How to survive Christmas....

...or "The Negotiation Ritual"

With the news that Christmas is the time when the most marriages breakdown and families row, I am reminded of something that may help you survive - it is the Negotiation Ritual.

This was taught to me over 20 years ago by an eminent and very experienced negotiator and trainer called Hank Calero (now dead). His contention was that any successful negotiation had to go through seven steps. While there was no requirement for a particular step to take five minutes, five days or even five years, his belief was that if anyone tried to shortcut or avoid any of the steps, then they would necessarily be pulled back to address it before there could be a successful conclusion.

I did have his book from that course but made the mistake of "lending" it to someone who never returned it and I lost track. The book is long out of print and I am not sure if I could locate it, but a friend did manage to find me an old hardback copy of "Winning the Negotiation"

The Ritual is:-

• Introductory Phase - this acquaints the participants
• General Overview - a chance to let the other party sense your initial goals and feelings without giving away too much else
• Background Music - this is where each side gives its sense of context and the route to the current negotiation, helps give perspective
• Definition of Issues - there are usually four areas, your needs, their needs, mutual needs and hidden needs; this is where the landscape of conflict and understanding of what needs addressing. It is important to uncover everything that needs addressing.
• Conflict Phase - There may have been resistance, defensiveness and hostility before, but this is where the real volleys come out and the level of conflict rises.
• Fallback and Compromise - this is where, having identified issues and established the conflicts between you, you explore the possibilities of compromise. Why else would you be negotiating?
• Agreement in Principle/Settlement - without authority one can only agree in principle, with authority one can settle, either way this is where the details of compromise(s) is described and agreed.
• Post Settlement - A hand shake and smile do not end a sucecssful negotiation. The agreed items have to be brought to life, without that the negotiation is void and one will have to return to the table again.

 If you find yourself fighting over the Christmas TV schedule, seating plan or something more serious then an awareness of this ritual could well help you navigate to a successful conclusion.

I do hope you don't need it, but will commend you to return to the subject in the new year and brush up your skills in this field - we end up using it so much so our competence is better being conscious than accidental.

Thought for today...

...even the ugliest tree looks beautiful in the snow!!!

We are once again covered by deep snow with all the debates about how Britain doesn't cope with it. Yesterday, here in Hertfordshire I would guess that something like four inches fell in two hours. As a result we aborted a trip out, taking 10 times as long on the return as it took for the outward journey.

Well we got back safe and sound and have since done our good deed by clearing and gritting the path and drive of neighbours - he has Parkinson's and needs to get out to hospital in the morning.

Then this morning we took out Yorkie (in her pink Biba-like jumper) out in the snow. It was up to her belly, but she loved it until ice balls formed in her pads. Even then her tail did not stop wagging. Along the way we bought and drank hot chocolate and coffee - my teenage daughter even came along with a smile!!

We have also had warm afternoons snuggled up with Christmas films on TV and later I will probably make some mulled wine.

Not bad for a "disastrous" weekend, but I do think the opening quote, which came from my wife in the middle of crawling traffic, is the one that will stay with me. It reminds me that it often pays to take a different look at the things you have always seen, they might delight and surprise you.

Happy Christmas and season's greeting to one and all.

I hope you enjoy the Christmas card below - it is just a bit of fun - let it load and then check the other pages!

Ian.

A New Year Honour!

I feel honoured to have been invited as the first guest blogger on the developing Enterprise Management Association - International ( EMA-I ) site in the new year. The association is an attempt to support and develop the skills and tools for managing strategic change. It for the "go to" people, the "usual suspects" that every company has and uses when it is wanting to shape and deliver large, strategic change and or deal with major issues.

As such it is looking to operate above the more mechanical aspects of project management, by providing real and practical support for the governance of change in its widest sense. It embraces the full range of skills (soft and hard) required to help individuals and organizations improve their ability to execute strategy and improve operational performance by effectively managing change as a key to business success.

Their framework is illustrated below:-

So now my challenge is to draft three or four pieces ready for the beginning of January - no trouble (I hope).

I will post the pieces back here after their launch on EMA-I's website, but maybe you will be interested in looking there directly and maybe even getting imvolved and voluntering.

A Toast to the Visionaries of 2011

A little over a month ago I blogged about the Chivas Regal advert about chivalry that I very much liked, well it seems that spirit companies seem to have the good lines these days.

On the way back from my latest trip I came upon an advert for Grey Goose, the vodka, and it included a toast

....TO THE VISIONARIES THAT MOVE US ALL FORWARD

TO EUREKA!
TO A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT
TO ASKING WHAT IF?
TO FINDING OUT WHY
TO SO CRAZY IT MIGHT WORK
TO THE GUTS TO TRY
TO SEEING THE INVISIBLE
TO FINDING OBSTACLES INSPIRATIONAL
TO OUTSIDE THE BOX
TO OUTSIDE THE LINES
TO TAKING SMALL STEPS
TO BEING AHEAD OF OUR TIME

If we could each use at least a few of these in the weeks ahead, we can make 2011 a better and more interesting time for everyone.

A Seasonal Shout Out!

.....or a personal reflection after 6 months

At this time of year, when many of us have seasonal holidays / celebrations approaching I wanted to send my best wishes to anyone I know here, especially those who have contributed in some way with comments, suggestions, and support through 2010.

I started this blog as personal exercise back in May. To be honest I had no idea how I would find the experience, given that I have never considered words to be my strongest suit. I also had no idea if anyone would read it and/or find any aspect interesting.

To my surprise both aspects have exceeded expectations.

In terms of writing, I have found that my mind has generated plenty I wanted to write about and, although probably stylistically bereft, I have not found it hard to write. More than that, at least a few of the postings have clearly been delivered in a way to generate some strong resonances.

I am not sure it is becoming easier, but then maybe I am more demanding of myself. One thing I have learnt is not to force matters, but rather let them flow. I have also tried to be true to my own "voice", but I guess only readers will know that for sure.

One tool that has helped is a piece of software called Whitesmoke, that does more than simple spell checking, highlighting things like the repetitive use of a word, the complexity of sentence structure (not always advocating a simpler approach!) and other useful measure that have given me some personal benchmarks.

Similarly the Blogpress app on my trusty iPad makes my blog readily accessible for contributions wherever I am.

In terms of readership that has amazed me on two counts. The first is the number of page hits I have had; now a shade under 1,000 or an average of around 160 per month - and no before you ask they are not all me - I turned of the tracking of my own visits some time back.

More astounding has been the reported home countries of these visits. The statistics supplied here show that by far the largest populations of readers are, not surprisingly, in the US and the UK, but I have had a significant proportion come from much further afield:-

• South Korea
• Singapore
• India
• Denmark
• Switzerland
• Holland
• Belgium
• Brazil
• UAE; and
• A satellite phone connection!

The level of repeat visits is rising too.

Overall I plan to continue with this blog as long as the ideas for posts keep flowing and someone/anyone finds them interesting enough to read.



I have little idea who specifically reads the blog, but if anyone who reads this post fancies participating in an experiment we can give it a go. Please

a) comment with your own seasonal greeting to other readers and we will see how many we get; and
b) if you find any post, past or present, interesting please pass on the link to one other person.

Now we sit and watch with baited breath.

"Slap my Forehead" Part 2: Moving the cloud from the mountain!

So in Part 1, I slightly dramatically layed out the position that many companies find themsleves at this point in the financial year / planning process ie a disconnect between the amount entered pragmatically into the annual plan for change initiatives and the real (greater) expectation of the combined business units.


In the past I have referred to this as the cloudy mountain scenario.

Imagine this. Senior management are at the top of the mountain in clear skies and bright sunshine. They can see for miles and have the vision of where they want to go. They genuinely endeavour to share this vision, from their perspective. In contrast most of their staff are on the lower slopes of the mountain, below the cloud level, carrying heavy loads, up through wooded slopes with no clear paths, trying to reach the top and satisfy the vision. Around the middle of the mountain is a layer of thick cloud that impedes communication and prevents anyone from knowing if any of the paths from the lower slope will reach the top.


In practice we need to remove the cloud and clarify the paths even if they are still complicated.

Does this sound at all familiar? Does it work as a metaphor?


So what can we do about this? I would like to give three real approaches to at least fitting a portfolio with a budget, mixing pragmatism and a little idealism. The best is possibly left to last so please do read it all.


BENEFIT REALISATION MANAGEMENT
The first, and maybe idealistic, way is Benefit Realisation Management (BRM). This is effectively a top down approach that looks to articulate and link a clear understanding of what needs to be done to sustain and develop the business and the components of the optimum portfolio of change required to deliver the required benefits.


Essentially this looks to four aspects:-

• The business OBJECTIVE(s)
• The BENEFIT(s) required to achieve the objective(s)
• The CHANGE(s) that will deliver the benefit(s); and
• The ENABLER(s) that support the change(s)

I don't plan to go into this in detail, but would refer you to one of the definitive texts called "Benefit Realisation Management" by Gerald Bradley. Heavily promoted by the UK Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and mandated for public sector change this has some intellectual rigour and even if you can't use all of it, some of it will help.


In my experience the failing of this approach in the financial sector is that there is insufficent clarity and/or articulation of high level strategy combined with an incredible impatience for quick answers. There are also too many personal agendas that are looking for a particular answer. This approach tends to expose these and subject "sponsors" to deeper scrutiny and expose flaws in management thinking. No bad thing you might say, but still rare and often unwelcome in many organisations.


I do know of one Bank that claims to use it, but they are in the vanguard.


Overall it is usually the time factor (ie not enough time to do it) that usually defeats this, along with the cost (it does takes some effort to do this well) in a financially challenged world.


Portfolio Triage
The second more pragmatic way is to operate an element of change triage. This is needed as Pareto's principle affects this as many other aspects of life.

In relation to planning change portfolios, Pareto's Principle (or the 80/20 rule) means that something like 80% of the information regarding a proposed change or project is held in 20% of the data, taking 20% of the effort and time to collect and collate. These are the big ticket items like estimated dates, sponsorship, deliverables, major risks, etc. The last 20% of the information (in term of value to understanding the project) would take 80% of the effort and time to gather. 

It is this last 20% that is required if we are to use mechanical tools properly(?) to rank and prioritise or indeed to build optimum portfolios using efficient investment frontiers (see note at the end). This does however miss much of the point that projects and change are new endeavours, with considerable uncertainty and a good share of unknowns. In striving to supply this detailed information (and get one's pet project selected), a false sense of certainty is often created.

So, back to the triage

In this we create a long list of possible change/projects and a call together a sensible group of people who can reasonably look across the business. Every company has them, the trick is to find, engage and empower them. The first act of this group is to split the proposals into three groups.

Group 1 - This comprises changes that are "must do". By this I don't mean that someone has shouted loudly, but rather those mandated by law or regulation or genuinely required to keep the enterprise going (ie failure to address at this point would most likely lead to a catastrophic failure). This last set includes absolute demands from major clients or repair of business infrastructure (including the control environment).

Group 3 - Yes I know, wait for it - These are highly speculative, wish-list types ideas. These probably lack strong sponsorship, credible supporting information or even any strength of vision. This can include those that seem excessively risky or improbably complicated.

Group 2 - These are the projects you would like to do as they are considered achievable and likely to bring significant benefit to the organisation.

Be brutal, be tough. Entry into Groups 1 and 2 must really be merited.

I suggest that some socialisation of these three groups outside the main team is worthwhile to check validity. Remember these are just lists and we are human, we can make changes as we go along if we recognise we have made a mistake.

When you are reasonably happy with the groups, do a sanity check. Total up the indicative investment required for the "must do" changes and see how that fits with your financial appetite? If it is already more than you wish to spend then one can pretty much disregard even Group 2. The focus then must be to review and reduce the "must do" list, challenge and reduce the cost to implement the changes and/or seeks additional funding.

Next assuming, one has some investment £ or $ left after the "must do"s one can look at Group 2. For this I suggest setting a small team to order that list in a way that makes sense. This will be different by company and indeed by year, but broadly will be about supporting the company's strategy direction. This will probably require the collection of additional data, but at least one is looking at a smaller set and not wasting effort on no-brainers and no-hopers.

I would counsel here against false precision and any sense of spurious accuracy. Just because a spreadsheet can calculate costs to pennies and cents, does not make that useful. Projects, particular at planning stage, are rife with uncertainty. The margin of error can easily be plus/minus 10% or 20% - maybe more. So if one is looking at a project circa £500k, the nearest one needs to estimate is probably £10k. So why do so many project lists report estimates down to the nearest £1 or £10?

The answer is because they can; spreadsheets make it easy and the detail oriented amongst us, often the financial planners, find comfort in that sense of accuracy, no matter how spurious it is.

I was around and used the first IBM PC XT in London back in 1980. The spreadsheet was pretty new then and the king was Visicalc - 64 columns by 256 rows if I recall correctly. It was fascinating how just putting the numbers on a spreadsheet and printing them neatly, immediately gave credibility to what had previously been "back of an envelope" calculations. This is still true today, but so many have only lived with spreadsheets that they don't realise it.

OK, back to the plot. Once you have ordered the Group 2 list draw a line, literally below the last project you could afford, given the budget you have. And now reconvene your group of wise men and women.

With the list, get the group to undertake a brief sanity check, moving any projects that are considered significantly out of order - no tinkering, just major corrections. Recast the cut of line and now focus on the few (say 5 or so) projects either side of the cut off. This is where your effort should go and where the fine tuning will happen. If a project is well above the line at this point it doesn't matter how far above the line, just that it is there; the same for below the line.

This may well be much more delphic in its execution, but supported with the data you have from planning and a knowledge of the business.

I will throw another consideration into the ring, one that has perpetually frustrated financial planners. That is that the list of projects you end up with "above the line" does not need to total the figure that goes into the finances. Yes, I know that the accountants like a sub-ledger with a set of detail that exactly matches a total and I have had to operate within such a regime in the past. The uncertainty surrounding change, means that in this instance a list that is plus/minus 10% of the budget is certainly workable, assuming one manages the commissioning of change and the emergence of new requirements as the year progresses.

So with your list and its line, perform a sanity check once more, to see what is still below the line, yet should be above. If there is anything, try and fit it in, if not at least highlight this with the relevant governing body.

Lastly, if you, have any investment appetite left, look at Group 3 and use your wise group to cherry pick from it. Avoid the wasted effort of trying to re-evaluate and prioritise every idea, instead focus on the ones with most informed support.

From this you will have a working change portfolio that can be exposed to the wider business with reasonable confidence that if there are more alterations they will be either minor tinkering or so unexpected that no one could see them coming. That is the best you can do.

The Best Bit

Now this is the best bit. Spreadsheets make it far too easy to have a negative number, to project overspending without anyone feeling the necessary pain. The neat trick is to make the issue material.

This was brought home to me a few years ago when the budget for a major programme was cut by 65%, yet the expectation for full benefit delivery remained. As Programme Manager I tried everything to establish a revised, yet reduced plan and set of change. The Sponsors held on to their expectations. The business and workstream leaders could/would do little more than pare a few % off here and there. No one was prepared to give anything up or think radically about what could be done.

I was tearing my hair out as the run rate was unsustainable, yet no one would accept the ineveitable consequences of the cut.

In the end I printed a load of monopoly money, pulled the "full" change list and called every stakeholder including the sponsors into a room. It would be fair to say there was a degree of scepticism when I dumped the monopoly money on the table and announced that it represented our remaining budget.


I then took them through the list of changes one by one as they appeared on the list, asking each stakeholder if they still needed the change and indeed how much they needed to complete it. When the meeting agreed an item I lifted the relevant amount of monopoly money and gave it to the stakeholder. This continued until somewhere around half way we ran out of money - the table was bare! There had been some give up, but not much and certainly not enough. The group saw that there were still some critical changes that had not been covered and there was no more money.


At this point the penny started to drop and the real conversations started to happen and the sponsors stepped up. They went back and challenged everything they had passed already. They then looked at each of the outstanding items and identified the must haves. When there was no money, they started horse trading between projects and workstreams. It was a joy to behold.


In the end we had a work plan that would fit within the budget. Yes, we had given something up, but we had done it together and everyone understood. Even a tough sponsor came to me after and said she never thought it would work, but it had and she was pleasantly surprised and very pleased that it had.


The trick was to make the issue real and tangible. To force the real, necessary debates by real stakeholders and not hide behind a pretty set of numbers that someone else has put in a spreadsheet, with its tolerance of negative numbers.


It also avoided spurious accuracy, keeping the process, numbers and tracking pretty simple.


Of course we had a load more work to do, but that was a real breakthrough and an approach I would commend to you if faced with the proverbial quart into a pint pot. You probably can't use it every year or it will lose its impact, but use it wisely and it will serve you well.


Please do comment on this is you think I am way off or you want to add anything?


Footnote
Efficient Investment Frontiers - this is from investment portfolio theory and looks to identify the sets of projects/investments that offer the maximum return for any set level on investment. If you select any set that is not on the frontier then it will be sub-optimal and, in theory, you can see why.

It can work reasonably well in the world of financial investment as there is plenty of pretty good quality information, but in change and projects they have less certainty, less quality data and plenty of subjective dimensions. In theory it should work if you spend the time collecting the data and trust it, but I will refer you back to the Pareto Principle.

I think that the use of this technique is another instance of spurious accuracy.

It is "Slap my forehead" time; we are all prioritising change portfolios - again!

Nearly everyone I know who is involved in planning and managing change is currently partaking of the annual portfolio prioritisation ritual. This is something I have seen year after year, yet still seems to come as a surprise to senior management, causing stress and uncertainty for much longer than necessary. I should stress here that I am talking across financial services and not just a single company.

I plan two posts on this. The first will be an analysis of why this happens, year after year. It is slightly enhanced (simplified in places, emphasised in others) in the hope that the reader can recognise and empathise with the situation. Please do tell me if it is way off.

The second will be some practical thoughts on portfolio prioritisation, based on a number of years doing this at a corporate level and forever trying to fight the dreamers on the one hand and those hell bent on spurious precision on the other.

One thing I have learnt is that we waste so much management time trying to create something, ie a change agenda, that will at best be only ~60% correct when reviewed with hindsight. The other 40% will be changes in plan, genuine errors, and unforeseen and unforeseeable needs and events. If we recognised and accept this truism we might find that Q4 each year can be made into a much more productive period.

Part 1

The root causes are, I believe, pretty simple.

STEP 1: A planning process that starts from the bottom up, with business units/lines generating more of a wish list than a strategic plan. Rarely is anything co-ordinated across units, relying instead on untested assumptions and supported by little more than the most basic data. If there is any articulation of benefits, it is usually optimistic with only limited understanding of the sensitivities and alternatives.
 
This happens despite the best intentions of many who draw up templates, guidelines, etc. and try to run an integrated process. There is something of a kid in a candy store mentality that descends when it comes to building most business driven change agendas
 
STEP 2: Someone (the PMO?) consolidates the data and, wonder of wonders, the total is almost certainly a serious multiple of what could be afforded and/or delivered in the current period. What reason is there to believe that the organisation has the capacity to drive and absorb 3x or 4x the currently acheived levels? We still ignore that basic sense check, time and again.
 
This is usually the first wake up call that it is not going to be easy. A common response is to challenge if it is all needed. The usual outcome is a minimal reduction by shaving some costs, a few per cent here and there, and removing those ideas/proposals that are clearly pure fantasy. This rarely solves the problem.
 
STEP 3: Put the inflated change apettite into the corporate mixing bowl and find that the financial targets that supposedly drove the planning from the start are unachievable. Now, as the circular logic hits home, the first signs of panic set in. Some management, usually the planning and financial teams, realise that the company can only deliver the sales, profits, etc if they address all that "change", but the organisation cannot afford it all and so won't get the income which will make the ratios worse. What to do? It seems so easy when it is just numbers on a spreadsheet. When you have to deal with a diverse set of people/interests and consider many implications, not just monetary aspects, it is so much more difficult.
 
STEP 4: There is a realisation that the information gathered so far is nowhere near good enough to really assess and prioritise the opportunities or to understand the full implications of not doing any one item. Linked to this is the realisation that there is not enough time to start again - there are almost always external timetables that have to be met.
 
Of course there can be some subjective tinkering and whittling of the list, but this rarely has any chance of being enough. There are too many interested parties fighting for their own rewards. A little horse trading may occur, but the old adage of follow the money (ie who gets the best rewarded for what) is no more true than in this process.
 
STEP 5: Decouple the financial budget from the composition of a detailed change agenda, and set a change budget that fits the targets and allows a set of financial figures to be submitted - even if the full business implications are not yet quantified.

This leaves a situation where low level business expectations still exceed high level management promises and considerable uncertainty remains about what will be needed or indeed delivered in the year ahead. This is very uncomfortable for many and still needs resolving if the "planners" amongst the management teams are to do what they do, ie plan, for next year.

The language that is often used is "deferred (to later years)" or "phased" rather than "dropped" and one would hope that there would be a rolling programme of work that these fall into, but as often as not, next year is a new year, with new management and new business ideas.

In practice this experience will most likely be repeated again, despite claims that the organisation has learned and is doing something better than the last time. In scenes reminisence of the film Ground Hog Day  most "actors" fail to recognise the repeating cycle.

This is where it seems many organisations are right now at the end of November.

Please share any insights that support or counter this post as comments.

I will shortly post Part 2 with some practical thoughts on how the change profession can help mitigate this situation.

 
Note: Of course it is possible that the avaialbility of internal and external resource could be a limiting factor, but in my experience, in most cases, the financial constraints hit first.

Really nice films....do you have any you would add?

Every now and then I have come across what I consider to be really nice films. These are films that gently entertain, offend no one, don't over tax the brain or strain the heart, but at the end you feel uplifted and glad you watched. There is also something about the pace of the film. It needs to be even and the story not overtly contrived.

Of course there were many old, black and white ones that we used to watch on Sunday afternoons, but I am not counting them.

I would like to put up three nominations and also explain why a couple did not make my list. I would then be interested if any readers of this post wanted to add their own thoughts.

My first is "Gregory's Girl". A low budget, Scottish film that just warms the soul. I watched it when it was first released in 1981 and am still happy to watch it now. Of course it could have something to do with the fact I fancied Claire Grogan (ex- Altered Images), but I honestly think it is much more than that.

My second is "The Motorcycle Diaries" from 2004 that is based on a journal from Ernesto "Che" Guevara.OK it is subtitled so takes a little more watching, but still it was a "nice" film. I received this as a free CD with a Sunday paper and had no expectations of it, but was quietly uplifted by the time it was finished.

My last is "The Legend of Bagger Vance", a lesser known film with Will Smith and Matt Damon from 2000. It may help that I play golf, but I got a good feeling from the moment I saw it was to be on TV. I have watched it now and not been disappointed.

A couple that did not make it into my three are "Home Alone", a great favourite with my family, but in my mind too contrived and too pacey, and "Miracle on 34th Street", again too contrived.

Now I would be interested to see if anyone cares to either argue with my three or add their own. Please feel free to do either.

Laziness breeds success? The rule of three!

I used to have a rule of three at a previous company. If my director mentioned something new I noted it, but unless instructed otherwise, did little more. If it was mentioned a second time I started thinking about what I would say about it. The third time it appeared I would mark it as important and make sure I responded quickly to it.

That way I avoided much wasted effort chasing fleeting ideas that never caught hold.

Recently the concept of laziness as a skill (?) that contributes to success has crossed my path three times. In this concept laziness is not about idleness or a negative approach, but more about how to realize the desired outcome at minimum personal effort.


One time.....

The first time was a colleague I respect referring a book to me - The Lazy Project Manager. It is subtitled "How to achieve twice as much and still leave the office early." My colleague was saying how much sense it spoke, but then like me has been around change for a while and has a lot of experience to gauge it against. In general it is about achieving through others rather than running around frantically trying to do it all oneself. It also has an element of being focussed on the right things.

An old friend used to ask students why projects fail? After all the usual suggestions of poor sponsorship, scope creep, poor delivery by others, etc.. his answer was "risks happen!" His argument was that estimating, planning, managing, etc were skills that could be learned and were essentially mechanical, but the killer was the unknowns, the uncertainties and it was here that project manager should be focussing. I can see the link to the "lazy" concept here.


It does not seem to be available as an ebook yet, but will soon be on my reading pile.

Two times......

Readers may be aware that a little while ago I asked around for examples of inspirational leaders of cultural change. The most interesting aspect of that was the dearth of suggestions (instead people offered themselves and their services or suggested tools, but did not identify an individual). When I raised that again recently someone immediately said they could think if at least two who they would cite. As he then mused he commented that he could describe them both easily in that they were lazy!

My ears pricked up at this second mention of lazy being a good characteristic. Indeed it then that the quality was coined as aiming to achieve the most with the least personal effort.

Three times.......

Soon after that I found myself in a natur e vs nurture debate about leadership skills, in particular the ability to evoke loyalty. We didn't agree, but we are still friends and that is the important bit. In this debate it turned out that my friend had worked for Richard Branson and he described him as "actively lazy". The context was that as a serial entrepreneur Richard Branson learnt how to win the support of others that allowed him to take his time learning about an opportunity, but then when he judged it worthwhile was able to focus, both his and his supporters efforts on it.


So....that was three times and here we are;

Laziness is good!

Well, it is when it manifests in working and achieving through others (could that be delegation?) AND focussing on the important things and not getting caught up in the morass of everyday life. When expressed that way it is not surprising it can be linked with inspirational leaders too!

Sounds easy, eh? But in much of work life it seems managers feel safer and indeed get rewarded for being busy, not lazy. They never want to appear lazy. Instead they control so much themselves, limiting the ability of their staff to develop under them. They get so caught up in the daily machinery of meetings and paperwork that they barely have time to think, often catching up with work and emails at 2am Sunday morning.

On balance, and with the caveat that it is the active laziness described here, I have decided that I can happily aspire to being "lazy".


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A Personal View on Culture Change

You've got to accentuate the positive

Eliminate the negative

And latch on to the affirmative

Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum

Bring gloom down to the minimum

Have faith or pandemonium's

Liable to walk upon the scene

Johnny Mercer 1944

Recently I have frequently found myself discussing cultural change. While this is not totally surprising given a couple of callouts I have made for help with the subject, I think it also reflects a growing interest in people I interact with.

I will not claim to be "qualified" in any way other than experience and a continuing appetite for enquiry, but having talked this out a number of times I thought it useful to try and capture the essence of my current understanding.

As a quick summary here are my views. Successful culture change:-

• Can be inspired, not demanded or mandated.
• Is an emergent journey, not a transition between two fixed conditions
• Is fragile, at least at the start, and needs effective protection AND reinforcement
• The first steps need not be hard, but often require courage
• Is NOT mechanistic!
• Needs time to gestate and embed

I am sure we could add to that list, but it will do for now. I will explore the elements further, but first I want to give some tips about what to do.

• Lead from the top and front
• Tell the story and share the vision, again and again
• Identify your ambassadors and support them
• Be brave and don't be complacent
• Exaggerate for effect
• Take your timing from people you are leading

Interestingly the two lists are almost entirely as they came out of my head, yet they do seem to largely fit together so maybe they will make sense to the reader too.

Let me expand on some of these points. Looking at the first two about inspiring change and leading from the front, these reflect the fact that it is very hard to drive cultural change let alone try and do it from the middle levels. Talking to many who have tried the message has been to put your best change leaders on culture and not to leave it to last when yoou are setting your team. It is also clear and natural that when faced with change your teams will look to you to see how you are embracing it and they will take their lead from you. Because of this point alone it is imperative that you not only talk the change, but you live it and show the way.

Moving on, when I started looking at cultural change I found that there seem to be two schools of thought. The first, which I see as more traditional, is that you can analyse, document and detail both the culture you have now and the one you wish to create. Armed with this the thinking is that you can identify and plan a set of tasks that move you from one plateau or steady state to another plateau or steady state. The other view is that there are no steady states, but instead the change is a journey that sets of aiming at a recognisable vision and requires continual review and adpatation; indeed it may never reach a steady state. This latter thinking seems to look at by changeing discrete behaviours one can create an outcome that is a new culture.

One of the arguments I found in favour of the latter approach is the work that sets up just three rules that if adopted, will make a group of flying beings act like a flock of geese. More importantly to me is that the steady state to steady state approach seems to be way off the world I live in at work these days. It may be that 50 years ago culture persisted unchanged, but that is not the case now with the increased pace of change all around.

My last comment on this point comes both from advice and real personal experience and that is t he importance of story telling as opposed and creating real dialogue from top to bottom of the organisation. Boring staid emails, Powerpoints, deskdrops, town halls and general corporate communications just don't help the cultural agenda. I have created posters, heard of books being written, tea parties arranged and other ideas. Be creative in your attempts to portray and convey your vision.

Another recommendation is to spread the load and embrace help wherever it is found. The most obvious is to look for "ambassadors", people who while not officially part of the change team can and will take the message and support it throughtout the community you are trying to affect. They do so not because they are told to, but because they understand, believe and can communicate.

In a similar vein one needs to be prepared to exaggerate the reponse to both positive and negative signs of change if one is to accelerate and establish developments. Spotlighting and rewarding positives are essential, but ten time more important is picking up on negative behaviours and addressing them. Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State said the following when speaking on London on leadership. He said that no one spots poor performance (or behaviour) better than a person's peers, and when they do spot it they watch to see how the leader deals with it. From this response they assess the acceptability of the that performance (or behaviour) and adpat their own standards accordingly.

Cultural change is fragile and need special nurturing and extra effort. It is not a science, despite what some may wish. You will make mistakes and it takes a certain bravery at times, but one thing I can be sure and that is if you do nothing then any change will be by chance and unlikely to be in the direction you wish.

The last aspect I will address here is timing. In this I make not apologies for emphasising that cultural change is about people and their reactions are not precisely predictable. Also they do not change instantaneously, but take time to digest and adjust; indeed we each do handle it differently and at a different pace. The significance of this is that you cannot drive change to a military timetable. Instead it is more important to work with the rhythm and pace of the groups you are changing, pushing when then are ready, slowing when they are not ready, adapting when you need to adapt. This is more about instinct that courage than process and ticking boxes.

I hope some of this resonates and if you wish to contribute please feel free to comment. I added the song lyrics at the start as they seemed to capture the spirit and intent of this, though they were written over 50 years ago. Interesting eh?

It says it all!

Over the years my friends will know that I have often made reference to chivalry and how I feel my values align to it - this was without ever really defining what "it" is. Well the other day I was half watching TV when the script of an advert grabbed my attention and set up a strong resonance.

The product in question is Chivas Regal. This is quite apt given my enjoyment of whisky. The full advert can be watched here ( http://www.chivas.com/en/INT/Campaigns/?item=0&length=L ) where you will get the full experience. However I have transcribed the vocal element below:-

   Everyone out for themselves
   Can this really be the only way?
   No, here is to honour, and to gallantry, long may it live.
   Here's to doing the right thing, to giving a damn
   Here's to the straight talkers who give their word and keep it
   Here's to freedom, wherever you find it
   And to know the true meaning of wealth
   Here's to the brave among us
   Here's to a code of behaviour that sets certain men apart from all others
   Here's to us
   Live with Chivalry

I am not sure I could say it any better. Now I have this I will keep it close!

Unifying People Assessment Tools

I posted before about my desire for something that managed to bring (and hold) together the variety of assessment tools used by HR and trainers when looking at personal and team skills, strengths, weaknesses, types, etc.

Well, since then I have formulated an idea that I want to capture and share. In looking for a unifying framework to join up all these tools, my epiphany was when I was introduced to the StrengthsFinder tool and realised could be the missing piece to help join the likes of Myers-Briggs, DISC and indeed Kiersey, and the Judgement Index. See the end of this blog for and an expansion on these tools, if required.

I have attempted to illustrate my idea it as a three dimensional model, but this is purely symbolic given that each "axis" is itself multi-dimensional. The three dimensions reflect a link and relationship rather than competition.

The axes are Type, Strengths and Judgement/Values. I think there is a natural order to these.

Type is the sort of psychometric tool that identifies the DNA of personality. Based on Jungian idea, Myers-Briggs, DISC, etc .tend to come up with a categorisation of each of us. Of course there is no right or wrong, but the sense is that our DNA is set during our early formative years and is unlikely to change much after that. Some movement where we place close to a boundary can happen, but in general it is fixed. For example, in Myers-Briggs I have almost always tested as ENTJ across a number of years and a number of different assessors and tools. I did come out as ENTP once, but that was on inspect probably driven by some immediate circumstances and the preference was only marginal.

So in essence that is the first assessment to do as it sets a more constrained field for the next consideration which is strengths.

In respect of strengths, the tool I have come across is Strengthsfinder which looks to identify the individuals top five themes or strengths from a set of 34. These are the areas in which they perform best or could deliver well if they there was a development focus. Not only can the strengths be developed, but the tool acknowledges the set can change as we move through life. That said it is most likely they will be smaller movements eg a strength that was already high on the list now appearing as a top five.

Something like Belbin's work on team roles seems to me to work across the DNA and strengths dimensions.

The strengths add texture to the type. If an ENTJ is a "field marshall" as it is often described, there will be a similarity in strengths, but we only need to look at history to see that there are major differences in the strengths and behaviours of people who would fall into that group.

The last piece is that of values/judgements. The only tool I find here is the Judgement Index. This looks to see how an indvidual views themself, the world around them and how they fit in. This is far more contextual. The likely view will differ by circumstance. For example you may well have different views if you have recently witnessed the birth of your child from when you have just nursed a sick parent for a long time. Similarly if you feel your job is at threat you will have a altered perception of yourself from someone who has just been hired.

To me if stengths add texture to the initial type assessment then this value aspect adds flavour.

I think that is the natural order to consider these aspects and use the tools. Only by looking at the three can one have a full (?) picture of the individual. They do not compete, but complement each other.

Of course I may have this all wrong, so I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has considered this question. For now this will be my working model.

If you are interested in looking at these tools I will provide a few links:-

Myers-Briggs
Wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
Free online test - http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp


DISC
Wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC_assessment


Kiersey
Own site with test - http://www.keirsey.com/

Belbin
Own site - http://www.belbin.com/

Strengthsfinder
Own site - http://www.strengthsfinder.com/113647/Homepage.aspx

Judgement Index
Own site - http://www.judgementindex.co.uk/

Intelligent Passion - the new IP?

Since a post last week about Oxford Dons looking for passion and intelligent enquiry in prospective undergraduates my mind has been thinking around the subject. I have come to the conclusion that passion, or rather "intelligent passion" is the missing ingredient from many business interactions I either partake in or observe.

The initials "IP" more commonly refer to intellectual property or even Internet protocol, but I suggest that intelligent passion should be top of mind for the 201x decade. On reflection it is the element whose presence (and absence) is most easily spotted. Passion shows in heightened energy, focus, pace and excitement. It is evident in the dynamics of life, in the bounce in a step.


All of these qualities are infectious creating a multiplier effect when you consider the impact on teams.

If one googles the phrase "intelligent passion" one finds less that 8,000 hits. In the modern, search-engined world that means it is almost unmentioned/unspoken. This is further confirmed when inspecting the links that are returned. There is little or no mention of intelligent passion in relation to business so I will endeavour to expand on my vision of it.

Passion is a well recognized term meaning a strong feeling or emotion. As mentioned above it often manifests in heightened energy, focus, pace and excitement. I believe the problem in business is the emotional aspect. For years management training has been to remove emotion, making assessments and reports impartial and avoiding conflict that cannot be rationally addressed. Displaying emotion has been labelled and treated as a negative trait to the extent that when we do witness a display of emotion, most people pull back and suck their teeth. Many managers have only two ways to respond to passion, to back away and try and ignore it or to confront it. Unfortunately few feel able to or are interested in harnessing it.

Of course there is a danger in excessive passion. An individual can become obsessive, unmanageable ( read this as uncontrollable ) and isolated. This is where the "intelligent" part comes in. One needs to the intelligence to know how and indeed when to express the inner passion. This includes knowing when to back off and tone it down, but not to lose the passion; not to lose one's self.

There is some talk online about a "passion quotient", but it seems that are no credible objective measure, so for now we will have to live with subjective assessments, but our instincts are probably pretty good.

The erosion of passion can be insidious. It creeps up gradually and invades all aspects of life. Once lost, recovering passion can be difficult, but not impossible. As with many thing recognising the need to change is the essential start. The next step is reflecting and remembering times when you felt passionate about something, about anything. It could be watching or participating in a sport, or maybe wine tasting, in fact anything as long as you can do it again (and again).

So do it it and rediscover the feeling. Make sure you take note of how you feel and then practice recalling it. Do so before a business activity and see how that goes better. Then reflect on how you feel and remember that.

At the same time keep doing whatever it was you used as your prompt. If your work environment is one of low passion, then it can be hard to buck the trend, so look to reinforce your recovery as much as possible.

Soon you fill find your levels of passion and ability to feel passionate improve no end. Lastly find a way to share this new energy, this drive with someone else and spread the benefit.

Nurture your passion and Just watch life get better!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What a world we live in! Well done Chile.

I find myself in awe, watching the live rescue of the trapped Chilean miners; but my impression are both good and a touch of not so good. Let me explain.

I have been lucky to witness some momentous things in my life, some in person and some through the wonders of technology. Watching the live coverage of the World Trade Centre disaster has to be up amongst the biggest. Then again a surprise encounter with the Pope while on holiday in St Lucia is another. And in it's own way this wondrous rescue will count amongst them.

OK I am just one of millions of witnesses in this case, but the intimacy that this man by man extraction with minute by minute coverage over what will be something around 24 hours is quite unique and moving. The bit that feels special is the TV coverage from over 2,000 feet below the surface showing the appearance of the rescue pod and the start of each man's journey home.

I cannot think of another comparable instance. It is suitably enhanced by the expectation that it will be 100% successful, even though I just hear that one miner has pneumonia - I wish him well.

While technology has enabled the drilling of a rescue shaft and the TV coverage, it has also given a moment to me that left a funny taste. This was when wife of a miner found that her first priority as her husband appeared was to use her personal digital camera to take pictures. While I couldn't hear it I strongly suspect that she told him to smile so she could take a picture before they opened the mesh door. This seemed so wrong to me. Would I be happy if my wife did this as we were reunited after I had been trapped underground for over 60 days? I don't think so!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Passion and the squaring of circles.

Long, long ago in some distant galaxy.....I won a place to study at Oxford. This surprised many people, not least myself, but not my mother. I had long ceased wondering how it happened. Instead I thoroughly enjoyed my time there and retain fond memories and some good friends.

That is until a thread started on Linkedin - the professionals' facebook. This was in the Oxford Alumini Group which I joined sometime ago and was from a general contemporary of mine, but not someone I knew, asking for advice about how to maximise his daughter's entrance chances, in particular her choice of A-Levels.

I and a number of others responded, giving further evidence of the value of Linkedin and the strength of the Oxford community. There were many similar, but different pieces of advice however a single theme resonated deeply with me, in ways that surprised me.

That theme was that no matter what the subject sought, the interviewers would place a heavy value on passion for the subject, intelligent inquiry and interesting thinking. Now I know I have always been curious and happy to think outside the box, as they say, but passion has been an interesting subject between my wife and I - she did not know me until I had left Oxford.

Frequently I have been chastised for not being passionate or showing passion, well not for anything except rugby when sitting beside me during an England match is something of a personal physical risk. I have always resented the accusation of a lack of passion as I know it is in me, it just takes a level of engagement with the subject for it to manifest.

Looking back I was passionate about my subject which was Physics and maybe that is what shone through and earned me an Exhibition, a minor academic award for an undergraduate.

This may seem trivial to many and strange to others but it feels like a piece of knowledge has "come home" and I will remember it as I face the challenges that life, work and home, throws at me. I guess I am richer for compeleting that particular circle.


In the spirit of completing pictures or squaring circles, I was also recently able to close an open element of my past in a way and at a time I least expected. To cut a long story short and not give too much away, while I have been very happy with almost all of my work experiences there was one that ended too abruptly to give me any satisfactory closure.

This was a period when I led a particularly difficult team in an organisation that was not used to facing up to constraints. Leaving was the right thing to do, we both agreed to that, but I was left with little subsequent contact and thus was unable to monitor a) if what I put in place was effective and b) if my predictions (and related recommendations) had been correct.

Well the other day in the lft at work my name was called out by a vaguely familiar face. We agreed to have lunch as soon as it could be ararnged, but it took a few hours for me to recall that this was a contractor I had interviewed just before I left that particular role. He remembered me better that I did him.

Well we had lunch and it turned out that had stuck it out (his term) for another 2 1/2 years before he was released. He is still not sure how or indeed why he stayed that length of time, but by doing so he was able to fill in the jigsaw for me.

I won't divulge the details, but suffice it to say that his recounting of events has given me closure (and a little personal satisfaction) on that particular chapter of my life. I am not sure I realised I needed that closure, but in retrospect I can see that is indeed what I have looked for on and off for the last few years.

It reminded me that no matter how much you think you take change in your stride there are common and simple themes that flow through for us all such that, unless you are a sociopath, we all need appropriate closure at certain points.

Passion and closure are now two things I will endeavour to keep close to top of mind. Both have taken years to be so apparent, at least to me, but it just goes to show the value of giving things "time".

My Kingdom for a Mattock

I was reminded this weekend about the value of having the right tool for the right job. The trigger was another day of physical exercise trying to remove a 17 metre rose hedge. My wife has decided that after 13 years it is time for a change so the "twigs" we planted so long ago that have long become a two metre high barrier have had to be excised.

Cutting off the parts above ground was fraught with its own dangers, but was child's play compared with trying to lift the roots. If you have never attempted this then please be aware that they are the twisted iceberg of the plant world. A small shoot above ground is no indication of what you will find below ground. The roots are often surprising bulbous; they twist and turn entangling with adjacent plants; and they seem uncommonly strong.

Did I say they go deep as well?

I have ruined a good garden fork trying to prise them from the ground, The steel shaft is now bent like a crescent moon.

So the answer is........

......a mattock. Five pounds of steel head with cutting edges both ends. Put this on a pickaxe handle and you have my new weapon of choice.

It was still hard work, but so much easier and all for the princely sum of £10 (US$16).

Thinking while I worked, my mind returned to the iPad. Another tool that works, at least for me in my nomadic existence. In the weeks I have had it I have largely become paper-free, at least while travelling. The light weight, instant on and long battery life, just work! That and the plethora of apps.

I use a micro sim from 3 costing £15 pm for 10 gig of data - more than enough. It does all my emails and browsing. With one of the file handling apps ( I use the free ones for now ) I can take virtual papers into meetings. The size and orientation allow for the sensible reading and review of documents on screen.

I have said at times that it was not great at creating content, but rather at consuming it. This is changing and I am sure will get better. As well as apps to access Twitter, Blogger etc, I have just bought Pages as a word processor and it seems very capable as a drafting tool.

I think I will still prefer a desk top for heavy duty content production, but see little place now for a laptop. Where would I go that I could not a) use the iPad and/or b) get access to a desktop?


Marmite Update

I did promise an update on Marmite Gold, the premium version I found a few weeks back. Well, in my opinion it is not worth it. Marmite is not a subtle product, so I feel that trying to sell some premium feel is at best hopeful. For me I could not taste the difference and certainly not enough to justify paying more.

I will stick with the original in this case.

Recognising a good (or great?) team

So much is spoken about team building and high performance teams, yet they seem to be increasingly difficult to build, at least in business. A few recent comments and observations have resonated strongly with me and deserve capture.

The most recent was watching the Ryder Cup. For those unfamiliar with the competition it is played every two years between teams from the USA and Europe. The story goes back almost 80 years and what sets it apart is that the players, some of the most highly paid sports personalities in the world who almost always play for their own success and no one else’s, play for nothing, but pride and being there. This is very refreshing in the modern super professional world. (see http://www.rydercup.com/2010/europe/history/index.cfm ).

Most team places come through qualification on their own tours during the playing season, but three or four on each side are picked by the respective captain. Competition is fierce throughout and the disappointment of not getting on a team is palpable. However, this is nothing compared with the passion and “pumped up behaviour” seen on the course. Occasionally, but rarely, this behaviour has over-stepped enthusiastic into aggressive. The celebrations from Jeff Overton, a rookie, when he pitched in was something to be seen and Graham McDowell’s almost gladiatorial stance having sunk a key putt on the 16^th on the last day, stick in my mind, but these were two of many. All this is without the motivation of money! They played for each other and for pride.

If you look around your organisations check and see how many teams have “waiting lists”? No matter how you might try and assess a team more scientifically I would have thought a healthy waiting list is a pretty good indicator that you have a well performing team.

When Colin Powell addressed a leadership conference in London a few years ago he said that no-one recognises bad performance as well as a peer, and when the spot it they wait to see what the leader does about it. The action taken tells you a lot about what that leader values and will be taken on board by that wider community.

In a similar vein I think that high performance, individual or team, is also spotted best by peers. While they may wait and see how it is rewarded they are much more likely just to act and get associated with or involved in what they see as good.

There is much debate about money as a motivator. If it is a motivator it is a selfish one. One may aspire to the salary of another person, but rarely will the reward given to a peer or fellow team member do a lot to inspire one’s own performance. Instead it is the more intangible rewards of inclusion, recognition, sharing, etc. that make the difference.

If you want to find high performing teams I suggest you look for the waiting lists, formal or informal. See if you cannot use them as a role model or indeed scale them up to include and inspire greater numbers.

Roll on the next Ryder Cup!

Timing is everything........

I have written before about how much change practitioners can learn from other life activities. Recently, this has been crystallised around timing, how important it is in change and how I Have never seen any aspect of change skills refer to timing of a project manager of change agent be recognised because of their timing. Instead you see people rewarded and valued for “slogging on regardless”, or, occasionally, being lucky. So why not?

Recently, on TV programme about the science of sport the presenter demonstrated that for a professional sportsman (in this case, a golfer and a baseball player) if their timing was even minutely off, their performance (distance and accuracy) dropped by over 10%. Interestingly, their widely accepted warm up routines actually had a negative impact on their timing!

I have also recognised in business that to have an idea adopted, let alone implemented, decision makers  are heavily influenced by timing. By this I mean when in the planning cycle is it presented, what else is distracting your decision makers, what competition for resource is it facing, etc. The speed of decision making is frequently independent of the amount of preparatory work, the size/impact of the decision or the urgency of what is being decided. This is why so often it take a crisis, real, perceived  or manufactured, to extract any form of decision making.

Comedy is also well recognised as being a profession where success is heavily dependent on timing. That said it is not one size (or one timing) that fits all. On one of his tours Billy Connelly, the Scottish comedian, admitted that it was much easier playing large venues. Why? Well, because it took longer for the laughter to pass around it, thus giving him more time to prepare his next line/joke.

The aspect that brought this all to mind is the old, eternal cry for more communication, especially from the passive, critical portions of the population. By “passive, critical” I mean those who prefer  to be spoon-fed just what they want to know and not have to exert any energy either trying to learn about or assess the benefits and impact of a coming change; those who prefer to read selectively and recall information in order that they can find solace in complaining that they know nothing because no one has told them – often despite hard contrary evidence.

It struck me that effectively connecting with this portion of the community along with the rest is heavily dependent upon timing. This timing is in terms of relevance to the individual, receptivity in the broader audience and context in terms of wider happenings. If one’s timing is right the communication is absorbed and sticks, but if the timing is wrong it is hardly worth doing other than to build documentary evidence that you did, in fact, communicate and do “the right things”.

Indeed if one looks dispassionately at the work of many project managers, you can pick out those with a feel for timing, who understand the heartbeat of the organisation they are working in, and those who do not. I have not quantitative evidence to support this, but I would suggest that those with “timing” lead the projects that are perceived to be better managed (not always struggling against the current) and deliver more benefits.

As a closing thought for now, I would suggest that when one recruits or assesses a change professional one should look at their sense of timing and go for those with the best instinctive management of this – they are probably “luckier” than the rest.

On my part I am seriously considering taking a class in stand-up comedy, something that amuses my family just in its notion. To me there is nothing to lose, and if it helps me play to an audience even an iota better then it is probably worth it. 

Maybe we should add it into the standard set of project management training?

An Epiphany of the Obvious - Cowboys and old dogs

Let's cut to the chase - building on strengths is a better way to raise performance than just eliminating weaknesses. Is that not obvious? Yet look at corporate life and see how much time is spent plugging weaknesses, individual and corporate, and how little spent on building on strengths.

While cost cutting can have a positive short term impact on profitability we know it is limited and not the way to build long term success. Why then do we treat our human capital as if we are continually cost cutting?

This train of thought was triggered the other day when I was asked to look a "StrengthsFinder 2.0". On the face of it this is a small book one can buy from Amazon for less than £10. in it is a code that gives access to an online assessment tool. The tool looks to identify your five top themes or strengths and then refers you back to the book and other online resources to help understand your strengths, develop them and use them. It claims to be based on many years of research and is apparently wow'ing corporate America.

I took the test and was struck that after 30 years of receiving corporate training around management and change, this was the first to really major on strengths. Previously, the tools ( Meyers-Briggs, Discovery, LIFO, Belbin, etc etc ) would be used to feedback to individuals and teams with the focus heavily loaded on shortcomings, weaknesses and differences.

I am sure this is not what the creators of these tools intended, but I contend it is how they are more often used. The tools are being used to solve a problem and that problem must be about weaknesses, or so it is easy to think. Similarly how many performance management systems really focus on strengths and developing them. More often than not one is told what one needs to do to fit in, how not to be different, how to adapt to everyone around you (NLP?) and be a good team player. Where do they value the individual over fitting into some stereotype?

Not only does this make a mockery of claims about diversity, it also misses huge engagement and performance opportunities. When was the last time the chair of a meeting asked for dissenting views instead of grasping perceived agreement and rushing to the next item? Daring to differ or show an alternative perspective can be seen as being difficult, off message and not part of the team.

It reminds me of horses whisperers ( see Robert Redford in the film, but the book is better! ). If you have not read the book or seen the film, then let briefly explain. In order for a horse to be ridden, the common wisdom is that it has to be "broken". This is where a cowboy breaks the will and spirit of a horse physically by forcible riding it and showing supremacy. This is a very macho activity and one that relies on strength and courage. In short they break before they build, forcing common behaviours upon an individual horse.

An alternative is a horse whisperer. These people have a quieter, gentler approach. They look to understand a horse, to develop an empathy and forge a bond. Moving to the stage that the horse agrees to / accepts being ridden. The horse has not been broken in any way, instead it has been enticed into behaving, albeit subtley and I would suggest is better for it.

While there are relatively few whisperers, you can mass produce cowboys ( even if you do lose a few along the way with some horses ) and process many more horses by breaking them. This may appear efficient in the short term, but primarily it is expedient.

How many cowboys do we have in management? How much are they limiting performance? I guess the test is to see how many teams amount to something greater than the sum of the parts; I would suggest relatively few.

Of course building on strengths and embracing diversity is harder on a manager. He/she would need to build a portfolio team rather than build clones; they would need heightened tolerance and understanding when they too are being chased for short term delivery. The problem is that many rounds of short term performance soon look like sub standard long term performance, but hey, by then the manager will long gone, having ridden off to another sunrise somewhere.

I am not sure if I am an old dog or indeed if these are new tricks for me. I have long built teams and developed their members, creating opportunities and supporting ambition. The difference now is that I have a tool to help and a clearer vocabulary.

I would issue this challenge:

> Take a look at yourself and identify your own strengths ( maybe use StrengthsFinder? ) - look at yourself differently.
> Next look at your team and do the same for each.
> Consider if you are allowing each to play to their strengths, if not can you change things so theta are?
> Look at your team as a collection of talented individuals and not as a set of imperfect clones.

Lastly consider if your team is greater than the sum of it's parts? If not then now is the time to do something about it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Small pleasures and unwritten rules

For pretty much the first time in my life I have recently had my shoes cleaned by a professional show shine man. In fact I have had three pairs cleaned on three separate occasions.

I noticed a guy had set up his pitch just outside our building. I am guessing he is Turkish or similar given the tiered array of brass Aladdin style pots that bracket the foot rest. That and the black leather waistcoat, the mediterranean skin tone and his accent.

The first time I used him was last week when I looked at my shoes and admitted to myself that a) I had neglected them and b) they looked dirty. I decided to invest in a proper clean (priced at little more than a large Starbucks coffee!).

A short while later I was the proud owner of a pair of gleaming leather toe caps (plus the rest of the shoe), but by then I realized I had a new set of rules to learn, yet no instruction booklet. There had been various subtle taps indicating a change of foot. I had been politely told off for not putting my foot flat (apparently it creates lines in the folds). I had watched the ritual of e various layers polish, three to my recollection, being applied; been buffed twice by brush and velvet cloth and protected by carefully selected plastic sock guards.

This is something few ladies will have experienced and set my mind thinking to the rules if the road regarding getting your haircut and (forgive me ladies) the occupancy pattern of urinals in a male toilet. I don't recall my father ever taking me aside and saying, "Son, this is the way it works!", but I was younger, impressionable and had an opportunity to observe. I learned to move my head at the subtlest of touches, often acting ahead of the need (the hairdresser's) and of the rule of "maximum distance" (urinals). In the shoe cleaner's chair I was alone.

I have been back twice since. The second time with a new pair of shoes that I thought would benefit for an early professional waxing. Today I took a pair of brown shoes and watched as the right shade of brown was mixed from two pots before application. You don't find that in Sainsbury's.

Apart from the obvious that I know have three pairs of well polished shoes, I have also discovered the moments of quiet contemplation one can find as another person rubs your feet. Even today I was told off for creasing my shoes during a shift of foot positions; something that broke my revery, but I hope that as the rules become second nature, the level of pleasure, albeit small, will grow.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Jabberwock of the 21st century?

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!"
Lewis Carroll

Long before the Internet existed my old Headmaster drummed a few truths into his students. One was that if you write anything down you have to assume that the world will read it. Of course that was not true literally, but with the Internet it is far more possible now. What he really meant was that once you wrote something you lost control of it's distribution, its readership and how it might be used, not matter how boldly you marked in "PRIVATE" or "CONFIDENTIAL" and caveated it.

He also spoke of "the perversity of inanimate objects", meaning it is strange how often apparently lifeless things (and I include the written word here) will negatively affect you.

These were lessons I forgot to my peril more than once in my early career. I now find myself chuckling when advice from HR professionals is not to write this down (including emails) if you are in any form of disciplinary or difficult negotiation with staff. Emails can and have been used in the prosecution (in all senses of the word) of these matters.

I had been intending to blog on this subject following a recent conversation with my god-daughter. She is just heading to university to study, amongst other things, politics. I raised the question of Facebook, Twitter, etc. and gently reminded her to be be careful what she posted as it will persist on some database, accessible by some search engine, possibly forever. As a result, it is likely to surface at the most inopportune or embarrassing moment in her future career, whatever that may be.

The trigger today was an article in The Times about a teenager who wrote an abusive email to President Obama. Now, with FBI and Police involvement, he is banned from (ever?) entering the USA. While I and others think this is a gross over-reaction - what happened to free speech and a sense of proportion? - it is also a great example of the unforeseen consequences of "writing something down".

I have certainly found myself self-censuring in my posts here. A good number of things I might post about I have decided against. The dangers were illustrated to me a good few years ago when my boss observed an employee I had recently hired was blogging in work time. This was before blogging was common place. My boss brought it to my attention because when he reviewed the blog my employee had made comments about me. I think the post has been erased now, but as I recall it opined that I did not know as much as I thought I did and made some comment about being pompous.

A few of my colleagues thought I should call him out on it, but I didn't and never have. I decided that he was entitled to his opinion and that now i knew watt he thought I was better informed. What was calling him on it expected to achieve? We subsequently worked closely together for over three years and indeed are still colleagues and I believe we are friends with some mutual respect. Then again who knows? I certainly have not wasted effort or sleep trying to locate any more current posts.

As a parent one does one's best to prepare your children to live in the real world. Along with skills, one tries to impart some wisdom and this evening I shall show the article to my daughter and hope some of the implications register. I know her generation use these mediums differently to mine and indeed the older generations are frequently shocked. It may be that future recruiters or assessors will work to different standards and be more understanding and tolerant of the more "unusual" postings, but that cannot be banked upon.

All I can do is hope I have warned my daughter about this particular Jabberwock.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad