Good Communication that Blocks Learning

Looking through my notes, I found another Harvard Business Review article that I think dovetails well into the posts that I had on Toyota and Quality earlier.

This one was called Good Communication that Blocks Learning by Chris Argyris. So first of all... I have a problem with his sensational title. It might be better titled "Don't Just Fix the Problem"... or "Double Loop Learning".

So essentially, Argyris scares people by saying that "Managing by Walking Around" aka having the managers actually go onto the factor floors or out into the field to see what can be improved... they should actually spend their time finding out why such problems existed and stayed around for so long.

This actually does make a lot of sense. I think it's exactly what Toyota has been doing in order to remain on top in terms of quality. Instead of just turning on the heat when the temperature goes below a set level, it would be more important to close the window to keep the house from getting so cold.

You need to be always challenging the process of processes. So instead of always having "the leadership" push improvement "initiatives" down the throats of their underlings, you need to have the process of "constant improvement" to be part of the corporate culture. Without this, the indivitual executive's pet initiatives will not be effective and only end up with finger pointing.

Spend some time and think about this. I'll try to write more about it later.

Again, comments are welcome and appreciated.

-Jason

Lessons in Public Speaking from Rachel Ray

OK, so I was reading this CRM (Customer Relationship Management) trade magazine and I read an article about "Sales Tips from Rachel Ray".

If you don't know who Rachel Ray is... just turn on Food Network and she's like everywhere.

Anyway, this got me to thinking about leadership, part of which at least is sales. After all you need to sell people on your vision in order to get their buy-in. So lets get to the chase, some tips from Rachel Ray and my interpretations.

• Prep in advance – If you are not prepared for your presentation, you'll end up looking sloppy. Review your notes, make sure all props are ready before you go in.
• Cut things into small pieces – They cook faster… and people will be able to understand them more easily. Thats why I try to break down the concepts in my articles to help all of you understand more quickly.
  
• Time is money – People have short attention spans. So again, prepare in advance. Don't waste time on stage fiddling with your Powerpoint or the projector. The audience will get bored and not pay attention.
  
• “Learn One and Get Some” – This is one of Rachel Ray's signature phrases. Essentially it means become solid in one thing… and adapt it to your numerous customers
• Clean as You Go – Don’t neglect these other details, because they can bite you in the end, and being sloppy and taking shortcuts will only end up in you making some mistake down the road.
• Be Human – nobody is perfect. Little mistakes are part of life. Learn to take them in stride. After all, what’s worse making a simple mistake that nobody notices or making a mistake and then making a huge scene about it by repeatedly apologizing, feeling embarrassed and then stumbling through the rest of your presentation.
  

Sounds pretty good right? Anyway, I'm in a writing mood, so look out for more articles soon!

Best,
-Jason

The Dirty Dozen: Common Actions that Assholes Use

So I've been reading this new book The No Asshole Rule by Dr. Robert I. Sutton. I've not finished the book, but I am looking forward to learning how to create a working environment that is "free from assholes".

Sutton lists what he calls The Dirty Dozen

1. Personal insults
2. Invading one's "personal territory"
3. Uninvited physical contact
4. Threats and intimidation
5. "Sarcastic jokes" and "teasing"
6. Withering email flames
7. Status slaps intended to humiliate
8. Public shaming or "status degradation" rituals
9. Rude interruptions
10. Two-faced attacks
11. Dirty looks
12. Treating people as if they are invisible

I'm sure we've all seen this type of behavior in the workplace (or at school). In my opinion, much of this passive-aggressive behavior in the workforce is caused by the idea of "professionalism". OK, lets stop for a second... I'm not trying to say that people should not act in a professional manner... if we drop all aspects of decency and professionalism... we'll end up with an animal house (though that would get me to another great book Monkey Business, but thats a different story).

So I had a project manager who once gave me a piece of advice that "In this business perception is the reality". He explained that it almost didn't matter how hard you were working or how good of a job you were really doing... it mattered if the people who mattered (the ones in charge) perceived you as working hard and doing a good job. Time and again I have found this to be true.

First thing... he is one of the nicest people I've met through work so far. Sometimes a little too much of a pushover though. So taken in that context, I would see his advice not as much as coming from a person who was trying to game the system by sucking up to the big bosses, but more so from someone who probably got burned along the way because he spent too much time working hard and not enough time tooting his own horn.

Assholes are the complete opposite. They spend so much effort in playing passive-aggressive games to put others down (and an equal amount of effort in making themselves look good to the big bosses), but much less time actually solving problems and doing their "work". The problem is... the culture of most of corporate America encourages these assholes.

So looping back to the concept of "professionalism", what exactly does this mean? Well one would hope it would mean something along the lines of having some sort of expertise for solving problems for the client or the company and doing so in a respectful and thoughtful manner. Unfortunately, because of "perception = reality" this is not the case. Instead "professionalism" has been bastardized into... "train yourself to act in an affected manner as if you were an expert" (why bother in actually having the skills or knowledge) and "become an expert in playing politics breathing fire onto those who (even accidentally) have stepped out of line".

This post might sound bitter... I don't mean it to be. In fact the majority of the time people act like people (playing nicely and respecting each other). However, when things get tough, the uglyness does come out... I can't help but think there must be a better way.

Anyway, as always comments are requested and appreciated. Thanks for Reading!

-Jason

Generation Y

OK, for those of you who hadn't noticed, I am a member of Generation Y. We are the so-called "internet generation". Our parents were the "Baby-Boomers" and since we were constantly told how we "were the future" we know we have to clean up many of our parent's messes, e.g., the medical care system, social security, nuclear proliferation, peace in the middle east... It's definitely a tall order.

However, the point of this post is mostly a response to an article I read in Fortune Magazine. I would have to say, it did paint a very flattering stereotype of Generation Y... though sadly, I believe most of it is hype. First of all... the iPod/hipster/Starbucks/Yoga picture that the author, Nadia Hira, paints can be summed up in one word... "poser".

OK, I agree that her point was to show how Gen-Yers think outside of the box, by being "counter culture" while at the same time supercharging their productivity with coffee and a "Crackberry". However, I believe this is a matter of image vs. reality. The last I heard, Gen-Y was the generation that invented ADD and ADHD and childhood obesity. Gen-Y is also the generation where you have "internet addiction", "World of Warcraft Addiction" (you've heard the stories of kids dying because they've spent 48 hours straight in front of the computer, only to have the police come in and find the body in a room littered with pizza boxes and chicken wings on the floor), and the use of the iPod to avoid social interaction. Yes, dressing hipster is very cool... but I think too many of Gen-Y are obsessed with projecting the image of being the kind of Steve Jobs (you know I love you Steve) who can get away with wearing sneakers to board meetings, sipping lattes, and sometimes being a total dick (cuz that's cool).

Hira continues with some very interesting anecdotes of some high performing Gen-Yers. Nothing wrong with that... but nothing special either. There will always be the cream that rises to the top.

So what's my point? I think Hira tries way too hard to deflect the truism of many Gen-Yers feeling a sense of entitlement. This is due to an upbringing that many had where parents constantly coddled their children... telling them that they were special "no matter what". So I hope I am not the first to realize that yes, while each and everyone one of us is special and unique, that alone does not mean we are entitled to get any special treatment... especially if we are getting it at the expense of someone else (who should also be someone who is special and unique).

Example #1 - Grade inflation: I went to a good school and earned top grades. I earned they by working hard and also due to my own natural talents. That is why I don't understand the reasoning for students who never went to class and maybe partied the night before a major exam should be given B's because they whined to the professor or their parents are "paying good money for them to do well". This ends up cheapening my education. My 3.98 GPA was great, but if the average GPA for the entire college was a 3.90 how would future employers be able to differentiate students? Secondly all of this hassle forces educators to lower academic standards until learning isn't much of a challenge.

I often tell this story to friends as a lesson in "learning through osmosis", but I think it is illustrative... One day in a high level math class I was dozing off for most of the class (the night before had been pretty late... and the professor's monotone voice didn't help much either). She was in the middle of deriving a complex proof and then stopped and asked the class what was the next step. I didn't immediately raise my hand, but then 30 seconds and then maybe a minute of silence later I couldn't stand the silence any longer and I gave my answer. This seemed to crack the professor up (she hardly ever before had shown any emotion). Not only had I answered correctly... but also was essentially out of commission the entire class period.

Good for me right? Well yes... but the take-away I want to emphasize here is that there was an entire room of 20-30 other iPod toting, Wall Street Journal reading, Starbucks-sipping students who either were clueless (which would be extremely sad for the Penn State Math Department) and/or who totally didn't care about their educations... and could have sat their until the end of the hour if the professor had not offered up the solution.

Now fast forward to the working world. (Granted not all people will go straight into corporate America, but that is what I'm most familiar with and what the Fortune article was trying to depict). These same students who couldn't or refused to participate in class are now given real-life responsibilities. Hira cites how many Gen-Yers will refuse to work 60 hour weeks insinuating that somehow their computer skills allow them to be much more efficient than their more experienced (though less tech savvy) coworkers. This may be true in jobs that require lower skill levels, e.g., administrative / clerical roles. However, in the highly technical areas of science, engineering, or technology, knowing how to navigate through Microsoft Windows won't get you anywhere... especially when the competition is fluent in 12 programming languages (including assembler), actually knows the difference between an alkene and an alkane, and is able to recreate formulas by hand instead of relying on the [Function] key on his calculator.

OK, this is getting to be a long post, so I will conclude with this. Yes, the future does look bright for us Gen-Yers... but still as always we can only get there with a strong guiding vision and through hard work, not because by "dressing hipster" or "acting cool".

And as always please use the comments section for all questions, comments, and hatemail.

Thanks,
-Jason

Got Feedback?

Hey Everyone,

I received an email newsletter a few weeks ago. It had a quick list of "Do's and Don'ts" for giving good feedback.

As you may know, being able to give and receive good feedback is an important skill. People aren't perfect, and you are going to make some mistakes along the way. But with support and feedback from mentors as well as team members, you can improve more quickly, and achieve better results more quickly. I've included the bullet points that I think are the most useful and added my own thoughts. Enjoy!

Feedback Do's:

• Provide direct and specific feedback (a la the One Minute Praise / Reprimand)
  
• Be supportive and calm
• Be prepared if delivering feedback from others - Sometimes you will have to deliver feedback from above. Remember that you can tailor the message to fit into the One Minute Reprimand.
  

Feedback Dont's:

• Compare one employee to others - I think we need to teach more parents about this. Think how bad sibling rivalries can get... now put this in a setting where people's jobs are at stake... back stabbing and corporate politics aren't the most fun things to deal with.
  
• Provide critical feedback (reprimands) in a public setting - This can be very embarrassing, and you wouldn't want that to happen to you, would you?
• Criticize, condemn, or complain - Dale Carnegie Rule #1
• Delay giving timely feedback - Another tip from the One Minute Manager. If feedback takes only a minute, don't delay or else the problem will continue just that much longer.

Thanks for reading! Comments (and feedback) are requested and appreciated.

Narcissistic Leaders

I'm going on some sort of kick with the Harvard Business Review article reviews. This next article that I read Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons by psychoanalyst Michael Maccoby, shows the progression of the research started by Zaleznik mentioned in the previous post.

Maccoby describes what we might call "Rock Star Leaders" or the "twice-born" leaders mentioned previously. I hate to pick on one person so much... but with the recent release of the Jesus-Phone... I mean iPhone... I'm going to pick on Steve Jobs.

I give him credit though; he is a genius. He is also extremely driven to mold the world into his image (something Freud would call narcissistic). And to a certain extent he has succeeded. A generation ago, people would feel naked if they left home without their watches... now people can't seem to get through the day without popping those little white ear-buds into their ears and plugging them into an iPod.

I would say narcissism is almost a logical offshoot of our capitalist society. (We all work hard in order to reap the benefits for ourselves. Nothing is wrong with this. This is what keeps the world turning.) However, at a certain point, narcissism can turn pathological, which will usually lead to the decline of the organization that the "Rock Star Leader" is running.

Narcissistic leaders have great many strengths:

• Great vision - This one is obvious. Usually their vision includes they being worshiped like a god, hence Jesus Phone....
• Charisma - The strength of their personalities attracts followers.
  

Maccoby explains that narcissistic leaders often have the personal charisma and drive that give them enormous strength during times of chaos. (Think Winston Churchill and Mao). However, during the times of peace things don't usually go so well. You need at least some managerial abilities in order to keep all of the boring but important things going as they should.

Their downfall is usually caused by the archetypal weakness of narcissistic leaders:

• Overly Domineering - "My way or no way!" Thats how Jobs was fired from the company he started.
• Thin Skinned / Poor Listeners - Any criticism is seen as a personal attack on their personal "perfection". Consequently, they have selective listening and can't learn from mistakes, eventually making one that they cannot recover from.
  
• Lack of Empathy - Because they are so wrapped up in themselves, they cannot understand why other people may think differently or have different needs from them. They may be masters of politics, but they tend to see people as tools to exploit. In the end, people we become sick of it. (Winston Churchill was voted out of the Prime Minister's office right after he won WWII).
  
• Poor Mentors / Mentees - Well if you're a poor listener and lack empathy, you probably won't do well with mentoring.
  
• Overly Competitive - Having a competitive spirit is great, until you compromise your morals or your team members because of it.
  

How to survive if you are a Narcissistic leader:

• Get a sidekick - No really, a strong, competent, and thick skinned "manager" can help bring balance. (Kinda like the Yin to your Yang).
• Indoctrinate your team - (Use sparingly) If everyone agrees with you and trusts your decisions 100%, you can avoid conflict.
  
• Know yourself - Try to understand your narcissistic personality. Often that may be enough to stop a rant with "Is this really that important to chew out one of my most loyal team members, or am I just being psycho?"

Sorry Steve, but the Lisa, Newton, NeXT, puck mouse, and Apple TV should be good indicators of your narcissism. Get over it and you'll be the better for it. Now how about sending me one of those nice 80GB Video iPods :-).

Managers and Leaders

Back in 1977, Abraham Zaleznik wrote a classic article in the Harvard Business Review called "Managers and Leaders: Are they Different?"

The simple answer was "Yes, they are. But he goes on and elaborates on a number of different points. He dips into some psychology, which is definitely different from the majority of business leadership articles written today. This is a seminal work and definitely worth a read.

So how do Managers and Leaders differ? I would first preface this with saying that all leaders or managers fall on a sort of "Manager / Leader Continuum". There really aren't any "pure leaders" or "pure managers". We need them both, and depending on someone's style, they will use more tools from the leadership toolbox or from the management toolbox.

Well first of all we would typically stereotype managers as lacking creativity and ethics.

Alright, calm down... this is not validation on your suspicions that your manager is a heartless baby candy snatcher... this just means that taking a strict Max Weber-esque definition of a manager, we will see someone who painstakingly follows the rules and does nothing else. They don't have their own self-ethics. (Think someone who will refuse emergency care to a dying patient because they haven't filled out their paperwork). Similarly, they lack any creativity because they are always worried about going by the book and ONLY by the book.

Leaders on the other hand are painted as dynamic and creative, working "for the people". Granted this may be an over dramatization of leadership, but it helps paint a picture of the ideal.

The second stereotype about managers and leaders that Zaleznik discusses is that leaders are proactive while managers are reactive. This dovetails into the stereotype about managers being "tactical" thinkers while leaders are "strategic" thinkers. Again both are merely different spots on the spectrum with both types of thinking being necessary in order to be effective.

Zaleznik also describes managers as being able to "play the game" referring to politics, while leaders are more often tough and direct. He also alludes to theories in psychology, stating that leaders are "twice born", people who have had lives filled with struggle and living with a feeling of being separate and not belonging. Leaders therefore have a strong sense of duty and responsibility to "make things right", while managers who are "once born" are more comfortable with "making things the same".

Zaleznik finishes with an open question about the development of leaders within today's business culture of pitting peers against each other and seeing who come out on top. He rails on the fact that this will merely excessively reward aggressive behavior (something that is ultimately self defeating).

I would say that Zaleznik is at least partially giving a critique of the current status of people who we call "leaders". I would have to admit that many of my own postings have come out my critique. I also find his work to be a great starting point for a discussion on the difference between leaders and managers, however I would have to say that the research has advanced since the time of his writing. Specifically, I would have to say that Zaleznik's critique on "management" is overdone. Most of it would more accurately be pointed towards "ineffective leadership", because I do believe that effective management has its merits.

Thanks for the read, and as always comments are requested and appreciated.

Until next time,
-Jason

Emotional Intelligence

Hi Everyone,

This will a short post on "Emotional Intelligence" the pioneering book written by Daniel Goleman. In a nutshell many would say that the strength of a leader is measured by his/her emotional intelligence.

According to Goleman, emotional intelligence is made up of 5 main categories:

• Self Awareness
• Self Regulation
• Motivation
• Empathy
• Social Skill

More on this in a future post!
-Jason

The One Minute Repirmand

OK, so you can see that I'm on a One Minute Manager kick, but this will be a brief article about the "One Minute Reprimand".

So far I have never gotten a "One Minute Reprimand". I actually have never gotten a reprimand that hasn't turned into a "One hour or two hour reprimand"... though parents have the habit of lecturing their kids a little bit too much.

In the work environment though, I have felt that negative feedback often is vague... and almost always not very constructive. I think the problem is with people using "feedback" as a code word for "tearing someone a new one in a politically correct manner". Shouldn't feedback be about correcting or reinforcing particular behavior?

Maybe that is why so many people are afraid of getting feedback and why so many new managers are very uncomfortable with giving good and useful feedback. Maybe they have forgotten that feedback should be about catching people doing good more so than catching people doing wrong.

At least in the places that I have worked, I see that most "managers" are too "busy" to actually do much managing. It's kind of ironic. Managers are too busy doing their subordinates work (micromanaging) and don't give good feedback for fear of being "micro-managers".

The One Minute Reprimand (in a nutshell)

• Immediate - Give the reprimand immediately. Don't you hate those, "Remember two weeks when you were doing that thing... yeah that wasn't really good." Why couldn't the manager tell me this two weeks ago so that I could have fixed it immediately and not have wasted my time and effort on something she didn't like?
• Specific - Be specific about what the offending behavior is so that the person receiving the reprimand will know what to fix.
• Share your feelings - Let them know how you feel about the offending behavior. Let them know the reason why it is wrong... not just that what they did was "bad" in some vague way.
  
• Reaffirm - Even after using the first three rules, people still won't be happy with any reprimand, so take a second to reaffirm to them that you value their contribution to the team and that they are better than the offending behavior.
  

You don't have to leave these rules at the work place. Try them at home... your friends and family will thank me for it.

Until next time,
-Jason

Making Your Team Happy

I just read this great post at The Happiness Project. It's titled "How employers can boost the happiness of their employees". She gives a number of common sense (but not commonly practiced) tips of how employers can help make their employees happy. Here are some highlights, see the entire post here.

• People need control over their lives to feel happy - It's always much better to have a say in what YOU are doing than to have to do something just because your boss says you "have to"
• Reduce time commuting - I commute over an hour each way everyday. In the past year I have put almost 25,000 miles onto my car. As much as I like driving... I know this is definitely a stressor for me.
  
• Don't waste people's time - You know when you got that thing that you "have to" do by the end of the day, but then you pulled into hours of pointless meetings. Yeah... more stress. (Potential solution - see post on Running Meetings Like Google)
• Allow people to participate in social interaction - ummm... you know that guy whose office was moved into the supply closet.... yeah that's why he looks pissed all of the time
• Take Care of People's Health - healthy team members are happy team members
• Everyone Loves Surprises - OK, not all surprises, but little things to break the monotony of the workday can work wonders to improve morale. Maybe thats why college was so much fun. There was always something wild and crazy going on just down the hall / on campus / downtown.
  

So I'm thinking at least someone out there is thinking, "But all I need out of my people is for them to get the work done. If I'm efficient and effective, everything will be fine."

Not exactly... Human beings are incredibly emotional creatures. We are dramatically swayed by our moods and feelings. Think about it. Can you remember a time when you were extremely motivated. Can you feel the emotion and energy that pulsed through your body? You were going a mile a minute and loving it!

Now think about another time when you were stressed, maybe a little bit upset, or angry. Did you really feel like doing anything that you "had" to do? Most likely not.

In the end this is something like the carrot and the stick. All too often people just reach for the stick to "make" people do what they want. Sometimes this is necessary, but I think we'd all be better if we could reach for more carrots.

Please let me know what you think. As always comments are requested and appreciated.

Until next time,
-Jason