Keep Going O's

Another day another come from behind to tie followed by a late inning win! I am believing in these O's. The Baltimore Sun said today that this was the best start in 10 years! I say--enjoy it and keep cheering. I would love to see Oriole Park at Camden Yards rocking again with over 40,000 fans attending a game other than the Yankees or Red Sox.

I am getting to the point where i don't wnat to miss any of the action because--these guys are exciting! Who knows, maybe the O's will be looking to get talent for a pennant run in July rather than renting talent out (like they did Trachsel, last year). This is the American League East and anything can happen.

See you at the yard!

Trust and Teams

Are there trust issues on your team?

How do you know? When there seem to be more and more secrets--things that everyone can't know--there are trust issues. When the words: "Don't tell ___ about ____" are being used, then there are definite trust issues. At this point the team is in trouble.

To develop the closeness which helps teams overcome rough times, secrets need to be minimized. If there is something out there which affects the team--then everyone on the team needs to be aware of it. Look at it another way--if there is an issue and members it is being kept from some members of the team, then the team is not able to fully use all of its resources to overcome the issue. It is like playing a baseball game with only seven players instead of nine. The team is handicapped even before the first pitch.

So the question the leader has to ask is: "Why do I not trust my team with this information?" or "Why do I only trust certain members of the team?" The savvy leader recognizes that there are no real secrets on close teams anyway. The whole idea of secrets and trust may be related to concern about control of the team. But in the end, the trust issues not handled properly will fracture a team and render it ineffective.

How does a leader handle proprietary secrets that senior leadership indicates may not be shared? Don't let the team know you have a secret. Someone else has determined that your team is not trustworthy. The leader's job is to convince that leadership that the team is indeed trustworthy and failing that, do not indicate to the team that there are trust issues with higher leadership. It is really demoralizing for someone to say: "I know what's up and I can't tell you." Coming from the background I do, I fully believe the best approach is to deny knowledge at all of the larger situation for the benefit of the team. Good leaders will protect their team.

But what if someone violates the leader's trust? Look, it's going to happen anyway sometime. The benefits of what I like to call "transparency" far outweigh the potential losses caused by occasional trust violations. We are dealing with people--and people make mistakes and interpret situations very differently. Why give people a reason to believe you are not being honest with them? Both in the good and the bad information. Expect people to be adults and even when getting bad news, set the expectation that bad news will be dealt with in a mature and encouraging manner.

Leaders need to look at themselves. How do they handle honest communication. Killing the messenger of bad news, although I do like the scene from the movie 300, doesn't change the news and generally does not encourage the openness and transparency necessary for effective teams. Leaders need to be able to hear the bad news, too. And to keep openness alive on a team they need to be able to hear bad news from their team.

Trust the members of your team--with the good and the bad. Allow and enable them to participate in decisions and situations which affect members of the team. Do not play the "I've gotta secret" game. Grow the team into one that pulls together when times are tough and plays together when they can and you will have created a team that will rise to levels even the leaders did not imagine possible.

Oriole's Baseball - April 2008

Wow--I'm excited! What a great baseball weekend. This time last year the O's were 1-4--today they are 4-1 and alone atop the AL East!! I have to get excited about it because we need everything that we can to cheer about after ten consecutive losing seasons. And even a glimmer of hope is worth excitement.

The team has demonstrated they can come back. They have been behind in every game they played this year and won 4. Coming from behind to over come 2 or more run deficits on at least four occasions!

I went to the Saturday night game where they came from behind twice to win. It was cold--but the play of the gritty O's kept us at the game believing that something good was going to happen! AND IT DID! 6-4 and the O's win. I watched yesterday's game and saw the O's stick with it until the end--last out. AND WIN!

I do like the continually changing scoreboard and I feel that after this homestand they may actually get the bugs worked out. The team at least returned the pitch-type and speed to the smaller stadium scoreboards. And they even figured out how to still show the pitcher pitch count.

One more small product improvement though--the message of who is warming up in the bullpen should not be placed inside the player's stats on the lower board. Take down the defensive alignment on the upper board to show that message.

Let's go O's

A Day with E

Saturday was a great day. I thought it was going to be a total washout, but then our almost three-year old grandson walked into the day and totally changed my point of view.

About 11AM--he arrived and the women departed with Jackson for places unknown. So it's me and E. Off to the dump to get rid of some of those not going to be used this pool season items. This was E's first ever trip to the dump and he was a bit underwhelmed. He expected to see the BIG dump trucks and only saw the myriad of pick-ups and minivans which go to the residential side during the Saturday time period. But he was happy to watch everything going on.

When we got back I helped him discover flowers and smells. We walked around the gardens smelling hyacinths, and daffodils, rosemary, thyme, oregano and many other things. He really enjoyed the hyacinths and the rosemary. We learned how some flowers smell sweet and some don't. We learned about the smell of grass and forsythia, too. And on the walk we also saw a group of Hostas peaking their heads above the ground for the growing season. I promised to show Ethan what they grow into in a few weeks.

After lunch and nap we went to Home Depot to buy flowers so we could plant them. That was an experience. After being sensitized to the flowers he was all about picking out flowers to plant. So our garden this year was designed by a three-year old. He was very good about planing the flowers, though he was a bit literal when I told him to drop the plant into the hole.

Mowing the lawn was another experience. He rode with me on the tractor as we dodged trees and mowed the lawn. He was a great assistance as we emptied the bags and he began to understand that the clippings in the bags were created by the mower.

The crowning achievement of the day was Wormy. A pet worm and friends. He was all about the worm. And finding more. Digging in the unplanted vegetable garden. A couple of the neighbor children arrived and were also into searching for friends for Wormy. I don't think much about worms on a day to day basis--but I am sure I will always be on the lookout for Wormy and friends to thank them for helping Ethan get in touch with the world.

Teams

I played football in high school. I am always amazed at how much I learned about life and being a member of a team from playing football. I was not a star on the team. More like, as my coach said--I was hamburger for the good players to use and abuse in practice to get ready for the games. I knew my place, I knew my mission and I did it as well as I could so that the team was successful. And for the two years I played varsity, the team went 17-0-1. I did my part, everyone else on the team did their parts and we were successful. We were well coached.

Leaders need to know the members of their teams. We have to learn to make the team successful by maximizing individual strengths and using others to fill in the weaknesses. Everyone can contribute--but they need to know their place and how they are going to contribute. Some will be the stars and be in front doing the high pressure presentations. Others will be in the background--the hamburger, getting what the presenters need to "win one" for the team.

On a sports team, players have different positions; similarly on work teams people fill different positions. The job of the leader (coach) is to put the right players in the positions where they can have the greatest impact for the entire team. Not everyone may be playing in their best position if there is a lack of talent in a particular area. But it is still up to the leader to maximize everyone's talent for the good of the team.

How do you maximize talent? Tear down and remind everyone how many shortcomings they have? Or build up and encourage them by reminding them that everyone makes mistakes, but no single person causes failure. If it is a team sport--everyone plays a part. But everyone working to their potential is a surer means to success than minimizing the abilities of the less talented. There is a place for everyone. And once the team is comfortable working together, begin to encourage everyone to increase their skills and, therefore, value to the team.

Let me give an example. How well would someone continue to be motivated for a team if the leader came to someone who is definitely giving 100 percent for the team and is one of the stalwarts on the team and encouraged them by saying: "You're really not that talented, if you want an assessment why don't you send a tape of your play to some scouts and see what they say?" Sounds like the leader has a bigger issues to deal with and is intent on driving someone they consider a threat away. And who loses? Everyone! The team member, the other members of the team, and even the leader. The team member knew, "I never had any aspirations of playing at the next level, I was happy to do what I could do right here with this team and these people." sometimes it is more about who you are with than clawing to the next level--whatever that is. And the obvious personal assessment of an exchange like this? I'm not valued--maybe it's time to move on.

Leaders have to get over their own frustrations (and pride) of being where they are versus where they want to be. The team you have is the team you have. Work with it or go somewhere else. Encouragement is critical. How many Cinderella teams with definitely less talent have shown superior talented teams that a close-nit, well-coached team can overcome the odds and win? I think the last Super Bowl is a good example. It is the same in all of the teams we are members of. A close, motivated, well-led team will almost always succeed.

Great leaders encourage their teams to success and facilitate developing close relationships between the members. Key word--encourage!

Communication - Email

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.