Passion, People and Principles
post # 440 — September 28, 2007 — a Managing post
BusinessWeek.com has a newly launched “Managing Channelâ€, which replaces its popular Careers Channel. Among the terrific new features are interactive case studies which feature a story, a column, two videos, a reader poll and an opportunity for visitors to engage in substantive discussion of a real-life business case.
The very first case study zeroes in on a controversial management decision made by Procter & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley, who skipped over 78 general managers with more seniority in making a key staff appointment without even consulting the rest of his management team. Lafley says “there was almost a revolt†over his decision. The case study includes an analysis by Noel Tichy, the leadership maven and University of Michigan professor.
It’s worth checking out!
As someone resident in the US, I will confess that when I first thought about self-publishing I was mostly concerned with my own home market. I also assumed that, if the book was good enough, requests for translation rights would come in (and that’s started.)
However, I hadn’t given much thought to countries like Australia, which I visited recently, and which doesn’t translate books from English to “Strine” (The jokey term for Australian English.)
I had assumed (silly me) that, since my books had always done very well in Australia, I would be able to approach the main bookstore chain and discuss arrangements for them to stock a self-published book.
It turned out to be harder than I thought. I tried doing it directly and with the assistance of the Australian Institute of Management (AIM). Nobody has yet returned my calls, emails (or those of the AIM.)
I don’t know what’s going on, and I still have hope that it’s either an oversight or part of the problem with self-publishing. I don’t know how well bookstores are set up to deal with authors who self-publish their books. It woudn’t surprise me if the “filtering system” just blocks things out.
As someone pointed out in an earlier blogpost in this series, when you self-publish, you are not just going outside the regular channel of the publishers, but of the entire “supply chain” reviewers, bookstores, etc. which has been built around dealing with established publishers.
It’s early days, and I’ll keep you posted, but I thought it only fair to report the hiccups as well as the virtues of self-publishing.
post # 438 — September 26, 2007 — a Client Relations post
In the latest online issue of Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge professor John Quelch (an old friend of mine) argues that, as a customer, it is possible to get preferential (or at least better) service from your vendors, suppliers, etc, if you know the right approach.
He lists the following as the keys:
- Be Demanding
- Be Respectful
- Be Reliable
- Be Surprising (eg reward a job well done)
- Be Engaging.
You can join John’s discussion, or we can start one here.
We’ve had discussions here before about what we providers seek in an ideal client, but would you agree with John’s starting list? Do you agree that these are the keys to eliciting better reactions from providers?
Yesterday’s WSJ had a great column by Carol Hymowitz entitled” “Best Way to Save: Analyze Why Talent Is Going Out The Door”.
The lessons weren’t new: turnover costs a lot; people quit because they don’t feel well treated by those immediately above them; people seek opportunities to learn and grow; you should analyze who’s leaving and why.
The fact that this wisdom is not new doesn’t detract from its truth, but it does bring us back to the challenge of why organizations don’t act on it. If we know there’s a shortage of talent, why haven’t we changed as much as we know we should in adapting to that marketplace reality?
In my consulting work, this is a common topic. A few themes tend to emerge:
a) It’s still true that professional organizations are trying to attract, motivate and retain those they recruit through “add-on” programs like HR, flex-time, paying people more, etc. These are all good ideas, but none of them get to the core of actually improving how people are managed day to day by senior people.
b) Senior people feel they are still subject to the same measures and systems as before (ie a focus on revenues and client service) and good people management, in spite of what firms say to them, is still a weak thrid priority.
c) What is more, senior people continue to avoid and even resent the need to “manage” more. They weren’t mentored, coached or supervised well on THEIR way up the ladder, and they haven’t really internalized the need to treat the next generation differently.
d) There is a widespread misunderstanding that good management means being “soft.” In fact, holding on to the best and the brightest is NOT about making the firm less demanding: it is about making sure that the organization provides fast-track learning opportunties and (as Ms. Hymowitz pointed out) opportunities for people to take on lots of extra responsibility early. That DOESN’T challenge the business model of the firm (as some senior people fear) but it DOES challenge the security of the senior people. It means they must be willing to delegate more, and keep moving on to new things themselves, so that they are not the bottleneck to achievement.
I find that discussing point (d) is difficult, but is the key to bringing about real changes of behavior in managing people.
post # 436 — September 24, 2007 — a General post
In the 23rd episode of this series, we are going to look at the issues of motivation, excitement and drive over the course of a career. At any given time, professionals can fall into one of three categories: dynamos, cruisers or losers. We will look at the affects that these different mindsets have on an organization and what managers must do to instill excitement in the workplace.
Audio Timeline
00:39 — Introduction
00:57 — Three stages of energy and drive: Dynamos, Cruisers, and losers
04:45 — The role of the manager in helping underperformers
05:38 — Mobilizing the organization through excitement
09:18 – Conclusion
You can download Dynamos or sign up to receive new Maister Moments videos automatically with iTunes or other video players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.) My seminars are always available for download at no cost.
I have been discussing the fat smoker principles here in Australia: that we don’t do what’s good for us because we are unwilling to incur short-term discomfort to get even a massive long-term benefit.
As is normal, people come up to me at the breaks and say, “I believe this, and I’m willing to invest for the longer term, but it’s my bosses who don’t get this. The entire culture and environment is built on getting ever demanding short-term results!”
They then go on to ask two questions:
a) How can I convince my bosses to take the longer term view; and
b) How should I operate if I can’t?
I’m not entirely happy with my current answer:
There’s no way to change your boss except to deliver great results – preferably by managing superbly, thereby winning permission to keep doing it your way.
In a bad environment, you get two choices as a manager: pass on the pressures coming down upon you (thereby being a participant – no matter how unwilling – in sustaining a climate of “it’s a;; about the short term”) or, somehow, you try to protect your team from the pressures upon you. You pass some of it on, but not unfiltered.
The second choice involves managing with an air of “We’ve got to produce short-term results, but let’s do it OUR way – with standards, mutual respect and mutual support. We can create our own culture for our own group, can’t we?”
What do you think? Is there a better way to (realistically) avoid being a particpant in a short-term culture?
CAN you influence your boss(es) to change?
CAN you protect your team from the S*** coming down from on high?
post # 434 — September 18, 2007 — a Careers, Managing post
I’m still at the Australian Institute of Management Convention. A number of speakers have made a central point: that women are INHERENTLY better leaders than men, or at least are better at the type of leadership that the emerging society and economy requires: relationships, empathy, the long-term view. Again, and again, the point is being made here that numbers, logic, science are “masculine” approaches and are inadequate or insufficient for progress.
Most insistent on the issue has been Tom Peters. he basically said “You can disagree with me on many issues but not this one: I’m right and you’re wrong.” (To see Tom’s arguments, go to his website www.tompeters.com and download his slides. He’s very generous in making them freely available.)
Over dinner, I heard practicing businesspeople (and those in local governement) increasingly willing to comment on the ability and desirability of hiring females as opposed to males. According to what I was told, young males are less loyal and committed, harder to handle and are more demanding as employees.
Is it me, or are people increasingly willing to make generalizations about male / female differences? Isn’t this dangerous territory? Or is it just reflecting statistical realities? Do you feel comfortable listening to (or participating in) discussions about why women are better/ different than men?
I don’t. I’ll listen and try to learn, but it feels like the opportunties for bias and gross exaggeration are boundless.
post # 433 — September 17, 2007 — a Managing post
I have just listened to an interesting interview with David Morgan, CEO of Westpac – Australia’s oldest bank and oldest company. (I’m here in Sydney as part of a convention organized by the Australian Institute of Management. )
Among the interesting things he had to say was a description of how Westpac enforces its values. For each person, from the CEO on down to the lowest front-line person, each individual is evaluated according to two dimensions – what they accomplished (their outcomes) and HOW they accomplished them (their behaviors.) The behaviors evaluated include “doing the right thing”, integrity, apolitical behavior, thinking of the best interests of the bank rather than just the individual’s own operating unit, etc. According to David Morgan, the system which feeds directly into a person’s remuneration, is a key mechanism for ensuring that the values are lived.
I’ve heard that GE also has a similar system.
Has anyone out there experienced such sytems (ie lived within an organization which uses this approach)? How effective is it in ensuring compliance wit organizational values?
I have decided to go for January 2, 2008 as the publication date for STRATEGY AND THE FAT SMOKER. My publicist pointed out that this would tie in nicely with the theme of New Years’ Resolutions (a metaphor that opens the book.)
The book is listed on Amazon and available for pre-publication orders.
I have received enquiries from Russia and Poland about buying the translation rights.
post # 431 — September 12, 2007 — a Managing, Strategy post
Here’s what I hope will be an interesting question for many people. A correspondent of mine wrote in as follows:
***
I work for a firm of about 20 people (15 consultants.) We all work independently, the consultants rarely meeting up – if we do, it’s for training sake. We are sole practitioners at the client site, coaching and leading client teams. Our projects get little or no oversight, as long as the client is happy and we are getting results. We do have “standard methodology”, a standard project roadmap, some standard analysis tools, and some standard training presentations and exercises that we use, or at least they are available to us.
Compliance to the standard methodology is low. The tools are typically used, but there is huge variation in the exact project sequencing/schedule and the training presentations. Many of us in the group were hired in from different companies and we have different backgrounds and we all bring something different to the table.
Most of us personalize and adapt the training material based on what and how we like to teach. I think some of the training material is either incomplete, inappropriate, or unprofessional. So, I spend time customizing the slides, sharing some of them with co-workers in an informal way, but, again, nobody is really watching to see HOW I do my consulting work, just to see if I’m delivering results (which I do).
Recently, we had a very frustrating week-long offsite meeting as a team. There was a lot of contention and confusion about this idea of standard methodology, namely who defines it? How much standardization is enough?
A team of four people volunteered to look at the issue of standard methodology — but those of us who didn’t volunteer (or weren’t chosen) didn’t realize how much power this group would have. Instead of looking at ALL of the variation and the ways some basic training presentations were crafted and delivered, they picked one version and made edits to it, basically ignoring the input that the rest of us would have given.
In our consulting, we preach that standardized work can’t be dictated to people — yet, we’re doing the same thing within our group. Can we ever get 15 diverse people to perfectly 100% agree on what material should be presented and in what order? There are too many diverging opinions (and too much history of not being perfectly standardized) for us to all just suddenly get on board.
We’re getting very inconsistent and schizophrenic “direction” from our leadership. On the one hand, they’ll say “the standard is the bare minimum of content, you can add to it” and then later saying “you must all do the work exactly the same way.” Is it enough to have a standard framework that we can all customize to our personal tastes and client needs? Or, do we have to be “consultant-bots” who follow a perfectly scripted program, for the sake of consistency?
I fully believe “nobody likes to be told what to do” and that it applies equally well to assembly workers, nurses, and consultants. If I am told to perfectly standardize on what I consider to be sub-par material, I’ll most likely look for a new firm (or start my own). I understand the need to deliver a consistent experience to our clients, but how standard is standard enough from their standpoint? I can handle standardizing to the level of “here’s what you must accomplish in a 16-week project and here’s what you should be doing each week, if all goes well.” But dictating every single slide seems like overkill, like standardization for the sake of standardization. If we’re all getting good results with slightly different methods, isn’t that ok?
What are your thoughts? Is this a common problem in a consulting firm?
***
My first instinct is to share the view that no-one like to be dictated to on HOW to do things. In general, as you suggest, the key is to have very solid accountabiity for outcome effectiveness, and then let people do it their own way “on the day.”
But let’s think about this. Under what circumstances might you argue the opposite? If you’re not involved and can look at it in a detached way, then you could observe that standardizing the process is exactly what businesses have done for centuries to capture efficiency and get things done with lower cost workers. Does MacDonalds let each outlet decide how to do things? Should they? What about a steel mill?
Now, I’m not arguing that fits your situation. I merely observe that I know consulting operations whose entire business model is built around getting lower paid people to deliver very effective standard methodologies. You and I might not want to work there, but it’s not inherently a dumb idea.
