I remember when I was in school one of my professors said that communication problems were the causal effect in 95 percent of the problems on the planet. Now whether that is actually true or not, experience shows that communication issues certainly are behind many of the situations we find ourselves in.
Think about this seemingly clear statement: "Bob would you pick me up at 4 at Nicole's?" And Bob--while in the room and not actively communicating (because he's watching the O's lose again) acknowledges that something was said. Later that same day when it's time to act Bob heard something more like, "Bob, pick me up at 4 at Coles." Trying to be a good husband, Bob goes to Coles and is doomed. The ensuing post-event discussion has no good outcome: Bob either has to admit he wasn't listening, needs a hearing aid, or worse--really doesn't know the difference between Nicole's and Coles.
Communication is a two way process--a sender and a receiver. But to have effective communication both the sender and receiver must acknowledge the communication and confirm the meaning of the message. Otherwise there is just a lot of noise or electrons (in the case of email) passing by each other in a disconnected manner.
Communication. We are living in an email world. Frankly, I love email. I have a Blackberry to access my email accounts (yes, plural) so I can receive and send information whenever I have time. I am no longer tied to sitting in front of a computer (desk top or laptop) in order to check email and respond to people. I love email because I can handle the communication on my schedule, unlike a phone call which usually comes when I'm right in the middle of something else and so I lose twice--once disengaging from the project I'm working to answer the phone and the second time to get into the conversation at hand. I can also think more deeply about the topic and if it is emotional I can let my emotions abate before responding.
So what's the problem? Not everyone understands that an email is an important form of communication. I receive well over 200 emails per day. Most are informational only (or advertisements for some Canadian prescription drug plan) which require nothing more than hitting the delete key. But there is a critical subset of the total which require action. At the least the receipt of these emails must be acknowledged with a quick note to say, got it and am thinking about it. Or even, call me and let's talk. Using email to lay out the agenda for a phone call or meeting makes these forms of communication even more effective.
What happens when, say, an email proposing a new idea is sent and the receiver does not acknowledge it? I'm an action oriented person. Most action oriented people I know wait a week to allow for a response. Then, if they believe the proposal is within their area of influence or responsibility the lack of communication is considered tacit approval and the idea is implemented.
Who is right and who is wrong? The receiver of the email has a responsibility to at least acknowledge the communication. It is the right thing to do. Face it--it is flat out rude not to respond at all. The leader who fails to acknowledge an email should not expect to sympathy later nor do they have any justifiable reason to be upset because the answer comes back--you were info'ed on the email, when did you send your objections? Additionally, if the leader sends objections--follow up to ensure they are received.
The bottom line is--respond to email! It is an effective form of communication which helps remove ambiguity while providing critical documentation for the future. Good leaders must be effective communicators and using email is a critical skill. There are rules of email etiquette, use them. I referenced my favorites here.
Email can save time, increase effectiveness, and provide necessary documentation for decisions! But, you must answer the mail or don't quibble about the consequences.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Saga of the Dead Horse
I had read this some time ago and needed it so I looked it up:
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However, in government, education, and in corporate America, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance.
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses
I've seen some variations, but it is critical for organizations and leaders to realize when they are riding a dead horse and to change. If it's not working--it's not working?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Empowerment and Encouragement
So there I was, in an organization which had stopped moving forward. And people began wringing their hands about the lack of progress. Numerous reorgs (the standard solution) had not generated the enthusiasm to motivate the organization to lean forward in the "chocks" and begin to make progress.
What was wrong? The leadership seemed to want to move forward--but something was holding them back. Two things: Empowerment and encouragement. One of the most interesting and dysfunctional things which had been happening was the consolidation of power into the hands of a seemingly apt individual whom as it turned out, was a micromanager with a risk avoidance mentality and a love for secrets. This is a recipe for disaster.
The motivated, fired up individuals in the organization were reigned in and had their creativity and innovativeness stifled. Empowerment was taken away and encouragement replaced by a fear of failure. Organizational secrets became the norm and only the "in" group was party to the secrets. The most motivated individuals in the organization were affected first and feeling minimized began to withdraw. This malaise stretched to the informal groups and the entire organization began to suffer from lack of energy and vitality. No one wanted to do anything for the organization or even with the organization. Even old established traditions of fellowship began to die. It went adrift. And the micromanager more tightly controlled everything because certain failure was looming. And the secrets grew.
Fear of failure results in organizational death. The most creative people in an organization need to be allowed to set the pace for everyone else to follow. They will lead. The micromanager needs to follow and resist the tendency to reign them in. In organizations searching for an identity, empowering and encouraging the motivated individuals will help the organization shake off its lethargy and the direction will become clear. Leaders need to be transparent and fully and honestly communicate both their values and vision to those working with them. Failure should be acknowledged as a necessary and valuable by-product of creativity. Not every idea is going to be a success--but not encouraging innovation is stifling and will strangle an organization. And hiding behind secrets only serves to foster discontent.
The worst thing for a leader to tell a highly motivated, creative person is that "we're not going to innovate in your area anymore. There are other places we need to focus our energy." And while this may seem reasonable on the surface, what is being heard by is: "We don't value you anymore." No matter what or where--everything we do and every part of our lives (professional, personal, spiritual) can be better. Stopping work on any area says--this doesn't matter anymore and I don't care about it. And the organizational result? People leave. Those who have been minimized and had been stifled leave first. And then the organization slowly begins to die without the infusion of new ideas. Many organizations go outside, recruit new blood and repeat the process all over again. Until the new people become discouraged and also leave.
Leaders first and foremost must set the vision. They must be transparent in their dealings and resist the urge to personally approve every minute detail of projects that are in progress around them. They must trust those working with them to have honorable intent and maturity. Speak in broad vision terms which lay out the goals and encourage and empower the creative energized people in your organization. In these cases, a funny thing will begin to happen and to use a colloquialism: "The horses will run" and in chasing them the organization will prosper.
What was wrong? The leadership seemed to want to move forward--but something was holding them back. Two things: Empowerment and encouragement. One of the most interesting and dysfunctional things which had been happening was the consolidation of power into the hands of a seemingly apt individual whom as it turned out, was a micromanager with a risk avoidance mentality and a love for secrets. This is a recipe for disaster.
The motivated, fired up individuals in the organization were reigned in and had their creativity and innovativeness stifled. Empowerment was taken away and encouragement replaced by a fear of failure. Organizational secrets became the norm and only the "in" group was party to the secrets. The most motivated individuals in the organization were affected first and feeling minimized began to withdraw. This malaise stretched to the informal groups and the entire organization began to suffer from lack of energy and vitality. No one wanted to do anything for the organization or even with the organization. Even old established traditions of fellowship began to die. It went adrift. And the micromanager more tightly controlled everything because certain failure was looming. And the secrets grew.
Fear of failure results in organizational death. The most creative people in an organization need to be allowed to set the pace for everyone else to follow. They will lead. The micromanager needs to follow and resist the tendency to reign them in. In organizations searching for an identity, empowering and encouraging the motivated individuals will help the organization shake off its lethargy and the direction will become clear. Leaders need to be transparent and fully and honestly communicate both their values and vision to those working with them. Failure should be acknowledged as a necessary and valuable by-product of creativity. Not every idea is going to be a success--but not encouraging innovation is stifling and will strangle an organization. And hiding behind secrets only serves to foster discontent.
The worst thing for a leader to tell a highly motivated, creative person is that "we're not going to innovate in your area anymore. There are other places we need to focus our energy." And while this may seem reasonable on the surface, what is being heard by is: "We don't value you anymore." No matter what or where--everything we do and every part of our lives (professional, personal, spiritual) can be better. Stopping work on any area says--this doesn't matter anymore and I don't care about it. And the organizational result? People leave. Those who have been minimized and had been stifled leave first. And then the organization slowly begins to die without the infusion of new ideas. Many organizations go outside, recruit new blood and repeat the process all over again. Until the new people become discouraged and also leave.
Leaders first and foremost must set the vision. They must be transparent in their dealings and resist the urge to personally approve every minute detail of projects that are in progress around them. They must trust those working with them to have honorable intent and maturity. Speak in broad vision terms which lay out the goals and encourage and empower the creative energized people in your organization. In these cases, a funny thing will begin to happen and to use a colloquialism: "The horses will run" and in chasing them the organization will prosper.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
People or process? Where's the joy?
I've been confronted these past few days with an interesting dilemma: which is more important, process or people?
I admit, we need process to ensure that people are treated fairly and equitably. Yes--those two words have very different meanings. Yet, sometimes it is relationships outside the process and the established organizational bounds which are essential to success--both in business and in our lives. There are formal relationships and informal relationships. Read another way--business partners and friends. Sometimes it gets really sticky when the same person is in both roles. And when one role changes it can get very complex, if you let it.
So where does that leave us as we consider the question of people or process? I believe good managers and leaders know the strengths and weaknesses of the people around them and from whom they seek assistance and advice. For the good of the organization, it is critical to continue to get good advice regardless of the process. Often, we seek advice form the sounding board person who is not so ingrained in the process that they provide, free of organizational fluff, unvarnished assessments of what's what.
There, ideally, is a congruence of process with people. But sometimes because of organizational limitations this does not happen. In this case, we surround ourselves with the best advisers we can and work through the process to move the organization forward--sometimes despite its own inertia.
I think of it as circles of influence and I'm sure I picked it up in a management class sometime in my past. I am part of many circles--social, organizational, familial. Some of the circles are formal, some informal. Sometimes these circles of influence intersect. At the point of intersection I am free to draw across the boundaries (color outside the box?) to use everything I touch or that touches me to make decisions and provide background. To do less than this is not to use everything available to face a problem or to celebrate a success. I consider it a critical part of the process.
So of course, to answer my own question. People not process. Relationships are most important because process can destroy relationships and render enthusiasm and joy meaningless. Why is joy important? Because I believe where we are experiencing joy we are moving forward. That's how you can tell if it's all working. If the people are motivated and full of joy for what they are doing, then we are successful as leaders. We have created the right environment which is open and safe. We probably recognize the circles of influence and are effectively using them to ensure no one feels disconnected. And it is the process which is helping to support the people and not the people which have become pawns of the process.
I admit, we need process to ensure that people are treated fairly and equitably. Yes--those two words have very different meanings. Yet, sometimes it is relationships outside the process and the established organizational bounds which are essential to success--both in business and in our lives. There are formal relationships and informal relationships. Read another way--business partners and friends. Sometimes it gets really sticky when the same person is in both roles. And when one role changes it can get very complex, if you let it.
So where does that leave us as we consider the question of people or process? I believe good managers and leaders know the strengths and weaknesses of the people around them and from whom they seek assistance and advice. For the good of the organization, it is critical to continue to get good advice regardless of the process. Often, we seek advice form the sounding board person who is not so ingrained in the process that they provide, free of organizational fluff, unvarnished assessments of what's what.
There, ideally, is a congruence of process with people. But sometimes because of organizational limitations this does not happen. In this case, we surround ourselves with the best advisers we can and work through the process to move the organization forward--sometimes despite its own inertia.
I think of it as circles of influence and I'm sure I picked it up in a management class sometime in my past. I am part of many circles--social, organizational, familial. Some of the circles are formal, some informal. Sometimes these circles of influence intersect. At the point of intersection I am free to draw across the boundaries (color outside the box?) to use everything I touch or that touches me to make decisions and provide background. To do less than this is not to use everything available to face a problem or to celebrate a success. I consider it a critical part of the process.
So of course, to answer my own question. People not process. Relationships are most important because process can destroy relationships and render enthusiasm and joy meaningless. Why is joy important? Because I believe where we are experiencing joy we are moving forward. That's how you can tell if it's all working. If the people are motivated and full of joy for what they are doing, then we are successful as leaders. We have created the right environment which is open and safe. We probably recognize the circles of influence and are effectively using them to ensure no one feels disconnected. And it is the process which is helping to support the people and not the people which have become pawns of the process.
Opening Day - 2008
Baseball is back and hope springs eternal on opening day. Unless of course it's the O's in a rebuilding year. Then it is hope that we won't be too embarrassed or finish behind Tampa Bay in the standings. And after yesterday, we are already one game behind Tampa in the standings after losing our Opening Day game 6-2 to the Rays. But I was there with my three sons and we had a great time at the Yard--or is it Birdland this year?
The new scoreboard is really cool and has a lot more stuff on it. They also upgraded the smaller scoreboards around the stadium. One change I'm still struggling with is the loss of the pitch type and speed. On the smaller screens that used to display that info we now have the pitch count--which I also like and think is a great addition. But why can't we get both?
But all in all, it was a great day with the guys. We watched baseball, we talked, we laughed, and most of all we were together. Baseball does that--it brings people together. If we had won that would certainly have been nice, but this year that may be a bit much to ask for.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Turbulent Week
Happy Easter--a week late. It has been a very busy week and among everything going on I really haven't had time to sit and even think about everything that has transpired. Actually, Easter Sunday was great, We had the entire family over for a classic steak dinner. The family is bigger than it was with the addition of Jax who was great all day.
Jax is doing great--he went to the cardiologist and the report was excellent. We are on the road to treating our little miracle baby as a little boy--who still is a miracle.
In amongst all of that, I played in a racquetball tournament a couple weeks ago and was eliminated in the semi-finals. I actually feel pretty good about that because I had moved up to the A division after winning the B division last fall. Racquetball has been one means to keep the stress away from everything going on.
And baseball season begins for me on Monday with Opening Day for the O's. Go O's. Spring begins with hope
anew. I'm happy that Brian Roberts remains with the team--he is my favorite O. I know he'll probably be gone by mid-season, but I will still wear my Brian Roberts jersey to the games.Let's go O's!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
