank you, Luke for your response!

The great thing about blogs is that it is never too late to

find new and interesting ones,
backtrack through old entries,
add comments and thoughts.

Accordingly, if you have some examples of Leadership, some thoughts, or questions about previous blogs posted here, please submit them - night or day.

Thanks!

Management 10

2009-07-27T08:37:00.003-03:00

Q: Hey, I had a look at www.adaptivecoach.com to see what I could find on Business Coaching. I didn't realize that coaching was such a big thing.

A: How do you mean?

Q: Well there are certification bodies, and many specialties for coaches, and just a lot going on in that world, all over the world.

A: That's right. There's lots of help available once you start to look for it. And asking for help doesn't mean one is not smart or capable – actually the opposite. The most successful folks are those who have gotten help: hired competent people to support them, taken training, engaged coaches and consultants whenever needed.

Q: OK; but we didn't talk about cost. Aren't coaches and consultants expensive?

A: Not nearly as much as lawyers and plumbers! :)
But seriously, expensive consultants may get the financial press, but like everything else, one gets what one pays for. For example some of the most expensive coaches and consultants only take payment when the client declares the coaching to be successful.
And in general, while an hourly or daily rate might appear high, that has to cover all the learning, preparation, certification, business operations, etc. time that is not on the bill. So if it took 8 hours to prepare and deliver a 1 hour session, the achieved income is at the rate of 1/9 of what is billed. Believe me, it would be so deliciously wonderful, if consultants earned their published rate throughout a whole week or month.

Q: That sounded pretty personal. :)

A: OK – got me.
Unfortunately, the perceived high cost versus return is often a factor in the “easy”, but dumb, budget cuts that we talked about last time. The good news is that people who have been smart enough to use a coach or consultant – and some can provide both services – know the return is worth it. There are many studies that show results like:
"PWC Global Survey of Coaching Clients Reveals Median 7X ROI

86 percent of companies that use or have used coaching report at least a 100 percent return on their initial investment

82.7 percent, of individuals who have experienced professional coaching report being "very satisfied".

Q: Neat! Those are great stats.
What other ways are there for me to learn to become a good manager?

A: One is finding a good mentor in your own organization. This is kind of like having an assistant coach to whom you can turn for questions and advice who is close by and knows the organization well and the players involved.

Q: It's interesting that you used the term “assistant coach” - why?

A: Because a professional coach is well trained, certified by an independent body, follows a particular approach or model that has been proven to be successful over time.
A mentor is more like a good friend. They may be wise, insightful, friendly, have the best intentions, but there is no assurance of a professional approach. They are making it up as they go along.

Q: OK – so it's back to “you get what you pay for”?

A: Exactly. Having a good mentor is very helpful, if only as a sounding board for your concerns, ideas, issues.
If you are feeling sick, your grandmother can provide some really good chicken soup which picks you right up, or you can go to your doctor for a more complete, systematic check up. Both have their place, both can get results, one is just more thorough with an assurance of longer term benefit.

Q: So, if I'm trying to become a good manager, what do you recommend?

A: Pay attention to all of these aspects – research & training, clarity of your role and expectations, practice, and asking for help.
We've covered the principles of managing – the key elements, the need to be clear with your manager what he or she is asking of you, the benefit of practicing the elements and learning from your mistakes, and the importance of asking your own manager for help on how you are doing, and help in improving through mentoring, or a coach.

Q: And are there some essentials that are not to be missed?

A: Understanding yourself and your own values, and being open and curious. Connecting, communicating continuously, including asking for help allows you to be investigative and adaptive, and to be understood.
Managing is a people activity, and so requires connecting well with people – understanding and being understood. The foundation is fundamentally good two way communications, starting with good listening – truly hearing the other person.
Management decisions directly affect the people being managed, so it is critical to know and appreciate how they are going to be affected, and that comes from understanding them and their perspective.
Asking for help enables those conversations, builds those connections and relationships, that provides you that knowledge.

Q: So is there a way I can work on connecting and asking for help?

A: Absolutely! Check out the Core Protocols at www.businessimprovementresults.com/whatresults.html, and attend a BootCamp to build your skills.

Management 9

2009-07-05T09:09:00.002-03:00

Q: So you always manage to divert from my question to make your own point, or to ask me a question in reply.

A: And what's wrong with that? :)

Q: Stop kidding around! The question on the table is “How does a Manager get to know about all the management stuff we have talked about”?
By the way – where have you been?

A: Now who's digressing? But thanks for asking. I've been taking a little R&R with my sweetie and recovering from a strained back – this property management stuff is hard on a desk jockey.
Back to your question:
The fact that you have to ask is an example of an issue we see regularly. Management Training just doesn't seem to be a standard item in organizations any more.

Q: For sure! I think our budget for all training has been cut back considerably over the years.

A: I'm afraid so. Things like training, coaching, consulting regularly get cut back in, or out of, budgets whenever spending is constrained. Unfortunately, there is always someone with a sharp pencil, or spreadsheet, that can make a name for themselves by finding short term savings.

Q: Yeah; but the argument always is that we need to focus on our core business, our “core competencies”, and these extras get cut.

A: Well; that's just one more aspect of short term thinking. Training, coaching, and consulting build core competencies and provide efficiencies and effectiveness to make the business more profitable. Cutting these things out once saves money – once, in this budget. That's just poor planning, staffing, and controlling.

Q: Hey! I remember those items – they're part of the management activities list. So you are saying those cuts are poor management?

A: They are unless all other options for immediate cost savings have been exhausted, like capturing the salary of the one-time-savings hero.
It really comes down to how do Managers make these decisions. And typically cutting training, coaching, consulting look like good decisions because the longer term isn't considered, or the return on investing in these items isn't known or seems to be too hard to figure out.

Q: Are you on your soapbox again?

A: Probably; but it is relevant. How does an organization prepare and develop for the future without training, coaching, and consulting? If the machinery isn't oiled today, it won't run tomorrow.
Managers get to know the fundamentals of their jobs through being taught, and then doing. The path to lots of good decisions is littered with lots of bad. Remember that the goal to start with is simply make more good ones than the others.

Q: I'm hearing that training is the start, and the doing part – including making mistakes – is next.

A: Right, just like most things. Management can be taught; good management takes practice; really good management requires great people skills that not everyone has.
So once the initial training is done, and mistakes are being made, then coaching can make a huge difference in tuning skills and adapting from lessons learned.

Q: OK; training is clear, but I'm not familiar with this “coaching” idea. You mean like a sports team coach?

A: Perhaps a better analogy is a personal fitness trainer. Only a business coach is your personal business skills trainer. And, of course, one of the business skills is management.

Q: Neat; so a coach works with you on a regular basis?

A: As often as you wish, usually on a weekly or bi-monthly basis. That way issues that the coach can help with are current, the mistakes made and lessons learned are fresh, and an effective flow is maintained for progress. The best are certified as coaches, have solid personal experience and background in the area, and so can be extremely valuable and focused on their client – you! :)

Q: And what do I get out of this?

A: Well, anything you wish. Imagine that any time you had a question about your management role, situations with employees, tough decisions, the “office politics” stuff, etc. you could reach an expert with suggestions, approaches, reminders, etc.

Q: Sounds like a real time management support life line!

A: Yeah! Cool, eh?
Why don't you, for next time, do a little research on Business Coaching. A great place to start is www.adaptivecoach.com.

Q: Jeez; homework again?

A: Yup. :)

Management 8

2009-05-17T14:52:00.002-03:00

Q: So how are we going to ask my manager what he means when he asks me to “lead the group”?

A: Why don't we do a little role play?

Q: Jeez, here you go again with the roles thing. Is this going to hurt?

A: Only if you don't want to play your Manager.

Q: Do I get his salary too?
But really, how do I know what he's thinking? Not knowing that is what got us here.

A: Sure; but we can try some different possibilities and see how things work out. You be him, and I'll be you. Here we go:
Hey, thanks for asking me to “lead the group”! I'm always up for a new challenge and appreciate your faith in me.

Q: Whoa! That's already too much sucking up – let's get serious. I would never say that!

A: Hmmm; too bad. If you don't show some sort of appreciation then you shouldn't expect to be asked again. And if you really don't want the challenge then you should say so right away.
Anyway, my next question (as you) to you (as your manager) is:
What exactly would you like me to do to lead the group?

Q: But this is the problem with this playing roles thing: I don't know what he – er, me – wants.

A: You are having a bad day, aren't you. Will you imagine what he might say? There's lots of choices – just start with one.

Q: OK.
I want you to take charge of the group to get this project completed on time. And under budget. And make me look good, too.

A: Good one! Now you're in the spirit of this. And then I say:
Completed on time, under budget – anything else?

Q: Er... not right now. I'll probably dream up some other stuff in a while.

A: OK. Is this a formal appointment, that is a change in job?

Q: Uh... No, I'd like you to try it out, see how you do, see if you've got the right stuff, show us what you've got, carry the ball down the field and make the big slapshot, go for gold!

A: (Easy tiger, don't get crazy on me.)
Alright. What are my boundaries? For example, am I supervising the work, or managing the group?

Q: How about you manage the group?

A: Got it; that means to me that I will be doing your functions of

planning
organizing
staffing
directing, and
controlling

for the people in my workgroup. Do you agree on that?

Q: (Ooooh. You just pulled the Manager's essentials out – cute. Now I see why those are good to know. So how do I play that shot?)

A: (Great observation – that is why they are good to know! And for your reply, imagine what your manager would say)

Q: Ah, well... er... not staffing. You can't hire or fire people because we're just trying this out.

A: OK. So if the project needs more people to be done on time, I need to come to you for your help on that?

Q: Uh... sure (I think) (This making manager's decisions is getting tricky – what if I mess up?)

A: (Yeah, interesting isn't it? If it makes you feel better it's OK to be wrong. Your boss will usually be happy if you at least get things right more often than you are wrong. Actually, the most important question is what you do when you are wrong.
For our role play you can be as right or as wrong as you like. We can always rewind and try again.)

Q: (Good! This is kinda neat being able to see things from the other side. I guess all that management office politics I complained about before was out of line.
Let's keep going.)

A: So far I understand you want me to manage the group but without authority for staffing. That means I am accountable for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling – right?

Q: Sounds fine.

A: OK. Then I can re-plan the project? Re-organize people's assignments? Direct their daily work tasks? Measure their results to control their productivity and quality?

Q: Uncle! Stop. Can I be someone else now? I don't know how to answer all those questions. How does my manager know?

A: Fine – we can stop. I think you got a sense of how this might play out.
The key is knowing the definitions – the essential elements – of the manager's job and recognizing that words like “leading”, “supervising”, “directing” need explanation.
The best thing one can do is ask: “What exactly do you mean when you say...”, and to not make assumptions. That's why we have spent so much time on the words and the details – there's just too much at stake for confusion.

Q: Yeah, and you really nailed me with your questions. I was feeling really pinned down.

A: Exactly. When you have thought about the essentials, and you have a list handy, then you are better able to ask the strong questions that clarify the requirements and the boundaries.
It's often most helpful to ask what is not included – what are the exceptions. For example, the staffing element in our role play.

Q: OK. I know you are a big fan of Ask for Help, and I can see why. And why you like to be clear on the words used.
But you didn't answer the question about how does a manager get to know this stuff?

A: Right. :)

Management 7

2009-05-11T09:41:00.001-03:00

Q: So we were talking about things that were part of job descriptions – the essentials – and then you added this “roles” thing. Why do you keep making this complicated?

A: Well, it's actually simpler when you can keep the bits and pieces clear.
It's important to know what the minimum requirements of a job are – the outcomes of that position for which one is hired and paid. But we all quickly realize that there is much more to a job than that. We end up doing all kinds of things that weren't covered in the hiring interview or the position description.

Q: Ha! Tell me about it. And so?

A: Well, we need to meet our job description requirements to get paid. And we need to fulfill many roles to get the job done and be successful. Some seem to naturally be part of the job and others are opportunities to try something new, based on our manager's requests or our own initiative. We often talk about wearing a variety of different hats.
The job description requirements are normally word-smithed to be clear and exact; the roles are much more informal and based on tribal knowledge and experience.
For example: from a job description perspective, “directing” is more precise than “leading” for a management job. Leaders (as a job) determine which forest to manage, Managers direct their staff to which trees need to be harvested.

Q: That seems to be a scope or big picture vs. smaller picture question.

A: Exactly.
And also, as our teamwork sessions keep showing, leadership is not restricted to a particular job and can be done by anyone. So while Leaders need to demonstrate leadership regularly, as part of their job, anyone can, and should, demonstrate leadership when they have the best idea.

Q: Well at least we're getting back to the leadership question. But why are you concerned about job descriptions vs. roles?

A: The job description concept is simply a way to describe the essentials required in a job – the minimum set of activities for a given role. Our summary for a Manager is:

planning
organizing
staffing
directing, and
controlling

These are the things that a Manager must do at the very least (their job description). These aren't in your job description, and they aren't differentiators in a Leaders job description.

Q: But surely some, or all, of these activities are done by the Leaders – the senior management or whoever you mean.

A: Yes they do in their role as Managers of others. It's when we don't recognize the roles people are playing – which hat they have on – that we get these things muddled up.
That is why it is best to think of the role each person is playing at a given moment to recognize what activities they should be doing to fulfill that role well.

Q: And roles are different than jobs?

A: For sure. Your job is a description of what you are hired to do – the results expected – and the skills and knowledge required to get the results. To get that job done you may play many roles including manager executing management activities (even with your manager), and leading when you have the best idea in your team or workgroup.
One way to look at it is:

you have to do your job to get paid;
the various roles you can play to do your job - get it done faster, smarter, with higher quality, with more value, etc. - make you a more valuable employee.

Q: So if I am just fulfilling my job requirements, that's my job, and if I need to exercise some management skills with my peers or my manager then at that moment I am acting in the role of a manager?

A: Sure. For small work transactions you may just describe it as exercising some management skills or activities, but for more extended time periods – for example, when your manager is away on vacation – you would say you are filling that role on their behalf.

Q: Got it; but again why are we fussing with all this definitions and categorization stuff?

A: Because, in my opinion, based on how people write about this and discuss it, we easily get messed up and off track. We think we understand and then realize it was all about something else.
For example: when the manager of a group asks you to “lead the group” what does that really mean?
Often it is assumed to mean “be in charge”, “provide direction”, “organize the work”, etc.

Q: Yeah; that seems OK to me.

A: So now you are being asked to “lead the group”, is that a new job? Are you now the group's Supervisor? Team Lead? Manager?. In other words is that a job assignment or a role?
And what responsibility, accountability, authority do you have?

Q: I don't know; I just get to come in late and put my feet up! Just kidding.
More likely I get to deal with all the problems.

A: Right. You would usually end up with more questions in your mind than answers. And not about the work itself, but about the people stuff. What are your boundaries? How directive can you be? What do you do to lead?

Q: Hey; didn't we agree already that anyone on the team should be able to lead when they have the best idea?

A: Yes!
So what does your manager want when he tells you to “lead the group”?

Q: Beats me.

A: Me too! When we get together again let's ask him. :)

Management 6

2009-04-11T19:47:00.007-03:00

Q: Hey there; where have you been?

A: Hi. I was away doing a little informal family management – the “herding cats” and “leading from behind” stuff

Q: Hmmm. I'm afraid to ask.
Anyway, I did my homework and looked up the golden rule in “The One Minute Manager”*. Pretty cute.

A: And it said?

Q: The one with the gold makes all the rules.

A: Right. And that's also part of why your boss is your best customer.

Q: Alright – I've been waiting to get back to this one! What the heck do you mean?
How does my boss also get to be my customer? He doesn't buy any product that our company produces.

A: Well that is only one way to define “customer”.
A more generic way is to see everything we do as a chain of activities. I do something for you, you add work or value to it and pass it on. At each step, each person is, momentarily at least, the supplier and the next person in the chain is their customer.
You and I have the discussion in this blog (suppliers) and someone reads it (customer), then they tell a friend (now they switch to being a supplier) and the friend is their customer. And so on.

Q: Do you mean that in all the work I do I am the supplier to my manager?

A: Overall, yes. Another way to see it is to ask: Who cares about the quality of your work?

Q: Well, I guess that would be my manager. And also the next person in the production chain according to your description before.

A: Exactly. So if you want to get paid (golden rule) you would want to follow your manager's rules, and if you want to continue to get paid you would treat your boss as your best customer.

Q: So what does that really mean – a lot of sucking up?

A: Well, imagine yourself as a one person retail operation. Your manager comes into your store now and then and you want to maximize your revenue from him to stay in business. Sucking up probably wouldn't be productive, but paying attention to what he wants, understanding his requirements, suggesting good ideas, providing the items that meet his requirements, providing better quality and value than he expects, and so on would help.
When you are the customer, what does it take to have you come back and buy more?

Q: OK, fine. But sometimes he doesn't really know what he wants, or his expectations are way out of line.

A: Then you have to help him, just like you would in your store. You have to manage him.

Q: Whoa! Stop! Now you have me managing my manager?

A: In a way. You can at least guide, provide information, teach where necessary.
Let's step back and review management activities that we talked about before, and see if there are ones you can exercise with your manager. These were:

hiring, supervising, measuring, and maintaining or promoting or firing

A more comprehensive list from Wikipedia** is:

"planning, organizing, leading, co-ordinating, controlling, staffing, motivating

[And these come together as:]

Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal."

Q: It seems that there is a lot of different items – isn't there just one good list?

A: Unfortunately no. There's lots of variance of opinion between “experts”; however, some of it is wording. For example: staffing covers hiring, promoting, and firing; controlling covers co-ordinating, supervising, measuring, and maintaining; again, all depending on the level of precision you need.
But there are some areas where some interesting shifts in perspective have occurred lately.

Q: Such as?

A: Notice in the last “definition” the wording is “leading or directing”.
Leadership has become such an enigma and area of research lately that people, myself included, like to reserve “leading” as a special word.

Q: But isn't that just splitting hairs?

A: I agree it can seem like that. But if you remember our previous discussion about precision, then the implications of the word used become important.
For example: does a Manager lead or direct?

Q: Well, if there really is a difference, shouldn't they do both?

A: Yes! But perhaps not for the reasons you expect.
In a job requirements sense – the job description if you will – managers have to direct their employees. That's required. But everyone should lead when they have the opportunity.
If you are the Leader, however, you should always be ready and capable of leading. That's a Leader's job requirement.
It might be easier if we separate job requirements/job descriptions from the roles each of us play.

Q: I knew you could complicate this further! Can we have a break and get into this "roles" idea later?

A: Sure. :)

* Kenneth H. Blanchard, Morrow, 1982
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management

Management 5

2009-03-30T09:32:00.002-03:00

Q: Alright; I've reviewed all of our discussion so far and I admit I am feeling a little better about my Manager now. I do see that he did some good things in my situation.
I also realize that my criteria for “good management” aren't necessarily the ones his boss uses.
But what is this stuff about him being my “best customer”?

A: Well, before we get there I'll leave you with a little research: What is the Golden Rule as expressed in “The One Minute Manager”?

Q: Geez, I have to do some extra work? I thought I was going to get to ask all the questions and have you supply the answers.

A: Hmmm... If you think that learning doesn't involve work we have bigger problems than this discussion.
But anyway, there's some other loose ends to tidy up. One was your concern about what your Manager would do with a new employee who needed more help than you.

Q: Right! You dodged that one conveniently.

A: As you like; however, it's usually better to understand the optimum or normal path before we get into exceptions that require even more managerial skill.
Such as firing an employee.

Q: Hold on! How did we get to having to let some one go? We're only talking about a new employee.

A: Yes; but let's look at some more aspects of “executive, administrative, and supervisory direction”.
It's pretty clear that you expect your Manager to provide some contribution to you and your group producing their result. And you expect that your Manager will therefore help a new employee who is struggling.

Q: Right...

A: So it's reasonably straight forward in most organizations to arrange for help – training, mentoring, coaching, etc. - for an employee who needs it. That might even be provided directly by the Manager. At the very least it is initiated by him.
But how long should a Manager wait for a poorly performing employee to become effective?

Q: I don't know. That's his concern.

A: Is it? What happens in a group that includes a poor performer?

Q: Well, we all have to pick up the slack, and if there's time, try to help that person out.

A: So it does become a problem for you too – if we only look at the extra work involved (ignoring missed deadlines, effect on performance bonuses, quality, reputation, your personal life, stress in the group, etc.).
Pretty soon your Manager's boss is noticing that the group's results are suffering. Hopefully, before then, your Manager is acting to deal with this and has already alerted her and the Human Resources department.
And what would you like the Manager to do?

Q: Fix the problem, but without throwing that person out on the street.

A: And that's what a good Manager wants too. But if the “happy” solutions don't work out, he has to be prepared to let that employee go.
The Manager's job includes trying to find a productive solution – e.g. another job suitable for that employee. That's some of the “office politics” you noticed before. But at the end of the story, everyone's job – yours and mine – is a fair exchange of work-to-results for money. And if the results aren't there for the money paid to the employee, then the contract is in default.

Q: Whoa; I'm not liking where this is going.

A: Right – this isn't a happy time for anyone involved. And in a professional organization with professional Managers this situation is taken very seriously and requires all possible due diligence to get the employee's performance back on track.
Nevertheless, as explained beautifully in “Good to Great” every company needs the right employees “on the bus”. If there is a mis-match in performance, values, vision, etc. then some employees should not be on the bus. Some will realize that for themselves; some will need Management intervention.

Q: So we are just going to dump people who can't cut it?

A: Ideally Managers hire people who can perform well in several jobs, or who are trainable, or can be coached, mentored, and advised as necessary. Firing someone is a last resort and represents a failure, often in the hiring process.
But in a professional organization this isn't dumping people over the side of boat to the sharks. There should be support for those people to find a different bus going where they wish to go.
If the situation is actually very ugly, then there are other factors and variables at work that we can't solve here.

Q: Great. I'm suitably depressed now. How did we end up here?

A: By realizing some fundamentals about a Manager's job. That it includes the “life-cycle” of hiring, supervising, measuring, and maintaining or promoting or firing. It is acting on behalf of the company owner(s). It's about the “Golden Rule”. It's being your best customer.

Q: Oh, yeah! We didn't get back to that idea.

A: So do your research, and we'll continue next week. :)

Management 4

2009-03-15T19:54:00.004-03:00

Q: As I recall, you were suggesting that we need to start at the beginning of the story?

A: That's right. If we are going to discuss “Management” we need to know what we are actually talking about.

Q: I feel some definitions coming at me.

A: Right. Let's see what some sources have to say.

Q: Is this going to take long?

A: That depends on you. :)
Here's the first one: Among Webster's offerings for Management: “the judicious use of means to accomplish an end” (1).
And for Manager: “to handle or direct with a degree of skill” (2)
and “to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction” (3).

Q: So?

A: Well, for starters, your bozo Manager in our previous discussions seems to have fulfilled definition (1) - “the judicious use of means to accomplish an end”. Whether you perceive his contribution or not, he used the means – you – to accomplish an end – you produced your results.

Q: But he didn't contribute – he didn't help me at all.

A: Agreed, but he didn't need to did he? In effect he used definition (2) - “to handle or direct with a degree of skill”, with you as a capable employee. That is he handled you with skill by staying out of your way and letting you produce.

Q: But he didn't lead at all, and spent his time playing office politics.

A: OK. Will you give me an example of his “office politics”?

Q: Sure; he was constantly in meetings with the other managers negotiating priorities, and tasks, and who was going to do what, and generally sucking up.

A: Good; that sounds a lot like definition (3) - “to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction”. “Executive” direction is about executing – getting tasks done. That requires working out and understanding priorities, and who is going to be involved. “Supervisory” direction is about arranging to have those “who”s – like you - actually do the tasks.
I do agree that “generally sucking up” isn't in the dictionary definition. :)

Q: So you are telling me that according to the definitions my Manager was actually doing his job?

A: Yup.

Q: But that just can't be right. Where's the leadership? Where's the getting involved and helping get the tasks done? I didn't see him contribute at all!

A: Right.
Based on your criteria he did a damn fine job – as a Manager. The definitions so far haven't mentioned leadership, or getting involved in your tasks.
And let's be clear about the record for your scenario. You said “I knew my job, I knew my objectives, I knew my boundaries, I knew how to get things done and I did them.” How did you know your job?

Q: Well, I was hired with the knowledge and skills I needed.

A: And who hired you, and checked that you had the knowledge and skills?

Q: My Manager and the Human Resources assistant with the skill tests and new hire paperwork.

A: And how did you know your objectives, and boundaries?

Q: They were part of the job description and my performance objectives documents.

A: Good! Definitely a better start than I've seen in a lot of companies.
How did you know “how to get things done”?

Q: I figured out who the important people were who knew the operation and the inside tips.

A: Excellent! Did anyone help make sure you got your job description, performance objectives, introduced you to key people with experience?

Q: OK, OK. Don't rub it in; my Manager set things up for me. But then I was on my own!

A: And it worked out fine from what you said before.

Q: But surely there's more to managing than what I saw him do for me.

A: Yup. There's lots, but before we get to that let me ask you something. How do you feel about your Manager now?

Q: Well I'm not about to give him a big hug if that's what you mean.

A: That's fine. There's probably some Human Resources policy about that. :)
Besides you don't even have to like him – just respect him by believing he is a smart, rational human being like you until you have solid data to the contrary. After all he is your best customer.

Q: Whoa! You might have wrangled me into accepting he's not as big a bozo as I thought, and in fact, according to you, did the right things for me. But my “best customer”? Now you are talking like the bozo. How can my boss be my customer?

A: Let's find out next week. :)

Management 3

2009-03-11T08:06:00.006-03:00

Q: OK, let's try this again.

A: Good. Glad you are back - suggesting a break was a super idea.

Q: Yeah; better than punching you in the nose. So, we were talking about working for a bozo.

A: Yes; however “bozo” is somewhat imprecise and loaded term. Is it alright that we describe him as appearing to be incompetent because you didn't see the behaviour you wanted to see?

Q: Sure. I know you know what I mean, but your insistence on wording must have a reason so I'll play.

A: Good, because I chose my words carefully. I picked “appearing”, “incompetent”, “behaviour”, and “you”. First of all, I do sincerely appreciate that your boss in your example did appear to be incompetent to you. We've all experienced someone doing something that looked strange, unreasonable, unproductive right through to downright ugly.

Now in this scenario, You are seeing Behaviour that Appears Incompetent. To sort this out it would be ideal to know if it is only You (or everyone?), that sees Behaviour (consistently based on values and intent?) that Appears (or truly is according to the organization?) Incompetent (or just unexpected or unacceptable to you?).

Q: Jeez, you are picky. But I do get the point – there are a lot of variables at play.

A: Exactly, and you can see that we have just identified a few. Let's agree that a reasonable employee, such as yourself, thinks your manager is useless (another very precise term. :) )

If we look at those situations, in an organization, logically and objectively we can determine that a) this manager's boss is blind or unresponsive to this person's apparent incompetent behaviour, or that b) the manager's boss believes, or at some time believed, this person to be worth keeping in the company's employ.
Another possibility is that the boss herself is having a moment of temporary insanity, or has just used up her competence quota; however, either of these can still be covered in a) or b).

Q: Great, so both my manager and his boss are bozos?

A: Yes! - OR - our perception of the situation isn't accurate. Objectively we would both have to agree that it is probably the latter. We may not like what we see but the manager's boss must be OK with things, or if she isn't then hopefully is working to rectify the situation.
Either way, let's be careful we aren't making some bad assumptions. And even if we are correct temporarily, or permanently, let's get some facts before judging.

Q: Fine, I get your point – I shouldn't jump to concussions. So let's talk about the scenario where all my peers agree; that is it's not just my opinion.

A: Good. Do we have facts from anyone out there or is this still a group opinion? And before we argue over what's a fact and what isn't, let's just consider this. If your manager is a problem (we haven't uncovered what this problem is yet) it is his manager who has to get the facts, determine what the problem is and solve it. Ideally, that manager will do a great job and ask for your input.
But that won't be happening if your manager's boss is getting what she wants, no matter what you and I think about the situation.

Q: So we are stuck – that's just dandy!

A: Well, yes we are stuck, but not the way you think. We are stuck with common misconceptions about what “Management” is, and how it works, and where we fit in as employees.

Q: Ouch. That says that my opinion of my bozo boss is a misconception?

A: Not your opinion – that is what it is – but the cause of your opinion. Until we've been a “Manager”, or studied “Management” from those who have, it's really easy to misunderstand. It's just like every other skill or profession: if we aren't a trained pilot we don't know how to fly the plane. We can criticize a bumpy flight, but we can't be certain we could do better.

Q: This sounds like a “walk in the other person's shoes” moral.

A: Exactly.

Q: So how do we get past that obstacle?

A: Well one way is to start at the beginning of the story and see how we got to situations like you've experienced. Let's do that next week.

Management 2

2009-02-28T16:07:00.003-04:00

Q: So here we are again talking about “Management”, and you owe us an explanation about your use of quotation marks around such terms from last week.

A: You're right. My intent was to indicate a general use of the terms, covering a wide spectrum of meanings, until we have a chance in this discussion to be more precise.

Q: What's this concern with being precise?

A: It's more like an obsession about communication. Clear communication is tough enough when we speak the same language and have similar interests. It's even more challenging when we aren't careful about our choice of words and that leads to mis-understanding. So my goal is to be as precise as I can about words, critical ones at least, that are important to the point. Let's call them key words.

Q: And there isn't enough precision?

A: Generally no. For example: we talk about leading a group of people, supervising a group, managing a group, etc. often interchangeably. That's OK when it doesn't change the point of the message – the understanding. It's fine when we are being general and don't need to make a distinction.
But it hinders us when we are trying to be clear about differences, getting at specifics, or looking for improvement opportunities. In these instances, the words are important otherwise our resulting learning and actions are inappropriate, and we end up with a mess.

Q: Alright; I guess I am OK with that. Now, can we get on with it?

A: You're asking the questions. :)

Q: Fine. Let's jump into the deep end. We've all worked for “Managers” who seemed to be bozos who couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag and spent all their time playing office politics. What's that all about? What use are they?

A: Well, first of all, thanks for using quotation marks to make your question general and applicable to a large number of situations. Nevertheless, I am going to ask you for more precision: What is your problem with that situation?

Q: You can't be serious! Clearly that's a problem – they are incompetent.

A: Perhaps they are, but we don't have that data yet. Let me ask you a question: As someone working for that kind of Manager how did you do?

Q: Well, I was fine. I mean: I knew my job, I knew my objectives, I knew my boundaries, I knew how to get things done and I did them. But what if I was a new employee or new to the group, then what?

A: OK; then as far as you getting the right results there wasn't a problem, right? So, if I were to judge your Manager on that basis I would say he did the job required; i.e. your Manager had you produce the right results.

Q: Come on! The guy was a bozo and had nothing to do with me getting the results I did – I did everything for myself.

A: Then it sounds like you were the ideal employee and your Manager let you get on with being successful. And so the problem is...?

Q: OK. So, first you try to flatter me, and then you ignore the other part to my question, and now you are trying to make me look silly.

A: And perhaps you are getting just a tiny bit emotional. That's good; humans are supposed to be emotional even at work. If I may, I want to talk more about the data here first, and deal with the emotion later.

Q: No way! Now you are being condescending and I'm getting angry. And being emotional at work is unprofessional and unproductive, everyone knows that!!

A: Alright. I understand that you feel like I was trying to flatter you, and I sounded condescending. I did indeed bypass part of your concern relating to new employees. I'm sorry my approach is annoying you.
I absolutely agree that it is commonly accepted that emotions in the workplace are unprofessional. Would it be alright if I explained myself a little before we continue?

Q: Hmmm... I think I need a break.

A: We can do that; and reconvene next week?

Q: OK.

Management 1

2009-02-21T16:54:00.003-04:00

First of all:
My thanks go out to Luke Schubert of Adelaide, Southern Australia for commenting on this blog with his examples of great leadership. If you have been paying attention to international news you know that Australia has been going through an extensive drought, leading to huge wildfires. It's been hotter than, well... Australia... in the summer time - which is 40+ Celsius right now.
Luke and his family, including two youngsters, haven't been able to sleep properly in the heat. Nevertheless, he has been making time to participate in the on-line BootCamp / ResultsCamp that is underway, doing his regular day job, his dad stuff, and passed on his examples in the Comments to last week's blog. Thanks Luke – Beauty mate!

My intent is to collect such stories and add them to the leadership articles in the near future.

Second:
I was alerted last week via Twitter (www.twitter.com/reevesresults) of a blog by “RandsinRepose” (www.randsinrepose.com) on management (“A Disclosure”). Specifically it is about the situation of successful “specialist” being asked to lead his team and become their manager. It was very interesting reading about the dilemmas, anomalies, and other upsets in the work life of a new “manager”. (The quotation marks will be explained in a moment.)

And that got my sweetheart Vickie and I into another great discussion, this time about “Management”.

Since she is a business coach (www.adaptivecoach.com), as well as my consulting and training partner, and focuses on the Generation Y (also known as Millennials) cohort moving into management assignments, and has her own experiences dealing with Boomer Generation managers, we just had the best time exploring the whole “management” thing.

Once we had solved world hunger in that discussion, we agreed that it seemed that the “Great Forgetting”, that Daniel Quinn describes in “Ishmael” and his other books on the nature of our Taker culture, has happened with respect to the general understanding, or the lack of understanding, on “Management”. It appears that the basics of “Management” aren't taught, heard, or absorbed in organizations these days, and in our consulting lives, Vickie and I run into examples of this regularly.

Further; the distinctions between leadership and management are unclear, so why not jump into the “Management” water as well as talk about leadership in this blog?

So at the risk of sounding like the Four Yorkshiremen “dreamin' of living in a corridor” (luxury!) who believe the youngsters these days don't appreciate how good they have it, I thought some fun with “Management” might be in order. (Thanks Monty Python)

Question: So, Mr. Reeves, I take it that you feel there is a gap in understanding in what “Management” is all about?

Answer: Very perceptive! I keep running into confusion, mis-understanding, and general belly-aching about it.

Q: And you are just the Saviour to lead us all out of this wilderness?

A: Of course.

Q: How modest!

A: Think nothing of it. Just show up again next week after I have compiled my extensive knowledge and experience into a few thousand pages of notes.

Q: Wait a second – you haven't explained your use of quotation marks above around “manager and “Management”.

A: You're right.

Leadership 7

2009-02-15T17:07:00.007-04:00

A quick update on the inaugural event of Friends of Deep Griha, Canada, held at Central United Church, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia last week:

about twice as many attendees at the pot-luck lunch as expected (nothing like food to get people's attention)
a lot more money collected than imagined, with the result that
270 toddlers will have nutritional supplements of eggs and milk for a whole month in Deep Griha's care!

It is astonishing how a little goes a long way, and how directly one can make a difference not just in one child's life but in a lot of lives.

Thanks to all who attended, and the even larger number who contributed!

*************************************************************************************
And now back to our sponsor.... :)
Please comment with your stories about leaders you have experienced, as suggested in Leadership Article 6.
If you have had trouble getting through the security screens, infrared sensors, and bulky, imposing guards to post a comment, please try again. Thanks!

Leadership 6

2009-02-07T18:39:00.004-04:00

So what's left to talk about regarding Leadership?

Only tons...

But why don't we take a pause to hear about your stories.

Let me know by Comment on this blog the answer to “Who do you perceive as a leader and why?”.

Share with us all your stories about leadership, and I will collect them and post them in future blogs.

As Jimmy Durante? used to say: “Keep those cards and letters comin'!”

***********************************************************************************************

Sunday, February 8th. is the inaugural fund raiser by the Friends of Deep Griha Canada with an awareness pot-luck Indian lunch at Central United Church in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.

Help support the leadership actions taken by the Deep Griha Society in Pune, India.

Leadership 5

2009-02-01T16:32:00.006-04:00

Let's summarize the concepts we have accumulated so far in this series on Leadership:

a vision
the best idea moving toward that vision
a leader proposing that idea
a cohesive group wanting to follow that idea

Some of a leader's attributes: Inspiration, Courage, Patience, Respect, Decisiveness, Firmness, and Connection with the individuals in their group.

A test for leadership:

Followers = Leadership happening
No followers = no Leadership happening.

Characteristics of a group and it's leader:

a symbiotic relationship, mutual influence, agency
a cohesive group – a social identity – ideally using tested and proven interpersonal tools to share information, make decisions, resolve conflict, etc.
a transformational process creating the group, determining its identity, developing these individual and group visions
again ideally, the opportunity for any individual at any point in time take leadership of a team by means of the team's acceptance of that individual's idea for moving the team forward - that leadership possibly being momentary or lasting as long as it takes for the team to achieve their vision

Finally; a modification of the definition of leader to: one who has willing followers.

Which leads us to some other notions to address, such as authority vs. power.

If one of the “proofs” of seeing leadership is to also see followers, what about situations where people are forced to follow?

We see lots of projects in the software industry become “forced marches” and some so dire they become “death marches”. Usually no programmers die, thankfully, no matter how poor their programming or teamwork, although some project managers contemplate homicide followed by harakiri.

In these cases, are we seeing leadership?

Hence the more precise way of describing followers by adding the adjective “willing”. If the person heading up a group has to resort to coercion or some other form of power – typically fear – then should we say that person is demonstrating leadership? I believe a consensus would say no. People forced to follow the person in charge in any situation would not be considered willing followers and hence the person in charge would not be considered leading.

Can we then make a distinction between power and the use of power in the sense of force, and authority?

If, as we see regularly in our teamwork retreats called BootCamp or ResultsCamp, the team (our cohesive social group above) willingly follows the current “best idea”, and in effect the proposer of that idea, then we can say the team confers authority of leadership upon that proposer. On the strength of that idea, and the team's understanding that to continue to progress toward their vision they need to act on the current “best idea”, authority to lead automatically flows to the proposer of that idea. Or even more accurately, leadership authority flows to those who begin action on that idea.

What we see then in our Camps is the following proven scenario:

the team members develop their individual visions of their futures
this impetus leads to the team readily developing a team vision
the agreed and accepted stance of the team becomes a bias toward action to enact that vision
this bias for action leads to the development of, and proposals to, the team, of ideas to move toward that vision – the elements of enactment
the act of proposing an idea, and the team's acceptance of it, causes emergent leadership by the proposer, and then by those who act with authority to make that idea so

The results are:

leadership emerging from any team member at any moment
the team conferring authority on these emergent leaders to move forward decisively based on action towards results
this leadership lasting as long as progress is made, results are achieved, and the next “best idea” appears

None of this contradicts what we have learned so far. And it does make a very exciting and promising experience. Because exactly what we need right now is leaders like President Obama of the United States to not only propose ideas, but to seek out those of us who will act. Clearly no one individual can accomplish all the change needed, nor do they necessarily know what the current “best idea” is. But together we can all find ideas, and act on them – locally, municipally, provincially, and nationally - as emergent leaders.

Leadership 4

2009-01-26T08:53:00.008-04:00

Continuing from last week with Dr. Reicher and associates's work (all text in quotes is from their paper*):
“There is a truth here which is so obvious that it is easy to overlook. Leadership is not simply a matter of leaders, or even of leaders and followers. Rather it has to do with the relationship between leaders and followers within a social group (Haslam, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003b; Sherif, 1962, p.17).”

This matches our experience from BootCamp / ResultsCamp. The experience of the team prior to Fiona's proposal (Leadership Article 1) was to build that social group. What preceded the team's capacity to really listen to her proposal and then act on it was the work each had done developing connection. That was accomplished through the mechanics of generating a shared vision – shared between the group members and guiding their actions and interactions.

And further:
“... any consideration of leader and follower agency must consider their inter-relationship within the group. This notion of leadership as a group process is the starting point for the social identity approach to leadership...”

Again, we regularly see in ResultsCamp the capability within the group for various leaders to emerge at any point based on the best idea proposed at that point.

Dr. Reicher's paper continues to develop three important elements:

the group (and the leader) share attributes or an identity which makes them a group, and this binds group members including the leader
in fact, a leader can provide the definition and shape the group.
leaders distinguish themselves not only by words but also by structures that fulfill the vision and the words

And then states:
“The critical insight is that leadership is a transformational process. It involves changes in the self-understanding of people and also in the nature of the social world. Indeed, one of the insights to come out of our analysis is that these two forms of change are interdependent since identities are models of how the world is and of how it should be.”

Accordingly:
“Effective leadership is about supplying a vision, creating social power and directing that power so as to realize that vision.”

So here is this critical notion of vision again. Is this expressed as our mission, that is to say, what we are intending to do? Or is it possibly our goal, our objectives, our targets?

The ResultsCamp vision is the picture of what we want the world and ourselves to look like in the future. Because the ResultsCamp team members determine first of all their own personal visions – what they want their future life to be – they can then determine a team vision and see readily how they as individuals can support that vision and each other to realize that vision.

Given all this what do we now have?

team members with their own personal visions
a team vision each individual has helped develop and can support with their own personal futures
a cohesive group – a social identity – using tested and proven interpersonal tools to share information, make decisions, resolve conflict, etc. (the Core Protocols)
a transformational process – participation in the ResultsCamp – which is creating the team, determining its identity, developing these individual and team visions

and possibly most interesting

the opportunity for any individual at any point in time take leadership of the group by means of the team's acceptance of that individual's idea for moving the team forward - that leadership possibly being momentary or lasting as long as it takes for the team to achieve their vision

However, there is still the “unreal” world after ResultsCamp and the following warning from Dr. Reicher:
“Of course, to argue that leadership need not diminish the agency of followers (and may in fact enable it) is not to deny that there are forms of leadership which do attempt to do so. Far from encouraging an open debate about who we are and how we should act, some leaders may indeed try to essentialize their constructions, to present them as the only possible versions of who we are and to brook no debate. The extreme to which we referred above, where the leader constructs him- or herself as the embodiment of the ingroup, leads to a situation where anything the leader says or does by definition encapsulates the group identity and anyone who opposes the leader by definition becomes an opponent of the group. Where, on top of that, a sense of pervasive threat is created such that the ingroup appears to be in danger of destruction by imagined enemies, then extreme measures to quell dissent can be justified in the interests of self-defense.

Such strategies, of course, are commonly found in undemocratic and dictatorial regimes (Reicher & Hopkins, 2003; see also Koonz, 2003, Overy, 2004). Our concern is that if one presupposes that leadership takes away the agency of followers then one fails to address the conditions under which tyrannical leadership thrives (Haslam & Reicher, 2005). This lessens our ability to promote open and democratic leadership and to defend against autocracy. In this way, the danger is not that the traditional opposition between leaders and followers is valid in theory but rather that — partly through a faulty theoretical analysis — it may become true in practice.”

So this warning brings us back to the dangers of leaders posturing as representing groups that they do not, not allowing the group to bring forward their best ideas, to the extreme of outright opposition between the leader and the group.

While I agree that tyrants and despots exist, and analysis needs to include this possibility, I conclude this week with a modification of the definition of leader: one who has willing followers.

*Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Reicher, Haslam, Hopkins (2005)

Leadership 3

2009-01-18T14:18:00.005-04:00

Last fall I was driving into Halifax, about an hour away. Often, when driving alone, I take a handful of CDs in the car and catch up on old favourites. But this time I turned on the Canadian national icon - after the beaver, and the red and white maple leaf flag – the CBC. That's the Canadian national radio Broadcasting network Corporation, for all non-Canadians. It's patterned after the model of the BBC in the United Kingdom – a government funded national radio and television link which provides a cultural connectedness across the country. Where anyone goes in Canada there are woods and rocks, Tim Horton's coffee, and the CBC.

And similar to the BBC, and NPR in the United States, the CBC isn't hampered by directives and prejudices from advertisers because there aren't any. (Advertisers, that is: we still have the other stuff.) So the programming is wide open; eclectic, musical variety, talk variety, world and local news; something for everyone including those who like to THINK.

This particular morning the interview program on had a variety of topical items including, you guessed it, perked up my ears right away – Leadership. The first interview I caught was with someone who couldn't seem to keep up with the questions and sounded very uncertain of their material. All very “sketchy” and destined for obscurity. But the next speaker caught my attention immediately and with his opening remark about leadership I almost drove off the road!

Dr. Stephen Reicher, Head of the School of Psychology at the University of St. Andrew's, Scotland (founded 1413! - the University, not psychology), began his description of leadership in the interview with an statement so obvious and fundamental that we usually overlook it: A leader must have followers.

An “AHA” moment – A Whack on the Side of the Head (Thanks, Roger von Oech). Here I am, the Results guy, and here is a Results based litmus test: Followers = Leadership happening / no Followers = no Leadership happening.

As noted in the latest Twitter “LeadershipTips”: “The only test of leadership is that somebody follows. - Robert K. Greenleaf”

It's so obvious we don't normally mention it. And worse from an evidence based approach, we focus on things like the attributes of a leader. What must a leader have to lead? How about:

charisma
courage
boldness
chemistry
...
nice hair
trendy clothes
television presence

You can see how the attributes quest can easily spiral away into silliness.

That is not to say these characteristics aren't important, and perhaps necessary. Nevertheless, the quest to manufacture leadership in a finishing factory isn't one certain to produce useful results. Yes, I do believe still in Principle Centered Leadership (Stephen R Covey). (Do I need to change my name to Stephen also?). Covey points out the need for:

a Moral Compass
clear communications
empowerment
a total quality approach

Let's call those, and others, foundational attributes. These can be used, according to Covey, in a hierarchy of focus:

meta leadership – vision and stewardship
macro leadership – strategic goals, structure, systems and processes
micro leadership – relationships, emotional bank accounts with the potential followers

Nevertheless, a donkey having been through the car wash is still a donkey (Thanks, Carmen.)

Following up with Dr. Reicher, I received from him the “academic” paper* he and his associates have published in the Leadership Quarterly, and an article in Scientific American August / September 2007.

The academic paper refers to a history of determining leadership attributes:

Carlyle, 1840 – speaking on the “great man”
Mill, 1975 - “ the genius whose pleasures are of a higher order than... animalistic gratifications”
Nietzsche, 1977 [sic] - “‘superman’, who would let nothing... stop him satisfying his appetites”
Le Bon, 1895/1947 - “the hypnotic crowd leader”
Weber, 1921, 1947 - “charisma”; and the “inexorable advance of instrumental rationality (zweckrationalitat) and institutional routine”

“Which lead us to the three phases of research into leadership:

a search for the distinctive intellectual and social characteristics [not very satisfying]
thinking that leadership is a contingent product of both personal and situational factors [mixed support]
attempts to rediscover some of the ‘magic’ that is missing from recipe-like contingency models, [through] a rediscovery of Weber’s concept of charismatic leadership”

This last phase gets us close to “leadership... seen as 'the process of being perceived by others as a leader' ”

Stephen Reicher and his associates then propose in their paper that “the agency of leaders and followers does not constitute a zero-sum game. Rather, in line with a social identity approach to leadership (e.g., Haslam, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003a; Reicher & Hopkins, 1996a; Turner, 1991), we consider them to be interdependent in such a way that leaders and followers both actively rely on each other to create the conditions under which mutual influence is possible.”

Hmmm.
A symbiotic relationship, mutual influence, agency. Let's chew on these words until next week.

*Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Reicher, Haslam, Hopkins (2005)

Leadership 2

2009-01-12T12:19:00.004-04:00

Dr. Neela Onawale gazed across her solid old desk at Vickie and I with her usual implacable look and started to explain. As the founder, director, operations manager, and lightening rod for the Deep Griha Society (www.deepgriha.org) she just didn't have the time after all to attend BootCamp.

Luckily Vickie and I were not surprised by her statement. We had heard this before from other Chief Executives and senior managers. Luckily we had also somewhat recovered from the marathon of flying from Halifax to Montreal to Zurich to Mombai over some 22 hours, and then the hair-raising midnight ride from the madness of Mombai roads to the chaos of Pune, India. During that ride my daughter, Allison, who had managed to organize this teamwork session, brought us up to date on the latest wrinkles including her concerns that some of the key people may not attend after all.

Just having Dr. Onawale, as she is respectfully addressed by her staff, find time to see us turned out to be a big deal. She was sharing her office space with two consultants and working out organizational changes to be presented to, and approved by, her board. Additionally, Neela has always been involved in all the daily operations of Deep Griha because she started the Society single handed as a young medical doctor responding to the needs of the thousands? in the Tadiwala slum. So her door is never closed, and there is a constant round of heads popping in and out like jacks-in-a-box to see if she is free.

Now with us comfortably seated in the chairs of honour in front of her desk, the chai and lemonade graciously offered, Neela began to explain. We learned how over 30 years ago she began providing medical services to mothers and young children, then food programs, then educational programs, then adult learning, and on and on. Each development responded to the need underlying the visible issue. Each was designed to empower the beneficiary. Each required staff, space, equipment, planning, pleading, and good luck to build the social support fabric. And all funded by donations.

We could see the fatigue of all these years of lonely effort on her face. And we could also see the results: a multi-story concrete building right on Tadiwala Road at the main entry to that slum area, every nook and cranny of space utilized for medical assessments, schooling, skills development, daycare, cooking and feeding, and the newest, most urgent work of HIV/AIDS awareness and care. She recently had returned from a tiring fund raising trip to the United States and now had critical organizational decisions and proposals to make to keep all this moving. She hoped we would understand and not be offended.

I looked at Vickie for support, drew in a large breath, and responded with the reasons why Neela should find a way to attend.

During the closing ceremonies of that retreat, Vickie and I saw again how BootCamp just works. And we had seen why Neela is such an excellent leader.

We saw:

Courage – throughout her life, her story of Deep Griha, and immediately as she overcame her fear of taking yet another week away from the helm
Patience – we watched her deal with all the interruptions, and our plea for her to attend BootCamp without an off-hand dismissal; each business issue brought to her during BootCamp was handled in due course without interrupting BootCamp
Respect – no staff member, consultant, visitor was a bother or a burden; each person was accepted on their own merits; all BootCamp participants of any caste or background were treated as equals
Decisiveness – having heard the rationale, the arguments for or against, Neela made her decisions and stuck with them in spite of other's emotional or irrational reactions
Firmness – Neela dealt with all storms with resolve to stick by her decisions without wavering
Connection – she demonstrated repeatedly a strong relationship with her staff of caring and understanding throughout BootCamp and in her office
Vision – her dreams for Deep Griha's beneficiaries inspire everyone she meets; they can picture the great results she is striving for

As you can gather, Neela delighted in BootCamp, and we delighted in her.

Next week, some of the academic research into Leadership, OR something on IT Service Management. Would you like to choose?

Leadership Article 1

2009-01-01T10:51:00.003-04:00

On a hot, muggy, August afternoon in 2005 a group of twenty or so people were sitting and standing in group around one of their work tables. Inside the Community Centre in the small town of Duncan, Oklahoma, this group were protected from the heat and pending tornadoes but not from their tiredness, frustration, confusion and lack of energy. They were stuck. Their momentum on their team assignment had slowed, wobbled, and fallen to the ground over the last hour. The promise of that morning's ideas for their project had waned and those ideas just weren't as useful as they had seemed.

Luckily, in this group of seasoned corporate employees, some with Doctorate degrees in Engineering or thirty years of experience solving extremely difficult well-drilling problems across the world, or both, was an eleven year old girl. She wasn't a child prodigy or some mistake by the Human Resources department. She wasn't even known to the others two days ago. But she was part of their team. They had all come together the previous Sunday evening to spend a week learning and practicing the best behaviours known for successful teamwork results.

As I entered the room for a “curiosity walkabout”, Fiona stood up in the group, with that look of tired resignation that teenagers perfect as they are not listened to time and time again, and made a suggestion. As she spoke she just looked at the table so she wouldn't have to immediately deal with looks of rejection from the mixture of adults, some approaching retirement. One of her more present teammates asked her to clarify her thoughts in proposal form nudging Fiona toward the Decider Protocol they had learned. Fiona restated her idea: “I propose that we... “. There was a pregnant silence, then smiles, then people sitting up and moving closer to each other, then the required response to a Decider – here a mixture of approval and support indicated, but no “thumbs down”. Fiona smiled, they smiled, Fiona declared the proposal accepted, and the team immediately started to move forward again to implement her new idea. They were re-energized by the best idea available at that moment – Fiona's idea – and Fiona became the team leader as they sprung into action.

What had just happened?

This group had validated again that leadership doesn't necessarily depend upon charisma, charm, age, wisdom, experience, or size. It doesn't have to come from an organization chart, a long history of work experience in an organization or a group.

Leadership can come from anywhere and anyone within a cohesive group that recognizes and respects each member, stays open to ideas from any source, and manages their egos, old habits, and prejudices. A group that understands and exercises the meritocracy of ideas can be open to an infinity of possibilities.

We don't have to wait for the boss, the loudest speaker, the eldest with the most experience. No one can predict when the next best idea will surface or who will have it. Of course, in any group some may appear to be, and act as, the wisest or most creative, but they don't have exclusive rights on good ideas. And so often the strangest thoughts at one moment become the most valuable the next. As my daughter Allison quotes Einstein in her email signature: “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

A leader, in my opinion, doesn't need absurd ideas necessarily, just ones that the group agrees moves them positively forward toward their vision. But often the “absurd” or “scary” ones turn out to be the most useful and energizing.

What have I seen so far?

a vision
the best idea moving toward that vision
a leader proposing that idea
a cohesive group wanting to follow

More to come next week!

Difficult Situations / Staying Calm (thanks Michele - again)

2008-12-20T22:34:00.007-04:00

Now, you might have guessed already that “business humming” means there aren't difficult situations. Or more precisely very few: human error, mis-communication, divine acts – that sort of thing.

The truly difficult situations I have encountered were generated by bad intent or a lack of honesty.

For example:

In an arrangement where we were to sub-contract to another consulting company to provide our expertise to their client, we were asked, on the spot, to explain their contract to their client. Hopefully, this sounds weird already. What made it worse was that the consulting company hadn't provided us the latest copy of the contract until the last minute, and it was a version that contained material we had asked them to correct.

So here is a deal, with a new, big client, very important to us, that is hanging in the middle of a conference call, when the consulting company suddenly handed off to us to explain a contract that was unexplainable. Based on my prior corporate role models and experience, I would have tried to save everyone's face, and wriggle my way through with some fluffy explanation and fancy footwork.

But because of BootCamp and my alignment of integrity, I just told the truth: “This isn't the correct version of the contract; let's meet again later with the corrected version.”

Did the client hang up believing we were all bozos? They should have, but they didn't. We went on with a business relationship that started in 2005 and is continuing today.

The most difficult situation I have ever faced occurred as a corporate employee when I was dismissed without warning based on a false accusation. That was definitely a Nietzsche experience: “What does not kill me, makes me stronger.”1 During the legal proceedings that followed, I had moments when I literally couldn't breathe. I'll spare you the gory details because the settlement I won after 6 years prohibits me from continuing the story.

But those things have never, and will never happen to me as a business owner and consultant, because the client relationship is built on two way trust. And now the difficult moments are the ones where the client repeatedly thanks us to the point of embarrassment.

As for staying calm and detached, I think that's a myth fostered by my publicist and groupies. I certainly work hard at keeping my head when others around me seem to be loosing theirs, but I also have my moments. I don't know how one can be passionate about their work, finding the best solutions, getting great results, without getting excited. And since Vickie and I arrange to have Work = Play we always make room for fun, laughter, and energy.

We don't do our Monty Python imitations in the boardroom in front of the CEO and the leadership team, unless they take the lead, or we are desperate to make a point.

But calmness is an attribute I developed as a camp leader, pool lifeguard, father of four, sailplane, hang glider, and ultra-light pilot, among other experiences. It's just not helpful to instill the thrill of flying in a passenger while moving through some bumpy air and have the pilot scream, “We're going to die” and attempt to jump out of the plane.

What are the take aways? (And I don't mean fast food for my English friends and relatives.)

Conduct business based on strongly connected relationships.
Build those through honesty which leads to trust.
Don't flip the Bozo Bit on someone based on an isolated incident or single mis-understanding.
Don't panic. (Thanks Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Make fun and find friendly ways to make your clients laugh.
Make sure you can deliver the required results – get help or get out.

(And I don't really have a publicist nor groupies – that I am aware of.)

1 Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), Twilight of the Idols, 1888

Next time: some thoughts on Leadership.

How do I do business? (thanks Michele)

2008-12-13T14:03:00.005-04:00

One of the things I really like about folks in the Maritimes is the lack of formality in business dealings. Perhaps it's just that we live in a rural area, but it seems that people are happy and comfortable to make business arrangements based on their word. Quotes, contracts, etc. “just ain't in it”. (Thanks Killick, care of Patrick O'Brian.)

And that suits me.

I learned in my corporate employee days that the union stewards, and hallway lawyers, and Legal Affairs, etc. needed their paperwork, because, after all, who could one trust?

And now that we have to have agreements documented with our clients, and contracting partners, so we get paid, I have learned to cross “i”s and dot “t”s with the best of them. :)

But, at the end of the day, you really want to be able to look your customer, partner, fellow human being in the eye and say, “That was a fair exchange of energy”. (The “energy” part is Vickie's phrase and I like it because whatever the work and money in the arrangement, energy is exchanged, and energy and matter are just words for the same thing if I grok the current thinking in quantum physics – so it all works out.)

So for me business hums when the relationships are strong, built on trust, the letters of understanding or statements of work are short, concise, and factual, and the players have intent to be honest with each other. It also helps if they like really good coffee.

And how do we get business?

In the beginning (sounds very auspicious!) we had to sell our capabilities, skills, services which really becomes selling one's self – who we are, what we do, etc. (This should sound very familiar from the page layout of my web site; it does – doesn't it ?!). Now we are referred to by people with whom we have previously done business. And that is so much easier and more productive.

So the question is: why would people do that?

Let's be really crass for a moment and say it is money. We do offer a finder's fee for referrals that become revenue generating business. However, in 15 years no one has ever taken us up on that. OK; the companies to which we often subcontract get their share, and usually a handsome one. On the other hand they have done all the initial work of finding the client, persuading them to buy, arranging meetings, getting contracts signed, etc.

But, still, why do clients refer us?

We hope it is because they have enjoyed working with us.

OK; this is silly – stop this right now. “Enjoyed”? Really? Are you serious?

Actually I am. The operating rule Vickie and I have is “Work equals Play” so we should all enjoy the experience.

If, as the client, you aren't having to worry about integrity, trust, getting results, receiving value in the exchange, then that should be enjoyable.
If you are working with people who like people, understanding them, finding the best for them, being serious and having fun whenever appropriate, that also should be enjoyable.
If there are no hassles, that should be enjoyable.
And if you get the results you want, that should be enjoyable.

After all where would you rather spend your money? And it is your money even buried in a financial budget allocation somewhere in the vault, because your success with us is going to keep your company capable of generating more revenue or allocating current spending more wisely, and that puts salary in your pocket.

Since we base our work on using these principles (the How page on my web site), providing built-in quality (not an add-on), and on getting results, we have happy customers who, yes, enjoy our work.

And we're happy to do business that way too.

[Upcoming topics: Difficult situations, How we stay calm and detached (oh?), Leadership, ROI for ITSM... Let me know what you would like to see via your comments and the survey at the bottom left.]

Task: Determine Blog Theme - Done

2008-12-08T20:52:00.005-04:00

Well; choosing a theme / template turned out to be really easy after all.

My initial thought was to use the same template as my web site. The magic of open source material is that the universe of cyberspace is Abundant. I have capitalized abundant because that is a key word for our teamwork retreats – BootCamp a.k.a. ResultsCamp. I'm sure I'll get back to that topic later. :)

Since so much valuable material is available in the open source world today I started my search for a new web site template at the open source web templates community; for example: http://www.openwebdesign.org/ or http://www.opendesigns.org/. Having found a number of interesting choices to replace my very mundane looking site, I locked onto a particular template and then the particular designer, Andreas Viklund (http://andreasviklund.com/), in northern Sweden of all places.

Once a programmer, always a programmer, and tired of the web design programs that do it for you but produce constrained and bloated results, I tinkered and plodded my way through HTML land with Andreas's template to produce my current site. Liking the new look very much, it seemed a natural fit to use Andreas's template (yes; Strunk & White's first rule is to add “ 's ”; therefore, “Reeves's” as well) modified for blogs.

But then a whispered message from the Universe: “Lighthouse, Paul... lighthouse.”

My first blogs on flying, started after I soloed, used a lighthouse theme which fit well with our pending move at the time to Nova Scotia.
Further, one of my favourite stories in Covey's Seven Habits of Effective People is the “paradigm-shifting experience as told by Frank Koch in Proceedings, the magazine of the Naval Institute.

Two battleships assigned to the training squadron had been at sea on maneuvers in heavy weather for several days. I was serving on the lead battleship and was on watch on the bridge as night fell. The visibility was poor with patchy fog, so the captain remained on the bridge keeping an eye on all activities.

Shortly after dark, the lookout on the wing of the bridge reported, “Light, bearing on the starboard bow.”

“Is it steady or moving astern?” the captain called out.

Lookout replied, “Steady, captain, “ which meant we were on a dangerous collision course with that ship.

The captain then called to the signalman, “Signal that ship. We are on a collision course, advise you change course 20 degrees.”

Back came a signal, “Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees.”

The captain said, “Send, I'm a captain, change course 20 degrees.”

“I'm a seaman second class,” came the reply. “You had better change course 20 degrees.”

By that time, the captain was furious. He spat out, “Send, I'm a battleship. Change course 20 degrees.”

Back came the flashing light, “I'm a lighthouse.”

We changed course.”¹

And, my daughter Allison had honoured Vickie and I, after a wonderful visit full of meaningful discussions and insights, with a thank you note, and a window hanging of stained glass, identifying us as her lighthouse illuminating her the way through the whirlwind of life.
The “closer” was that Google had updated the Blog site and templates and there was my old favourite, revamped, and waiting for me.

If you check the Comments, Christophe likes the theme too. (Don't be misled by his scoring – that is the way the Perfection Game works best.) And if Christophe likes it that is good news for me.

It seems pretentious to me that I might shed some light your way too. But that is what this is all about, and you will be the judge.

And I will “get-on-with-it” next time. I already have requests!

¹The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey, Franklin Covey Co.

Reflections on the results of...

2008-11-28T10:13:00.000-04:00

Having supervised, managed, taught, advised, consulted, coached, mentored, cajoled, persuaded, threatened, incented, teased, critcized, praised, and all other manners of influencing I have even remotely heard of, I finally thought I should use all these skills on someone other than myself.

Hence, Improvement Solutions which became Business Improvement Solutions (thanks to the Nova Scotia Business Registry's need to protect me) and has now "matured" to Business Improvement Results.

But none of all this over 13 or so years provided an answer to the question: What template should one choose for their blog?

So this is my first stab, my Hudson's Bay start, my Version 1.

What do YOU think?

The Perfection Game runs like this:

You provide me a score out of 10 for this choice of blog template
You tell me what you like (and therefore recommend I keep)
You tell me what would make it a 10 out of 10 for you (ideally adding enough improvement ideas to move your scoring in 1. to a 10)

The Ask for Help:

Will you please play the Perfection Game on this blog?

Thanks, eh?