This title is meant to be more than provocative. In case you are unfamiliar with the novel, Love in the Time of Cholera, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, I will explain. The novel is set in the "in-between time" of the romanticism of the late 19th century and the rationalism of the early 20th century. There is lots of chaos in in-between times. All bets are off.
I think that the life of organizations, whether global or not, is also at a very important in-between time. Many organizations are experiencing rapid change. The cycle times between start up and growth and shut down and divestiture are diminishing. For some background on business situations read, The First 90 Days by Michael Watkins (Harvard Business School Press, 2003). Everyday examples abound; one of my clients has had 7 bosses in 2 years.
In setting up this blog, I was able to experience this "in-between time" in action. I called upon a friend of mine who performs magic on system architecture. After a brief discussion, Nik said, "Let's start with a blog. Then, later if you decide you want a website, we can do that too." After my tutorial, I decided I wanted to "learn by doing" and got down to work. One goal was to redirect my domain name to the blog site. I didn't want clients to have to input "blogspot". I spent a day at "Google university". To do anything you have to be able to define it in a language that Google folks speak. Then, Google sends you to their "business partner" Godaddy, from whom you have bought your domain name (even though you don't know this). The structure of this relationship is fascinating (I digress).
The Godaddy folks will actually talk to me on the phone and they are helpful. The second time I called Godaddy the representative laughed when I asked if she had ever really spoken with anyone from Google. She promised to provide a fix for me through her supervisor. She told me that "things are crazy" but that it would "be okay". I believed her.
All along the way, Philip from Google was patient and nice. He kept writing, "Thank you for your question." By the end of the day I was exhausted and my head hurt. By morning, my Google e-mail worked and my domain name was redirected. I am grateful.
I can only imagine what it must be like to be a leader (supervisor, manager, team leader) in the Google universe right now. However, I know that this phenomena is happening in some way in every organization that is growing or changing (M & A, new CEO, turnaround, etc.). Leaders must be able to stay productive through change. Thankfully, this can be learned.
No short course here. The place to start is to learn to do something new every week - or at least every month. It should be big enough that it shakes you up. It makes you feel incompetent, uncomfortable and for some of those who love process, excited and thrilled. In this way you start to embody change. You will experience more ease. In this in-between time where information is more available than our capacity to use it and the structure in many organizations will never catch up with its function, you must get better at leading change. Always, start with yourself. I imagine that businesses bought by Google will morph or die in very short order. What will earn them their place is their capacity to change and grow and enjoy the ride. It is too exhausting to fight. Better to dive in and have fun.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Transforming Organizations in Conflict
Conflict is any situation where one individual's (or group's) concerns or needs differ from another individual's concerns or needs.
Clients often call me when they are in the middle of a conflict. They or some members of their team are struggling. I can hear the discomfort in their voice. They are worried that the conflict is disrupting productivity and relationships. They are usually right.
While I feel compassion for what they are experiencing, I am excited for them. I know I can help them and their team. I know conflict's potential to transform people and organizations. When managed well, conflict raises the stakes and potential for growth. I'll provide a real example.
A client is implementing a very large technology project. Three of the top leaders from different functions of the organization are working with IT to customize software. They all have their own "take" on what outcomes they want from the finished product. They cannot come to agreement. Soon they are not talking. Weeks turn into months. The IT implementation is behind schedule because they won't attend meetings together but individually keep advocating for their needs. Messages are left on voicemail after hours, e-mails are going back and forth. Finally their CIO calls me. He is frustrated (understatement). Let's be clear, these are smart people. This is a good organization.
I meet with each leader individually. There are tears and anger. They have forgotten that they are dependent upon each other. They are disconnected from how much the people that report to them interact with the other functions. They are so busy "defending the fortress" of their division, they don't see that the well being of the "kingdom" is in jeopardy. I design an intervention. The goals (in this order):
1. They connect to their own experience.
2. They connect to their colleagues' experience.
3. Empathy replaces anger. There is room to listen and reconnect to their collective goal.
4. They reconnect to their vision for the organization and what they are called to do as leaders.
5. We implement the next steps to allow them to understand each other better, keep communication open and the project moving forward.
As we go through the process I ask them to treat their own experience like a research project. They are to observe what they are learning about themselves in conflict and write down what they experience. No judgement is required at this point. From what they learn they can decide how their stance in conflict is effective and not effective. They decide what they would like to change about their own conflict practices going forward. The leaders leave with two plans: one is for moving forward with the IT project, one is for their own development.
My intention is to leave leaders more competent after working with me than before. To sustain this, they need to improve their self-awareness. If leaders change their "way" in conflict they can transform how their organization deals with conflict. They are role models for their organization, and how they play together often sets the stage for how the people that report to them play together. Leaders are like the hub in the wheel. The work we do together reconnects them to this.
Clients often call me when they are in the middle of a conflict. They or some members of their team are struggling. I can hear the discomfort in their voice. They are worried that the conflict is disrupting productivity and relationships. They are usually right.
While I feel compassion for what they are experiencing, I am excited for them. I know I can help them and their team. I know conflict's potential to transform people and organizations. When managed well, conflict raises the stakes and potential for growth. I'll provide a real example.
A client is implementing a very large technology project. Three of the top leaders from different functions of the organization are working with IT to customize software. They all have their own "take" on what outcomes they want from the finished product. They cannot come to agreement. Soon they are not talking. Weeks turn into months. The IT implementation is behind schedule because they won't attend meetings together but individually keep advocating for their needs. Messages are left on voicemail after hours, e-mails are going back and forth. Finally their CIO calls me. He is frustrated (understatement). Let's be clear, these are smart people. This is a good organization.
I meet with each leader individually. There are tears and anger. They have forgotten that they are dependent upon each other. They are disconnected from how much the people that report to them interact with the other functions. They are so busy "defending the fortress" of their division, they don't see that the well being of the "kingdom" is in jeopardy. I design an intervention. The goals (in this order):
1. They connect to their own experience.
2. They connect to their colleagues' experience.
3. Empathy replaces anger. There is room to listen and reconnect to their collective goal.
4. They reconnect to their vision for the organization and what they are called to do as leaders.
5. We implement the next steps to allow them to understand each other better, keep communication open and the project moving forward.
As we go through the process I ask them to treat their own experience like a research project. They are to observe what they are learning about themselves in conflict and write down what they experience. No judgement is required at this point. From what they learn they can decide how their stance in conflict is effective and not effective. They decide what they would like to change about their own conflict practices going forward. The leaders leave with two plans: one is for moving forward with the IT project, one is for their own development.
My intention is to leave leaders more competent after working with me than before. To sustain this, they need to improve their self-awareness. If leaders change their "way" in conflict they can transform how their organization deals with conflict. They are role models for their organization, and how they play together often sets the stage for how the people that report to them play together. Leaders are like the hub in the wheel. The work we do together reconnects them to this.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Why "why?" isn't a productive question
Use any other interrogative other than "why". Why you ask? Consider the question I so often hear from managers:
"Why would he do that?"
How do you feel when someone asks you, "why did you do that?" When I ask teams this they get it right away, "I feel like I have to defend myself". Frankly, most people seem to understand this when asked. Consider other ways to ask this question:
"Please tell me what happened that led you to this decision?"
"Can you share your process for deciding on "x" as the right course of action?"
"What led you to take this action?"
The goal of a question is to gain information. Now if you have another goal, I don't recommend a question (more on this later). The effectiveness of a question can be measured by the quality and amount of information it produces. If you need information you want to create as little interference for the individual of whom you are inquiring as possible. Interference is the reaction most of us experience when we are uncomfortable. An example of this is when we or a loved one receives news from our physician. We often can't listen after a certain point because we are experiencing so much inteference (ranging from discomfort to anxiety). The more interference the receiver of your question experiences, the less information they will provide. If you want information, use any other question but one containing "why".
Yes, it is pretty simple. So how come I still hear so many "whys" in workplaces? I believe this is because inquiry is a skill we practice with little formal learning. For leaders inquiry is becoming a very important competency. With more collaborative work places, inquiry is at least as important (and probably more) as advocacy. Please do your own research. Listen at work over the next two weeks and see how often you hear "why".
I recommend a practice if you want to develop more skill at inquiry. Write down your questions before you ask them. First remove the "whys" you find and replace them with a more "curious" interrogative. Then write your question several different ways. Ask the question that will get you the most information. This is a practice that I have given to a number of clients. In this way your questions will improve and you will gain more information from fewer questions. Please allow yourself time to practice.
When one of my clients started writing down his questions, he told me that he couldn't ask any the first week, "they were all bad". Considering his situation, this was a productive insight. Eventually, with lots of practice, he became more skillful.
"Why would he do that?"
How do you feel when someone asks you, "why did you do that?" When I ask teams this they get it right away, "I feel like I have to defend myself". Frankly, most people seem to understand this when asked. Consider other ways to ask this question:
"Please tell me what happened that led you to this decision?"
"Can you share your process for deciding on "x" as the right course of action?"
"What led you to take this action?"
The goal of a question is to gain information. Now if you have another goal, I don't recommend a question (more on this later). The effectiveness of a question can be measured by the quality and amount of information it produces. If you need information you want to create as little interference for the individual of whom you are inquiring as possible. Interference is the reaction most of us experience when we are uncomfortable. An example of this is when we or a loved one receives news from our physician. We often can't listen after a certain point because we are experiencing so much inteference (ranging from discomfort to anxiety). The more interference the receiver of your question experiences, the less information they will provide. If you want information, use any other question but one containing "why".
Yes, it is pretty simple. So how come I still hear so many "whys" in workplaces? I believe this is because inquiry is a skill we practice with little formal learning. For leaders inquiry is becoming a very important competency. With more collaborative work places, inquiry is at least as important (and probably more) as advocacy. Please do your own research. Listen at work over the next two weeks and see how often you hear "why".
I recommend a practice if you want to develop more skill at inquiry. Write down your questions before you ask them. First remove the "whys" you find and replace them with a more "curious" interrogative. Then write your question several different ways. Ask the question that will get you the most information. This is a practice that I have given to a number of clients. In this way your questions will improve and you will gain more information from fewer questions. Please allow yourself time to practice.
When one of my clients started writing down his questions, he told me that he couldn't ask any the first week, "they were all bad". Considering his situation, this was a productive insight. Eventually, with lots of practice, he became more skillful.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Playing Big and Doing Good
An important intention of my work is to develop more powerful leaders. I describe power as the ability to realize your intention. Power is only worthwhile if it is doing good for the world. I am a catalyst for leaders making their organizations more effective, adaptable and successful -and at the same allowing them to do more good. The process I use is additive not subtractive. When leaders get better, effectiveness expands and the ineffective habits get less play.
Playing big comes from acting on your intentions in spite of your fears. This takes an immense amount of courage. Let me give you a concrete example. Most leaders intend to evoke the best contribution from all of their employees. This is dependent upon hiring good people, creating a positive climate and providing them with accurate feedback so that they can continue to develop. Almost universally I find that delivering accurate performance feedback is difficult. Some leaders are more competent than others but many struggle. They find a way to "move someone out" instead of providing accurate and ongoing feedback.
In conversations with clients they tell me that they don't want to "hurt feelings" or they don't want to "discourage", yet somewhere (way) down the line, they will move this person over or out. As they develop more self-awareness, clients come to see that they feel fear or anxiety about providing constructive feedback. They often experience a high degree of responsibility for the employee's response. The employee is unclear of what they need to do, the team is frustrated that someone is allowed to underperform and stay, and the leader knows at some level that they have not acted on their intention. This is playing small and the outcome is not good.
The alternative is that a leader declares their intention and what actions they will take to realize it. They notice how they feel and allow themselves to observe what this is like for them. It is uncomfortable. They plan for the feedback, they deliver it and they provide clear expectations for improvement with timelines and outcomes. They offer appropriate support. The employee makes a choice to meet the expected outcomes (get support, learn something new, work harder) or not, the team either gets a full and contributing member or not, and the leader follows up on their timeline with a decision (the employee stays or goes). The team knows that their full contibution counts. The coolest part is that the employee often takes on the challenge, expands skills and contributes to organizational outcomes.
This is playing big and doing good.
Playing big comes from acting on your intentions in spite of your fears. This takes an immense amount of courage. Let me give you a concrete example. Most leaders intend to evoke the best contribution from all of their employees. This is dependent upon hiring good people, creating a positive climate and providing them with accurate feedback so that they can continue to develop. Almost universally I find that delivering accurate performance feedback is difficult. Some leaders are more competent than others but many struggle. They find a way to "move someone out" instead of providing accurate and ongoing feedback.
In conversations with clients they tell me that they don't want to "hurt feelings" or they don't want to "discourage", yet somewhere (way) down the line, they will move this person over or out. As they develop more self-awareness, clients come to see that they feel fear or anxiety about providing constructive feedback. They often experience a high degree of responsibility for the employee's response. The employee is unclear of what they need to do, the team is frustrated that someone is allowed to underperform and stay, and the leader knows at some level that they have not acted on their intention. This is playing small and the outcome is not good.
The alternative is that a leader declares their intention and what actions they will take to realize it. They notice how they feel and allow themselves to observe what this is like for them. It is uncomfortable. They plan for the feedback, they deliver it and they provide clear expectations for improvement with timelines and outcomes. They offer appropriate support. The employee makes a choice to meet the expected outcomes (get support, learn something new, work harder) or not, the team either gets a full and contributing member or not, and the leader follows up on their timeline with a decision (the employee stays or goes). The team knows that their full contibution counts. The coolest part is that the employee often takes on the challenge, expands skills and contributes to organizational outcomes.
This is playing big and doing good.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Beginnings
Welcome to my information page. This is just the start. I chose the "blog" format so that I could introduce myself and my work to prospective clients and also as a place where current clients can keep up on my work and learning. The old web format felt "tired" (do you read Wired...?) and it wasn't flexible enough. Everything is changing all of the time so the structure needed to allow for that.
more to come....
more to come....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
