Random Thoughts from a CTO: Leadership

Let Your People Learn!

Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:58:32 GMT

I have learned a long time ago that as a manager (or a parent for that matter) you can be overprotective and micromanage trying to ensure that the people you work with don't make mistakes. Especially those mistakes that you have experienced in your lifetime. However, all of your hard work cannot keep mistakes from happening. It is inevitable. By being overprotective and micromanaging you are robbing people of the very thing that keeps mistakes from happening in the future - by learning from your mistakes.

If you are going to help people not make mistakes, they need to understand what they did wrong and try to figure out how they will avoid the mistake in the future. They can only truly understand and want to make correction if they experience it firsthand. They may understand that the stove is hot and can hurt you, but to truly value that advice they may need to touch the stove to find out. Despite your best intentions on keeping them away from the stove, they may test your judgment by touching when your back is turned. Then they will know never to do that again. Others may take your advice and never try to touch the stove, but they will always be questioning your judgment.

The same goes with management. As a manager, you have learned that there are certain processes and policies that are exist because of past mistakes either learned by yourself or others. These processes and policies were put in place to avoid those mistakes in the future. By how do you know that they are stay relevant over time? Compliance to processes and policies isn’t enough. Just like the stove, the underlying assumptions and judgments that were made need to be challenged.

When you learned to ride a bike, somebody helped you get the skills down as well as learning how to balance by holding the bike along side of you. That gave you confidence initially. Then the person let go. At first, you failed miserably and perhaps even skinned up a knee. The person can back and gave you some tips and held some more. Then the person let go again. This time you made a little more progress. Eventually, the person helping had to stop helping and let you learn how to ride your bike. Otherwise, if they kept holding the bicycle for you, you would end up relying on them for a long time and it would take you much longer to venture on your own. Both you and the person helping you would be much more frustrated.

As a manager, it is important that mistakes are not made so that quality and efficiency are at its peak. However, this can't be accomplished if you are "protecting the stove" too much. Instead, you need to provide the guidance and flexibility to help people "ride the bike". Let them make some mistakes, and then teach them to learn from them. In the end, their skills and appreciation of processes and procedures that are in place will be valued. Those processes and procedures will also be tested to ensure that they are relevant today as they were when they were put into place.

Managing without YOU

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:08:56 GMT

If you are a manager, have you ever had the thought when planning a vacation: "How long can they manage without me?" A day? A few days? Over a week? Longer? How you answer that and what happens when you return after a period of time is very telling on how you manage others.

If my answer is "a day", this means that my team depends too heavily on me for daily decisions and I am a major bottleneck in their productivity. They don't have any authority to make decisions. Everything has to come through me. This is a result of a lack of delegation, autonomy, and enough understanding of roles and responsibilities for each individual and functional area. If my answer is too long, say a couple of weeks or longer, that could be another problem. This means that my team doesn't need to report back to me or need my help in making longer term decisions. They don't have any accountability to report back to me. Chances are that they may be making some assumptions that at least need to be validated by me. I need to be there to provide checkpoints to ensure that the team has what they need and are making the correct assumptions in their decision making.

Here's how our department is made up: We have a cross-matrix between projects and functional areas of operation. Within projects, we have a couple of full-time project managers that manage several dedicated project teams. These teams represent not only each functional area of operation within our department, but also other departments. The project managers manage the overall cost, schedule, quality and scope of projects that are assigned to the groups by myself and other departmental managers. If something significant changes in any of these areas, the project managers are to escalate issues to one or more of the departmental managers. If I am not here, these departmental managers will assist in my absence.

The other part of the matrix is dedicated teams for each functional area of operation. Roles and responsibilites of each of these areas are clearly understood by each team. They are lead by part-time functional managers who not only help provide direction and esclation but also work along side the others on the team in the same functional role. If something significant changes in each of the areas, the functional managers are to escalate issues to me as their departmental manager. Since these functional areas don't change very much in roles and responsibilities, escalation doesn't really happen. Most of the issues are around projects, so they go to the Project Manager for escalation.

So what do I do? Don't you have too many managers, you might ask? I don't think so, because my role is beyond daily operations which is pretty much handled by this group. Each manager is focused on particular functional roles and particular projects. I am the orchestra leader. I am looking at the projects and department as a whole, making sure that cross-project or cross-functional interactions are working smoothly. I also meet with the managers on a weekly basis to make sure that they all are on the same page with me. I also focus on overall improvements to areas that are weaker and work with the appropriate managers and groups in coordinating those efforts. My focus is also on the future direction for the department, where we are going and how to get there.

So how long do I think they can manage without me? Given the way I have set things up, I would say a couple of weeks without at least talking with managers to make sure things are going ok. How long was it when I first started managing? I would say only a couple of days at the most without a lot of chaos and work to come back to. I would say that I have made progress! I also have to be comfortable with the fact that people can be trusted to get the job done without me to a certain degree. This is difficult for many managers, as they want to or have to feel like they are the most important and smartest person in the room. For me, I have the confidence that I have my place, while being surrounded by very important and smart people (many much smarter than me!). However, when I am in the office I expect people to come to me when they are having problems or need some direction. I don't want things to take longer than possible. If I am the bottleneck waiting on a decision, I want them to make the decision without me and bring other people into the decision as necessary. However, if they are the bottleneck spending too long making a decision, I expect to be involved to help remove that bottleneck (or escalation to another departmental manager in my absence).

Changes - Resistance is futile

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:00:16 GMT

You can't be a leader if you are unwilling to embrace change. Sticking with the status quo, with the mindset of "if it doesn't break, why fix it?" is only a short-term solution. Something will break eventually. Therefore, if you want to be a successful leader, you must be proactive and make changes now that will avoid the "break" in the future to be much more significant.

Don't be fooled, though change is necessary it is very difficult. If not planned well, it could cause major disruptions. It is human nature for many to be against change, because it takes us out of our comfort zones. Therefore, you must ease the change carefully and communicate constantly (including listening) to make sure that people can see the value and need for change but also to reduce conflicts and risks through the process. I am a big fan of having "pilot" projects, in which you only impact a subset of people while still maintaining the status quo. This gives you a chance to prove out the change and work through all of the kinks before unleashing it on others.

When I was a project manager, it was part of my vocabulary to resist change. To stick on the agreed scope of the project and make assumptions on the unknowns and risks to minimize any chance of change. No matter how much the customer wanted to put something in later in the project, I resisted such requests. Sometimes it worked and the project was kept on task. Most of the time it left the customer feeling very frustrated that they couldn't change their minds. It also ended up require "heroics" by the team to keep things on schedule even though their originial assumption were incorrect and things came up that caught the team by surprise. I knew that resisting change was causing these problems, but didn't know a different way to develop and manage software projects to properly embrace change. It wasn't until I begin to learn and embrace the ideas of agile software development that I saw I wasn't alone in the stuggle and that there was indeed a better way!

As a leader, change can come in different forms. People leave companies, with them you lose skills and particularly knowledge that will need to be transferred to others. Sometimes that it is easy, sometimes it requires reorganization. Technologies can change from underneath you. Products can become discontinued, or support become limited because the company has moved to newer technologies. Therefore, the tools you use in your work would need to change. The markets and customers that you serve could change and create whole new markets or different "players" because of mergers and acquistions. Therefore, you might see changes in your products and services that you didn't anticipate. Sticking with the status quo with all of these kinds of changes could not only stop working but could get you quickly off-course. Therefore, if you want things to keep flowing, you got to be one step ahead on where the flow is taking you and make course corrections as needed. Those that can successfully do that, without major impact to the organization, is considered a great leader.

Management by Time Shifts

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:17:29 GMT

When managers are making their decisions, are those decisions based on past performance, current state of things, or future predictions? I would argue that it seems most managers I have met (myself included) seem to migrate towards one of these in their decision making process.

Those that focus on past performance want to know what events in the past have caused this issue to occur. They want to know the history. They also look to historical decisions as the template for making decisions now. They truly believe that "if it worked before, it should work again". They also struggle with changing course as they are comfortable with the status quo. "If it worked in the past, it should work now, so don't break it". They believe that even though the times have changed, the issues remain the same, and the decisions they make are tried and true. They don't see the world changing as much as they just see it getting older since we have already learned what we need to know.

Those that focus on the current state of things react very differently. They live in the moment. The next phone call becomes the most urgent matter to resolve. They consider things in the past are just that - in the past. Those are over and done with, we are in the here and now. They see the future as something that is highly unpredictable, dynamic and blurry, so they don't see the value of planning too far ahead. "Why put the effort into a plan that will be changing?" is their motto. Their decisions are based on current urgency and quick fixes regardless of their long term impact. They see the world changing so much that it is best to focus on now!

Those that focus on future predictions like to plan. The want to get an idea of the vision of the future. With the decisions that they make now, they want to ensure that those decisions impact future decisions in the positive way. Therefore, the quick and dirty fixes are not acceptable as a better solution is to do something now that could be flexible for the future. They know that plans will change, but value having a road map to remind them of what was desired for the future at a particular time. They see the world as what it could become and not necessarily what it is now or what it was before.

If you didn't guess it by reading my other posts, I am one of those that focuses on the future. I get frustrated when decisions are made without regard of the future. I also get frustrated when more emphasis isn't put into long-term planning. However, I also find myself making decisions that don't factor in the other things. There are times where I need to consider past performance. There are times where I may need to do something for the here and now regardless of future impact. I can't based every decision I make entirely on the future.

Though I believe that managers focus primarily on one of these areas, they need to put themselves in others shoes and see the other perspectives. A successful management team is one that has managers with focus on all three areas. That way, they can ensure that all factors have been considered in making decisions. The history of the past is respected, the urgency of the current is considered, and predicting the future is part of knowing where we are heading.

A persistent nature

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:00:28 GMT

te·na·cious t&-'nA-sh&s
persistent in maintaining, adhering to, or seeking something valued or desired

Take a look at the picture on the right. Typically, a seed needs a supportive environment to nurture and grow - plenty of rich soil, water, protected from the elements. However, some plants can make it in environments that are contrary to what is typical. These plants are determine to grow regardless of what is thrown at them. They are true to their purpose - to fulfill their job of growing to full capacity.

In the book Good to Great, Jim Collins says that true leaders for the organization must hold on to Big Hairy Audacious Goals (or BHAGs for short). Though these goals may never fully be realized (or at least in the initial way that they were intended), it is up to the top leaders of an organization to work towards those goals for the long term viability of the company. While those in the company or outside may think such goals are unrealistic and therefore a waste of time to work on, it is up to the leaders to focus on the "big picture" and show progress towards those goals. Even if that progress is a trickle...

As a leader, you need to determine what values and goals you have for yourself and the company you represent. Then, despite all conditions that may be contrary, have a persistent nature and continue to work towards what you value. Just like the plant, if you have tenacity, you will be successful despite what your current environment is. Many times these BHAGs require a huge mindshift for the entire organization to the point where you may be looking at doing business entirely different than you are now. It will be hard for most to see that vision. As a leader, not only must you see that vision of what can become out of what is most important, but you must constantly remind yourself of that.

There are goals that I have been working on in my current capacity for several years. It has been a hard road at times. Sometimes much progress is made, sometimes none at all. Sometimes it's two steps forward, one step back. Sometimes it's one step forward, three steps back. Sometimes there is consensus that we are going in the right direction. Sometimes I can feel like I am alone in that belief. People are amazed of why I haven't given up, what I continue to care and push towards these goals that seem so "out there". I do it because it's important to both the company and me as a leader. If I give up, how can I expect anybody else to keep going?

If you are going to be a leader, you must have a persistent nature. Despite all obstacles, you must your eyes focused on the goal. That goal? Success! Success for your customers, success for you company, and personal success. Sometimes success comes easy, most of the time it takes hard work. Hard work that can sometimes take time to see results. But, just like the plant in the picture above - one day you will begin to see results. Hold on to those results and don't give up! Be tenacious!!

Some Definitions of Leadership

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:27 GMT

"Leadership is "the behavior of an individual. . . directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal." (Hemphill & Coons, 1957)

“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…” (Greenleaf, 1970)

"Leadership is "the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization." (Katz & Kahn, 1978)

"Leadership is "the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement." (Rauch & Behling, 1984)

"Leaders are those who consistently make effective contributions to social order and who are expected and perceived to do so." (Hosking, 1988)

"Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose." (Jacobs & Jaques, 1990)

"Leadership... is the ability to step outside the culture. . . to start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive." (Schein, 1992)

"Leadership is the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed." (Drath & Palus, 1994)

"Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished." (Richards & Engle, 1986)

Found at LeadingToday.org through Be Excellent! blog.

How do you handle praise (that is...if you receive it)?

Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:41:41 GMT

In every book on management, there seems to be a section on providing positive feedback or praise to individuals or groups that you manage. This is a necessary form of recognition and reward, a "pat on the back", that if done properly (not forced, but genuine) can be a very effective tool to help motivate people. I truly believe that people that I lead need this encouragement often for two reasons: 1) To know that I am paying attention to what they are doing, and 2) That they feel appreciated for their hard work which will encourage them to work hard in the future. I get all of that, and subscribe that this is a vital management tool.

This post isn't about praise that a manager gives to those they manage, it's about managers receiving praise from those that they manage. I know that there are managers that expect and encourage the spotlight to be on them and to get this praise often (even if it is forced). However, I am not one of those managers. Instead, I get the opposite reaction. I get VERY uncomfortable taking credit or accepting positive feedback or praise. I never used to feel this way. Before I got into management, I loved to get positive feedback. I can even get praise from others (such as readers of this blog sending me the kind emails) and feel comfortable and enjoy getting it. I just feel awkward about getting it from those that I work with.

Why do I feel this way? I guess because I don't want the spotlight to be on me. I don't want the focus to be on me. I feel very comfortable for others to pay no attention to the "man behind the curtain". I see myself as just the facilitator, the enabler, the traffic cop. I would be nothing if it weren't for the efforts and skills of those that I manage. I know that I play a part in their success, because they need me (I hope) as much as I need them, and I can give them the direction and guidance they need along the way. When I do get recognition from those on my team, I know I should appreciate it but I don't want to crave or expect it. I also know that my part, while significant at times, is just a small part in the machine. Everybody in the organization is that machine. I just help keep it well maintained. They make the engine work.

So, I'm curious, am I alone in feeling this way? Do other managers avoid praise for the same reasons? Or...should I just get over it and accept it as it is?

Can you be friends with those that you manage?

Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:23:10 GMT

I have been in management for coming on 8 years. In that period of time, I have asked myself this question repeatedly. What are the benefits of this? What are the consequences? Can friendships be successful in the long run?

I know there are two camps in this area. The first group would tend to believe that it is best to keep the relationships strictly on a business level. Personal relationships should be kept with those away from the workplace. They would believe that managers will not have the proper level of control or authority with people that are friends verses those that are strictly co-workers. They also believe that if the personal relationship falls apart there could be challenges ahead with the working relationship. After all, this is why many organization frown on workplace romances and prohibit them between a manager and somebody they manage.

The other group would tend to believe that the deeper the relationship, the better you will be in your general interaction. If you know a person better, you will work better with that person. You will know what gets him/her upset, what motivates him/her, how to communicate, how to provide criticism, etc. Those in this group would say that in order to have better collaboration in the workplace you need to have some kind of connection at a personal level. This doesn't necessarily mean you are best friends and do things outside of work (though some activities outside of work are encouraged), but that you know how each other stands in the relationship. Things are more transparent in the relationship - no hidden agendas and the ability to speak your mind without remorse.

In the last 8 years, I have gone back and forth between these two camps. I have tried to be very close to everybody. I have also tried to separate myself from the group to a degree. What have a found out? Neither approach works. My mistake was to think that every person responds to friendships in the same way. This is incorrect. I do have friendships with people that I work with and manage. However, I have strictly working relationships with others.

For those that i have friendships with, there has to be a clear understanding of the working relationship and how it differs from the personal relationship. There will not be any favoritism. I will treat them just like I would anybody else. I may ask them to do things that they don't want to do but need to anyways. Both parties have to have the maturity to know that anything that happens in the workplace should not be taken personally. We can really disagree with something in the workplace, but still remain friends despite our differences. Not everybody can do that.

On the other hand, there are those that prefer to keep the relationship strictly business. This is fine, but you still should invest time in the person to really know who they are and not just what title they have and what tasks they are working on. It is always good to observe and figure out how a person works on the inside - what are they feeling, what motivates or demotivates them, what frustrates them, etc.

I don't believe that a manager should distant themselves to a point where they don't care about people and see people only as replacement widgets and taskers. Know your people. Interact with them. Go ahead and makes friends if it naturally happens. You will know when there is genuine friendship and not. Be consistent on how your treat everybody - friends or no friends. Gain mutual trust and respect. If you do these things, you will find better overall synergy within the team and find as a manager that it is much easier to manage. People will come to you with issues, concerns, questions. They will trust that together those things will get resolved.

As a manager, how would you answer this question?

Unrealistic Optimistic Belief

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:55:47 GMT

Marcus Buckingham in his latest book "The One Thing You Need To Know" elaborates about managing strengths that I found fascinating:

Asking a manager to identify a person's strengths and weaknesses is almost as elementary as asking an artist to identify the primary colors in his palette. As with the artist and his colors, though, what separates the great manager from the mediocre is what he decides to do with these strengths and weaknesses once he's identified them. The mediocre manager believes that most things are learnable and therefore that the essence of management is to identify each person's weaker areas and eradicate them. The great manager believes the opposite. He believes that the most influential qualities of a person are innate and therefore theat the essence of management is to deploy these innate qualities as effectively as possible and so drive performance.

Clearly, these beliefs create diametrically opposed approaches to management. The mediocre manager tends to be a little suspicious of people's strengths and fears that his people will become overconfident and arrogant. Consequently, he thinks that it is his duty to give each employee clear and accurate feedback about their weaknesses. His goal is to get each employee to take full responsibility for their areas of weakness so that they can apply themselves to plugging these gaps. The great manager acts very differently. He is not preoccupied with concerns about overconfidence. Instead, his greatest fear is that he will fail to help each person turn their innate talents into performance.

He goes on to say that the mediocre's claim to fame is based on self-awareness. If a person realizes who they are with a realistic view of what they are and are not capable of, they will correct their behavior and become a better person. The successful manager will instead focus on self-assurance, even when this self-assurance turns out to be unrealistic. The goal is to create a state of mind in each employee that:

Has a fully realistic assessment of the difficulty of the challenge ahead of him, and, at the same time, an unrealistic optimistic belief in his ability to overcome it.

I love this last quote! What this tells me is that my job as manager is not to point out to each employee who they are and what they have been, but who they can become and what they can accomplish. Even to the point of exaggerating that picture into the future. This can apply not only to management but parenthood. What you say can have an impact to the person's (or child's) performance.

For example, if I say to a developer that they are very bad at testing their code and mention that everytime we talk, what is their motivation to become a better tester? While it is true that their weakness may be attributed to skills, it could also be because they have been told that they are bad at it.

On the other hand, if they truly seem to care about quality, you can have this discussion: "I can tell in the time you spend in your code that you really care about what you deliver. Just imagine if what you delivered didn't come back with any complaints or changes. I know that testing takes extra time and you may have had trouble in the past. However, I believe that if you just spend some more time with testing that you will have an awesome level of quality and it will take a lot for others to match it." Now, how do you think that person will respond? If they were weak in that area, they will find ways to become stronger. If they just needed positive reinforcement to motivate them, they got it and are off and running.

If the person truly has weaknesses that cannot be overcome, you will determine that very quickly and can find other ways to work around those weaknesses (such as pairing up the programmer with a good tester in the example above). However, in using this technique you may just as well unlock hidden strengths within a person that just needed to come out. You have to really know the people you are managing and what they are capable of doing, then try to draw out that potential by giving them the unrealistic optimistic belief to overcome their struggles.

Do you know how others value their jobs?

Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:22:04 GMT

If you are a manager, take the following test. Rank the following 10 items with the most important at top in the way that you believe that people you manage would rank them. Determine what is most important to them.

Good Working Conditions - Do I work in a safe environment? Do I have the tools I need? Do I work reasonable hours? Does the culture fit me? Is the place I work in pleasant and attactive? Is the place I work in organized?
Feeling of Being In On Things - Am I included in decisions that impact my work? Am I allowed to share my opinions? Do people consider those opinions? Am I being used to the best of my ability?
Personal Loyalty of Manager - Does the manager have integrity? Does the manager follow through? Does the manager stick up for people they manage? Does the manager have trust and respect?
Promotion in the Organization - Do I have a path for more responsibility? Does that path provide a better title? Does it provide better pay? Does it help my career growth? Are there multiple paths for me to move in the organization?
Tactful Discipline - Does the company hold me accountable? Does it push me when I need it and let me do my work when I am? Is the discipline fair and consistent throughout the organization? Is it done in a way that motivates me instead of being demoralized?
High Wages - Do I feel that my compensation is at least what I feel I am worth? Does the organization invest enough in its people? Can I get higher pay for the work that I am doing elsewhere?
Job Security - Is the company going to be around for awhile? Are they financially sound? Is my particular position valuable to the organization?
Interesting Work - Does the work challenge me? Does it provide opportunity to learn and grow? Is it fun?
Full Appreciation of Work Being Done - Am I rewarded for exceptional work? Is there public and private recognition? Do others feel that my work is important to the success of the organization?
Help on Personal Problems - If I am stuggling, will I get help? Do they care about me as a person and work through issues or weaknesses that I have? Will they recognize that I am having a problem and care to help?

Next, have the people you manage rank them without knowing what your results are. Compare the lists and see what you get.

Managers that have taken this (myself included) believed their employees would rank the survey as following (with the most important at the top):

#1 High Wages
#2 Job Security
#3   Promotion in the Organization
#4 Good Working Conditions
#5 Interesting Work
#6   Personal Loyalty of Manager
#7   Tactful Discipline
#8 Full Appreciation of Work Being Done
#9   Help on Personal Problems
#10 Feeling of Being In On Things

However, when employees were given the same survey, their answers followed this pattern:

#1   Full Appreciation of Work Being Done
#2   Feeling of Being In On Things
#3   Help on Personal Problems
#4   Job Security
#5   High Wages
#6   Interesting Work
#7   Promotion in the Organization
#8   Personal Loyalty of Manager
#9   Good Working Conditions
#10  Tactful Discipline

What does this tell us? While things like wages, promotions, and working conditions have their place, it is even more important that each employee feel that they are making a difference while getting apppreciation and help from their managers. It also shows that managers need to develop their soft skills to work more closely with people - the art of management - vs. those things that don't require as much interaction like wages and work conditions - the science of management.

Team Rebuilding

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:57:42 GMT

You know that you need to rebuild your team if the following things are occurring:

Ineffective meetings - Meetings seem to serve no purpose and are a waste of time. Decisions aren't getting made. Opinions are all over the place which takes the team on wild tangents.
Lack of clear goals - The team doesn't understand their purpose or have very different ideas of what the team is supposed to accomplish.
Complaints - People are the team are either voicing their complaints within the team at meetings or privately with team members or people outside the team. They aren't happy. They are frustrated. It is taking up time and energy that should be focused in getting the team's goals accomplished.
Loss of productivity or output - Deadlines are slipping. Not just an individual but many people on the team. Motivation is down. Morale is down. There doesn't seem to be any energy coming from the group.
Employees feel that their work is not recognized - They may be working hard, but don't feel others on the team are doing their parts. Or, they expect when they come up with a great idea to be rewarded or at least acknowledged by others on the team and management.
Lack or innovation or risk taking - Team is sticking with the status quo. They are drawing within the lines and will not try anything daring. This is either because they just want to get it done, or don't feel that the energy to do so will be appreciated, supported or encouraged.
Lack of initiative - People on the team will only do what is told. They wait for instructions. They don't want to make mistakes otherwise. It's possible that they just don't know where the team is going and don't want to go in the wrong direction by "guessing".
Conflicts between personnel - Eventually, if people on the team aren't focused on the same goals they will have conflicting ideas on how to accomplish something. If the team isn't used to working with each other, it is possible that those conflicts can become personal.
Confusion about assignments - People on the team don't know what next to work on, or are waiting on tasks to be completed by others. They don't understand how their assignments contribute to the overall efforts of the team.
Decisions are made that people do not understand or agree with - If the team doesn't understand their purpose (possibly including management), it is very possible that decisions will be made that aren't aligned with the team's goals. This will cause confusion and frustration among the team.
Poor communication - Without clear direction, communication will suffer. Without communication, you have no team
Lack of trust - Without trust and respect with both teammates as well as management, you have no team. You just have a bunch of individuals trying to work independently with little success.

What the team needs is a Team Builder! As the leader of the team, it is either your job or you need to find somebody to play that role. So once you have the Team Builder in place, how do you go through the rebuild process?

Get people together with no interruptions - Find a place, preferably offsite, that allows the team to focus on the matter at hand. Have people turn off cell phones. Allow enough time to work through the process. It's best to do it all in one meeting, but if you have to break it up into several smaller meetings, schedule them close together.

Refocus on team goals - Talk about the team's purpose in life. What are the goals of the team? Can we measure them? Does everyone understand them? Make sure everybody can answer these questions before proceeding.

Ask three questions against those goals:

"What are we doing right?" - Start with strengths of the team and how to make them the focus.
"What should we stop doing?" - Allow the team to discuss things that aren't working. If they don't fit the goals, get rid of them.
"What could be improved?" - For those things that aren't working and fit into the goals, you need to work with the team to develop action plans on improvement. You need to show the team that the meeting isn't just about talk, but action. You also need to delegate action plans within the team to establish ownership and then talk about deadlines and follow-up to establish accountability.

Monitor the progress - It is your responsibility as Team Builder to check on the progress of your team. Are action plans getting done? If not, why and how can you help? Are things improving on the team?

Repeat as necessary - No matter how solid a team can be, things can slip over time. If you see many of the signs above happening, it's time for a "team checkup". Go through this process as needed to ensure that the team is running as well as possible.

Management and Leadership Fireside Chats

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:45:16 GMT

Lisa Haneberg from Management Craft has started a series of podcasts with several business leaders and bloggers, many of whom I know personally and read their blogs on a daily basis.

Go to her post called Welcome to my Podcast series: Fireside Chats about Management and Leadership for a list of people she will be talking with. She starts the first series today with Dick Richards from Come Gather Round.

I am also in the process of reading Lisa's latest book called "Focus like a Laser Beam" and hope to do a review soon. Lisa will talk about concepts of her book with each of these people from their perspectives.

Thanks Lisa for what I hope will be an exciting series!

The lonely side of leadership

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:40:20 GMT

Remember those commericals many years ago with the Maytag repair man? At the end of every commerical, there was the Maytag repair man desparately waiting by the phone for a call. The point of the commercials was to indicate that Maytag products were SO good that customers didn't need any help because they didn't have any problems.

Interesting thing about leadership, if you aren't doing things right and people don't have direction, you will be swamped with work and discussions to get them involved. However, if you have empowered people; they know what they are supposed to do; and you have provided plenty of direction and feedback mechanisms, you might end up like the Maytag repair man. By all means, this is a VERY good thing because you have been doing your job correctly, but it can feel as you are not needed and invisible at times ("pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"). For many managers, this can be frustrating and provide a little anxiety because you feel you must be always in the middle of things and be visible in your position. Otherwise, there is a fear that people may assume that because you are out of sight, you aren't working. You have to be VERY secure and confident in your abilities and remind at least those you are accountable to that you are doing your job even if they are just seeing the results of it.

Another thing, when you are in non management roles, you usually have plenty of peers to talk with either with questions, concerns, gripes, venting, etc about the job. You talk with these people because they understand your world, some better than others. As you move into management positions, you don't have as many peers as before. Even if you talk with other managers, your jobs are so specific that there may be many things you don't have in common. In other words, your worlds are different enough. As you move into upper management, you get into a world that can be all your own. Again, you have to be VERY secure and confident in your abilities that you are doing the right things. Other than books, training or other outside mentors or coaches you are pretty much on your own. For some, this can be frustrating and provide a little anxiety as well.

By all means, there are plenty of benefits and good things come out of being in management. But, I don't think people see or are prepared for the lonely "dark side" of management. Why is that? A good leader might tell you but also may forget about it. If you are a good leader, you have the confidence and egoless attitude that these kinds of things don't bother you. You also are smart enough to know that you need to get help from the outside as needed. A bad leader will probably never admit that this happens. If you aren't a good leader, you don't ever want things to go well enough that you aren't needed. As a result, you hold on to things and micromanage people just so you feel better that those watching will think you are doing a good job (where in fact, the opposite is true). Of course, those people will also be the last to admit that they need help because that would indicate a weakness and therefore, they would be afraid to be associated with a weak leader. Unfortuately it's too late, only fixing the weaknesses makes you stronger. Avoiding them doesn't make them go away.

Is it management or leadership?

Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:49:57 GMT

I sometimes get caught up struggling with the differences between management and leadership. I see that this is a global problem and that many people use the terms interchangably. There is a difference and I think I might have figured out a way to distinguish the two - it's a timing thing!

Leadership focuses on the future. Why are we going and how are you going to get us there? Even part of the name gives it away - you are leading people some place that they haven't been before. You are in the world of learning and growth - training people, using new technologies, strategies and techniques to provide for a better future. If you aren't good at predicting future events and communicating those to people, you probably aren't leadership material.

Management on the other hand focuses on both the past and present. What have we done in the past? Is it working or not? How do we improve it for the current? You are to manage what currently exists as you are in the world of people and processes, and making sure that people understand processes, and that processes make sense for people. You are in the world of standards, making sure that things are done consistently for efficiency and quality sake. If you aren't good at organizing and don't like to dwell on the past or present, chances are you aren't going to be a good manager.

One can be a good leader but a terrible manager and the other way around. Though both are desired from any management position, most people lean towards either management or leadership. As you can tell from my previous posts, I definitely lean towards leadership. I will do what I need to do to play the management role, but I truly enjoy and desire to play the leadership role more often.

Finding the Sweet Spot in Others

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:19:10 GMT

If you have played golf at all, you may have heard of "the sweet spot". Did you ever just hit the ball and everything seemed to fall into place. You just hit the ball perfectly and it felt almost effortless? If you did, that means that you hit the ball on its sweet spot. I don't know the science of it, but there are actually devices (you probably have seen them in the airline magazines) that will spin your golf balls to determine the location of the sweet spot that you can mark.

However, just identifying the mark isn't enough. It will improve your chance of hitting the ball better, but you still have to hit a good shot. That requires a combination of balance, momentum and timing to go through the mechanics of a good swing in order to hit the ball at the right angle, speed and direction. If you have played golf, you know this is much easier said than done. It takes a lot of discipline, training or coaching, and practice to get to the point of consistency. Then, it requires constant maintenance and tweaking to keep it consistent.

So, what does this have to do with leadership you ask? As a manager, it should be your responsibility to develop people around you in a way that they hit their individual sweet spots and that they hit it consistently. If you do that, you will see success at the department level and will have an impact to the success of the company. There are plenty of theories out there on how to accomplish this (just like the sweet spot identifier device), but it's not enough to know and understand them, you must execute those ideas on a regular basis. This is why many companies struggle with productivity of their people (including myself). It takes a lot of time, patience, and plain hard work to get it right. But, just like those (what seem as rare) times when things just fall together and you hit a fantastic shot and it motivates you to continue playing, same goes with leadership. When you see a person hitting their peak, it is a great thing to witness and you want to continue to see them in that position.

If you have read my other posts, you already know that I am a big fan of Jim Collins and his book Good to Great. There are so many great concepts to learn from that book if you are interesting in making your organization great. He describes one of those concepts:

The essential strategic difference between the good-to-great and comparison companies lay in two fundamental distinctions. First, the good-to-great-companies founded their strategies on deep understanding along three key dimensions. Second, the good-to-great companies translated that understanding into a simple, cystalline concept that guided all their efforts -- hence the term Hedgehog Concept. A Hedgehog Concept is a simple, crystalline concept that flows from deep understanding about the intersection of the folllowing three circles (to read more and see a graphical representation, go here):

What you can be the best in the world at (and, equally important, what you cannot be the best in the world at).
What drives your economic engine.
What you are deeply passionate about.

This concept shows us the sweet spot for an organization. If an organization focuses are the things that are going to make them money, and that they are capable of being good at, and that can motivate people through their passion -- they will be a great company. As with golf, these are easier said than done otherwise many more companies would be great. It takes the execution and patience through that execution to make it happen.

As leaders of an organization, Jim Collins provides the guidelines to help you focus your initiatives on that sweet spot. But, the same principles can be applied to managers of people. As managers, you want to make sure that every one of your people can hit their peak. You can apply these same three principles to get those results:

What can they be the best at? Are they in the right position?  Do they have the right skills, natural or learned, to become the expert?   Are you doing everything you can to grow them into being the best?  One they are in the right place, are you helping that person maintain their expertise?

What drives their economic engine? Are people getting paid for what they are worth?   Are you recognizing and rewards people for their efforts, especially those that go beyond the call of duty?   Do people get more responsibility or opportunities to expand if they have performed well in their duties?

What are they deeply passionate about?   What gets them up in the morning to come to work? What drives them to do a great job? What gets them excited? What things do they do regardless of being asked? Why do they do those things?

Unfortunately, there is no standard answers that will apply to everybody. Each person is unique and you will have different challenges trying to find their sweet spot. For some, they may end up not being right for your department or even the company based on these answers. If so, let them transfer or encourage them to find other opportunities. This is the "hard part" of the manager's job much like the great golfer, yet the rewards are well worth the work. Not only will you have more motivated employees, but you will see great productivity and quality results once you find their "sweet spots" and making sure that they hit that ball consistently!

My significant life experience (so far)

Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:25:56 GMT

I'll start this post with some quotes from the great book Good to Great. When I first read this, though it was a minor part of the book it personally helped define what I had gone through a few years ago (more on that later...). In talking about leadership that is needed for a Great organization, Jim Collins elaborates on whether or not you can learn to become Level 5 leadership (his definition of that leadership). Here's what he has to say:

"My hypothesis is that there are two categories of people: those who do not have the seed of Level 5 and those who do. The first category consists of people who could never in a million years bring themselves to subjugate their egoistic needs to the greater ambition of building something larger and more lasting than themselves. For thos people, work will always be first and foremost about what they get - fame, fortune, adulation, praise, power, whatever - not what they build, create, and contribute."
"The second category of people - and I suspect the larger group - consists of those who have the potential to evolve to Level 5; the capacity resides within them, perhaps buried or ignored, but there nonetheless. And under the right circumstances - self-reflection, conscious personal development, a mentor, a great teacher, loving parents, a signifcant life experience, a Level 5 boss, or any number of other factors - they begin to develop."

Now, I will start out saying that I don't believe I am yet a Level 5 Leader, though I aspire to become one. But, it was encouraging to see there were circumstances that happened to Level 5 leaders that started the process. For me, the process started August 23, 2001, and the events for the next couple of months changed my life forever especially in respect to leadership. But, let's go back a little earlier...

I moved into a management position from being one of the developers several years earlier. My manager saw something in me and had the faith in me to give me the opportunity. However, I had NO experience in the position -- I hadn't gone to leadership training, received an MBA, or had prior management experience. I was as raw as they come. My first few years were pretty easy it seemed - no huge challenges and things seemed to come easy. I was about to have my most difficult series of tests as a leader and person.

The early part of 2001 was very difficult for our company financially. The bubble had burst with Internet stock, and we saw our 401K and mutual funds disappear before our eyes. Customers of ours decided to wait it out and see if the market rebounded, so they weren't looking to expand their business or spend lots of money on solutions. Thus, our sales dropped to an all-time low in the history of the company. Therefore, our revenue was reduced and we were accumulating big losses every month. Something had to change. We were also in debt so the option of getting more money through loans was not possible. Therefore, expenses had to be cut which meant people. August 23, 2001. Though I have had to fire people that hadn't performed, I had never personally performed a layoff. That day I had to lay off several people. Each one of them was harder than the first. I saw people cry. I saw friendships I had with them suffer. Here were people that wouldn't lose their jobs otherwise having to leave the company immediately. That was the hardest day in my life. But, it wasn't over yet...

I received a call just before going to sleep that night from my mom. She was not making any sense. After I calmed her down a bit, she said that she was at the hospital....the rest of the conversation became fuzzy for me except the part that my father had died almost instantly from a massive heart attack. It was beyond belief for me, but I knew I had to travel 2000 miles to be with my family and handle things. Not being able to say goodbye was perhaps the hardest. My dad had been the "Father Knows Best" variety, always trying to give me the advice. I wished I had paid more attention to the advice. I wished that I was allowed one more conversation with him. I was not granted that wish. I had to be strong for my mother and family by handling the funeral arrangements, will, finances, etc.

You learn a lot about a person after they die. In the next few days, I learned a lot of great qualities about my father. He was a very giving person. He contributed a lot of money and time towards people. It seemed every person that was there had been personally impacted by my dad's generousity. He affected many lives beyond my own. My dad had always been a role model, but at that moment I started thinking about what people would say about me when I died. Would I have that kind of impact? At that point of time, I realized that not only is life precious and you need to live for the moment, but every moment you should work at making a difference in somebody else's lives. I returned home right after Labor Day. I had not been able to really think about work, but I realized that I had been gone for over a week and was not able to help pick up the pieces from the layoffs. People needed hope more than ever. Rumors were rampant. Fears were escalated. However, hope was going to have to take a bad seat for what was to happen next.

I woke up on Sept 11th just like any day. My routine was to get up, have some breakfast, and watch the local news. I turn on the TV and there is some story in New York about a plane hitting a building. At first, they thought it was a small plane that had hit one of the Twin Towers. Then it became bigger than that as you know the rest. I was glued to the TV for the next hour. When the first tower fell, I realized that though my family needed me I also needed to be there for people at work. When I got to work, it felt strange. Nobody of course was working, everybody was in shock. Though most of us didn't know anybody in the Towers, of even in Manhattan, we are felt a personal loss. This loss strangely not only made us stronger as a nation, but really bonded us as a company.

Over the next few weeks, we were in the process of healing. However, financially our company was not recovering. The events of Sept 11 and the weeks following caused our sales to essentially stop for a few week. We had very little revenue coming in. Therefore, more cuts were necessary. We had not one, but two layoffs in the next couple of months. My team was reduced by 40%. During those layoffs, it was like I didn't have feelings anymore, I was just going through the motions.

All of these events could have destroyed a person. People would have understood if I had sunk into a deep depression or had decided to change jobs or something else in my life. However, I had to make a choice. Either this will destroy my life or make me stronger. I choose the higher but harder path. It would have been much easier to play the victim. I realized at that moment that I was not only responsible for my own life but the lives of others - the people I manage as their "boss" and my family as the "father". Life was not only short, and needed purpose, but was shared with others on a personal level.

This was a significant life experience. I don't watch the morning news anymore. I live each day as its own. I focus on a future that brings security, hope, and unity to the people I influence. It isn't about me but us. Some may called that co-dependency, but I call it true leadership. I need them as much as they need me. We have to do it together. I also do more than ever to learn - learn how to be a better person, a better father, a better husband, a better leader, a better decision maker, etc. I can't learn enough it seems. In the end, I want to be known as a great person - not for my ego because I'll be dead anyway, but I want to think that I had changed people's lives for the better and I had truly made the difference.

Business killers or killer leaders - which do you choose?

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:42:27 GMT

Over at Slow Leadership, there is a great post this week entitled "Business Killers". Here is the introduction:

It amazes me that more businesses don’t realize how much conventional leadership and management styles are holding them back. They’re like someone in a car with their left foot on the brake and their right foot pressing the gas pedal. The engine — the people in the business and all the business systems — is revving flat out, but they’re getting nowhere fast. After a while, all those extra revs lead to burnout and collapse. If they’d only take their foot off the brake, they would be able to achieve so much more with far less effort. Instead, they drive their people harder and harder. Extra effort cannot make up for a lousy style of management, but no one seems to have time to stop and question what’s going on.

An excellent comparison is made between "business killers" and "source of leadership values". Here is each comparison with my own two cents thrown in for good measure:

Quick-fix mentality vs. Patience and Thoroughness - The world moves too fast sometimes, and the tendency for many is impatience to take the time to do the right thing. If there is a solution that is faster, even if that solution isn't the best choice, most likely will be used if the situation is considered a crisis. Sure, there are emergencies but things are usually blown out of proportion. As a leader, it is best to step back, get the right perspective on the situation, and encourage everybody to take the time to think things out and do the right solution.
Driven, dictatorial approach vs. Supportive, helpful style - Too many managers believe that the other way to get things done is to do it yourself. If you must have others do the work, you will be very clear on how the work will be done and you will be checking this person along the way as it is done. This is plain wrong! Why? Well, because you have intelligent, knowledgable, skilled workers that the organization is paying to do that work. If they can't accomplish the job, they shouldn't work there. It is the leader's job to provide direction and a place to go when people get stuck. Those people also need to know that they have the trust and respect that should be given to them through delegation. Leaders let people do their jobs, not do it for them!
Stress, Burnout vs. Sensible working place - Why should people work overtime? Because they are so focused and excited about their work and progress that they have to be asked to go home. Why should people not work overtime? When it isn't their choice, and a result of bad planning or management decisions. Every individual needs to pace themselves, they need time to recharge through vacations and other time off. Creating an environment where 50-60 hours and working weekends will create stress, burnout and eventually turnover. Do you really want to lose your most valuable resources - people - because they were overused and underappreciated? Leaders know the right answer to this question.
Tired, conventional ideas vs. Deep insight - "If it works, don't break it" should be "Can we make it work better". "This worked before, let's try it again" should be "What's the right thing to do this time?" It takes hard work to get to deep insight. It's the easier road to use the tired, conventional path. However, you aren't being innovative. You aren't making things better. You are just sticking with the status quo. Somewhere along the way you will be left behind because others will have passed you because of their deep insight. Can you afford to be left behind?
Short-term, results-driven vs. Long-term, survival-driven - You need leaders who are forward thinkers. They aren't just thinking about the present, but the next 5 months, and the next 5 years. You need these people to be involved in critical key decisions. Otherwise, you won't see the bend in the road ahead of you and make decisions that may make sense now but in the long term could be a costly mistake. Sure, there are decisions that have to be made that are better for the short term only and you may not have time to put in place a better long term solution. However, these should be exceptions and not the rule. Plus, everybody making those short-term decisions need to understand, appreciate and prepare themselves for the long-term impacts of that decision.
Follows "industry standards" vs. Follows wise precepts - A wise person told me awhile ago told me that he didn't like "methodologies". I asked him why (being that up to that point I was sold on a particular methodology). His answer "Because one size doesn't fit all. I would rather have a toolkit of best practices to tap into when a particular tool is needed than to have to use tools whether or not they make sense". From then on, I have encourage people and we have developed processes when they need to be in place. Otherwise, we talk more about the "meaning of the law" than the "letter of the law". In other words, what goals and principles do we want to follow? First, make sure people understand what you are accomplishing and why. If they understand that, they will find the best way to get it done. Heavy processes are in place in organizations because they don't trust that people would get the job done without them. Lighter processes are in place in organizations where they rely on smarts and brain power to make the right decisions and do the right things as long as there are general guidelines that everybody should follow for consistency and direction.
Cheap and nasty tricks vs. sound ethical principles - If you back in against the wall, will you compromise your values (and hopefully the organization's ethical values)? You need to make sure you have people in place (especially in management positions) that you have confidence the answer that they will make. You can't risk having people with shaky principles in your organization. We've seen what happens to those kinds of organizations. Don't play games. Don't try to get away with things. Do what is right and you'll always win!

A Leadership "Physical"

Thu, 25 May 2006 15:24:30 GMT

With my mind, am I...

Constantly learning how to do my job better?
Keeping up on my knowledge to provide help to others?
Encouraging others to take the time to improve themselves through learning?
Giving others opportunities in their jobs to understand more?

With my ears, am I...

Listening to the people around me?
Just wanting to hear things that sound good?
Ensuring that people are really hearing what I have to say?

With my eyes, am I...

Looking around for: issues to resolve? areas to improve? ideas to better our customers?
Seeing things through the eyes of those that I lead?
Providing a clear vision for others to understand?
Being transparent enough for others to see the true me?

With my mouth, am I...

Saying the words that encourage and motivate others?
Doing enough communication face-to-face instead of nonverbal through email?

With my hands, am I...

Trustworthy and do what I promise?
Willing to do the work that I am asking others to do?
Encourage others to work as a team by helping each other out through collaboration?

With my heart, am I...

Showing that I really do care about those I lead?
Getting to know those I lead as people and not just workers?
Saying thanks to people through recognization and praise?

With my stomach, am I...

Willing to make the tough decisions that nobody else is willing to do?
Willing to take enough risks to get things done?

With my legs, am I...

Walking around and interacting with people instead of hiding in my office?
"Walking the walk" by being an example for others to model?

The Leadership Barometer

Thu, 04 May 2006 22:07:07 GMT

As leaders, we have our individual highs and lows just like the next person. However, as a leader, others are always watching you. What you do during the highs and lows can have an impact to your organization in ways you never imagined. I have learned firsthand how powerful this "leadership barometer" is.

Low pressure = stormy weather ahead.

Everybody likes to vent their frustrations every now and then. When I first started in management, I had the tendency to vent about things that I was struggling with -- people or processes. At first, I believe that some of these people probably enjoyed learning more about what happens "behind the curtain". I soon found that through my venting I perhaps wasn't portraying events in a reasonable way. I also saw that people started taking my venting as gospel since they were experiencing things through my eyes. Though I thought I was just being honest with people that I lead, I found that I was starting what is called in some circles a "climate of blame". This starts a downward spiral where morale will slip, people will blame the next person for issues and nobody takes care of business. Trust goes away, and people lose faith in the vision and future of the organization. It can become a miserable place to work at. And it can start by just a little venting from a manager...

High pressure = clear and sunny skies to come.

Once I realized what I had caused, I knew that I needed to change my actions for others to change theirs. This is MUCH easier said than done, as it takes awhile before your actions can change people's perspections of the truth...especially if those perspection were not their own but came from their manager. What I needed to do was turn the "climate of blame" into a "climate of trust" once again. It all started with something my dad taught me a long time ago, "If you don't have anything good to say about a person or situation, don't say anything at all." I stopped my venting. I focused my talk on progress that has been made. I pointed out good things about people and the actions they were doing. I found my own attitude improving, but even more so, I started to see others became more positive. They trusted me, because I showed trust to others that good things will eventually happen. I didn't sugar coat things either, I just spoke when there were good things to say, and stayed quiet when I didn't feel anything good would come from the conversation.

Look around your organization. What is your current climate?

Dark, cloudy and storms approaching?

Or good weather ahead?

Either way, I bet you had something to do with it. If the climate isn't what it should be, examine your own words and actions, and CHANGE THEM!

Check your leadership barometer often and make sure it is pointing in the right direction.

Be, Know and Do

Wed, 03 May 2006 18:04:27 GMT

Here's a framework that I have used in the past to help others understand what leaders need to aspire to become. This is a good reminder of things that as a leader I need to be teaching other people so that they can become leaders. It's simple, straightforward, and easy to remember.

BE...

A professional. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions. Search for ways to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they will eventually, do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge.
A professional who possesses good character traits. Develop good traits within yourself, such as honesty, competence, candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforward, imagination. Develop good character traits within your team that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.

KNOW...

Yourself. Know yourself and seek self-improvement. In order to know yourself, you have to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self-improvement means continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished through reading, self-study, classes, etc.
Human nature. Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.
Your job. Be technically proficient. As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid familiarity with your employees' jobs. Train your people as a team. Although many supervisors call their organization, department, section, etc., a team; they are not really teams...they are just groups of people doing their jobs.
Your organization. Use the full capabilities of your organization. By developing a team spirit, you will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities.

DO...

Provide direction. Make sound and timely decisions. Use good problem solving, decision-making, and planning tools. Keep your team informed. Know how to communicate with your team, seniors, and other essential people within the organization.
Implement. Develop a sense of responsibility in your team. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished. Communication is the key to this responsibility.
Motivate. Set the example. Be a good role model for you employees. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see. Know your team and look out for their well being.

A Credo Memo

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:35:58 GMT

A true leader must understand the values of the company and how they align with their personal values. It is their responsibility to ensure that their actions as well as the actions of those that they lead follow those values. Given the importance of those values, you need to make sure that the people you lead are prepared to continue the legacy that you have helped established (or maintained/improved through prior leadership).

In the book The Leadership Challenge, the authors have an exercise to help you understand those values and how to communicate. It is called the Credo Memo. It goes something like this:

"Imagine that your organization has afforded you the chance to take a six-month sabbatical, all expenses paid. The only hitch is that you may not take any work along on this sabbatical. And you will not be permitted to communicate to anyone at your office or plant while you are away. not by letter, phone, fax, e-mail, or other means. Just you, a few good books, some music, and your family or a friend. But before you depart, those with whom you work need to know the principles that you believe should guide their actions in your absence. They need to know the values and beliefs that you think should steer their decsions making and action taking. After all, you'll want to be able to fit back in on your return. You are permitted no long reports, however. Just a one-page Credo Memo. Take out one piece of paper and write that memo."

So, here is my Credo Memo:

M E M O R A N D U M
To: My Department
Subject: Think before you act
In my absence, think about what we are doing for our customers. Develop the highest quality of service and product possible to our customers. Find ways to make their jobs easier through the usability of our products. Make sure that all new features, improvements or products will truly improve the customer’s profitability either through cost savings or new opportunities.
Think about your everyday workloads. Spend every hour as wisely as possible. Do things smarter and better, not necessarily faster. Ensure that the processes, tools and practices that you use and recommend to others are achieving the necessary results between quality, efficiency and effectiveness in providing service and products to our customers.
Think about your particular role in the teams that you are involved in. Each person on the team is expected to be the expert in his or her areas. If you are not an expert, find ways to develop that expertise through training, research or other opportunities. If you believe you are an expert, make your voice heard and do everything you can to maximize your contribution to the team’s success.
Think about the teams that you are involved in – functional, project, departmental or organizational. Let’s remember that we are all on the same team. Do everything you can in getting to know, trust, respect and appreciate the other team members as individuals. Maximize the team’s creativity, knowledge, experience, communication and collaboration to come up with the best solution in a timely manner. Part of this requires a balance between hard work and hard play, so don’t forget to find ways to have fun together as a team.
In order to learn and grow as individuals, be willing to take risks and make mistakes. Learn from the past and focus on the present while not ignoring your current understanding of the future. Challenge the status quo and expect that there is always a better way to do things by stepping outside the box. Remember that you are not just an expense to the organization, but an investment and an asset. Do whatever you can to maximize that investment and your value to the company while recognizing and rewards the investment and value of others.

Do you know your values and beliefs? Do they align with your organization? Have they been communicated successfully?

I learned a lot about myself, what I believe in and what was important to me through this exercise. I also firmly believe that if you asked people that I lead, they would identify things in my credo memo with something that I have said or done. I have distributed these to my team, and have used this information to re-communicate values as needed for reinforcement.

If you are in a leadership position, I strongly encourage you to try this exercise. This may be a difficult exercise for some as it requires giving up a little more of yourself and giving it to others. If you do it, you will define your legacy. The next step is to make sure others follow your legacy, whether it is a six-month or permanent leave. This is through your communication and your actions.

Sadly, too many companies rely solely on the values and actions of their leaders...when those leaders leave, the company loses a part of itself. The more influencial the leader, the greater the effect. It doesn't have to happen this way. If you establish leaders around you and they understand the legacy you want to leave behind, the company doesn't have to suffer your loss. Because, in a way, it will be as if you never left!

How do you react with bad things happen?

Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:16:45 GMT

Bad things happen. It's the natural course of things. A project you are working on can go bad - late and over budget. A product you are selling has a slump. Key people change jobs. Software has bugs. People are human. You can't predict what will go wrong and when. However, you can do something about it when it does!

There are really two major approaches people take when bad things happen.

Focusing on the problem. "Why did this happen to me?" "Who caused this?" "I can't do anything about it, it has happened." It's easy to start assigning blame for problems. It's also easy for people to use problems as a crutch as something that is out of their control. They are wrong on both counts!
Getting to the solution. "What can we learn from this?" "How do we fix things that have happened?" "How do we prevent this from happening again?" Analyze the problem, but don't get fixated on it. Ask the right questions to get to solutions. People are looking to you to fix things, not just to point out the obvious!

Yes, something has already happened and you can't change that. But, you can do something about what happens next! When things go wrong, it's a great test of a leader to see what path he or she chooses to go. I have chosen the higher path of getting to the solution, it takes more time but is more rewarding. When I do that, I have seen how I have personally grown as a manager and a person from the experience. Too many managers can spend a lot of time and effort focusing on a problem that may never happen again. Their energy is focused on what when wrong and who did it. The same energy could have been applied to getting to the solution. After all, there still is a problem and has to get fixed!

I find that it is when bad things happen that really determine what you are capable of as a leader. Most anybody can manage an organization when things are going right and everything seems to be working. If you focus on getting to the solution every time, you will at least address what is critical at the time. Then, you can go back after the solution has been provided and figure out what went wrong. Not to point blame, but to see what amount of control you have in the future. You may find that it could have been predicted and should be that way the next time. You also may find out that it was something unpredictable and out of your control. Don't waste your time in trying to fix something that falls under this category. Do, however, have contigency plans and policies in place to take care of problems when those things happen. That is good management. That is the test of true leadership!

The Person Behind the Curtain

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:18:15 GMT

Joel Spolsky of Joel on Software fame, came out with an interesting essay called "The Development Abstraction Layer". He starts out talking about a programmer who has gone off on their own. This programmer has great talent for writing code, and believes that they can make it on their own developing software. However, once the programmer begins to sell his wares things start to fall off. Business isn't taking off as they had wished. What went wrong, asks the programmer? Their answer lies in lack of "marketing", something the programmer knows little about but knew it was missing. Joel describes that there is much more to what is described as "marketing" than the programmer understands:

Any successful software company is going to consist of a thin layer of developers, creating software, spread across the top of a big abstract administrative organization. The abstraction exists solely to create the illusion that the daily activities of a programmer (design and writing code, checking in code, debugging, etc.) are all that it takes to create software products and bring them to market. Your first priority as the manager of a software team is building the development abstraction layer.

A programmer is most productive with a quiet private office, a great computer, unlimited beverages, an ambient temperature between 68 and 72 degrees (F), no glare on the screen, a chair that's so comfortable you don't feel it, an administrator that brings them their mail and orders manuals and books, a system administrator who makes the Internet as available as oxygen, a tester to find the bugs they just can't see, a graphic designer to make their screens beautiful, a team of marketing people to make the masses want their products, a team of sales people to make sure the masses can get these products, some patient tech support saints who help customers get the product working and help the programmers understand what problems are generating the tech support calls, and about a dozen other support and administrative functions which, in a typical company, add up to about 80% of the payroll.
Management's primary responsibility to create the illusion that a software company can be run by writing code, because that's what programmers do.

Though I don't agree with all that Joel believes a programmer needs (I have found private offices to reduce overall team collaboration and productivity), I do agree with him that bottom line what is needed by customers is working software. A big part of that is based on the programming team. Management needs to make sure that these people can do their jobs and that the "supporting cast" which includes documentation, testing, training, support staff, sales, marketing, etc. are ready with their work alongside this working software. If management is doing their job, these things are being taken care of outside the knowledge of the programmer. After all, shouldn't they focus on their work getting done instead of somebody else's work? Anything that is not working, where management is not doing their job by removing roadblocks, reducing risks, providing direction, and anticipating needs, will quickly be noticed by not just programmers but everybody. That's usually when programmers think about management, but not in a great light.

I, as a manager, would rather be out of sight, out of mind from their perspective. Pay no attention to "the person behind the curtain"... If the programmers (and everybody else for that matter) are able to focus on their work and provide the best quality possible in a timely fashion, then I have done my job well!