Happy Groundhog Day!

In the movie Groundhog Day, Bill Murray finds himself reliving the same day over and over again. Great movie, and solid proof of the old adage that adventure is something really dangerous and exciting happening to someone else. As much as watching Groundhog Day can be lots of fun, actually experiencing it is something else again. Thus, it never fails to amaze me when organizations willingly enter the Groundhog Zone.

No, I don’t mean that they are afraid of their own shadows, although that sometimes happens too! Rather, they are trapped in a cycle that is at best non-productive, at worst, downright destructive to the organization. Worst of all: everyone knows its happening and yet no one does anything about it. Unlike Bill Murray, though, they aren’t actually trapped. They just think they are.

For example, I worked with one two thousand person organization on some serious leadership issues. The first time the organization ran into this particular problem was decades ago, and it nearly destroyed the business. Many of the top people stormed out to found a competing company. The same thing happened again some twenty years later. The third time around, we made some progress: there was no fissioning of the business. Everyone stayed put and the first steps were taken to resolving some of the long-standing structural problems that were causing this cycle to repeat. It wasn’t easy and it wasn’t necessarily pleasant, but it happened.

Okay, that’s an old business. Should we really be concerned with problems that only come up every twenty years? That’s up to you; I suppose it depends on when the next time the cycle rolls around. But Groundhog moments are not limited to older companies. Younger companies can have the same problems.

At one company, the engineering teams are unable to make decisions. The same issues come up week after week: every Monday is Groundhog Day! While there is a lot of talking and a great deal of motion, there is no progress. Running around in circles may feel good, but doesn’t exactly get you anywhere. Management regularly gets involved in various ways, and always with the same results: there’s some yelling, some threats, maybe a few people get fired, and there’s a brief flurry of forward motion. After a few weeks or a couple months, though, they are right back to where they started. Even though many members of the management team know there’s a problem, even though they keep talking about the problem, they take no action despite the cost to the organization: on the order of six figures per month. Groundhog Day indeed!

So what do you do when you realize that you are trapped in Groundhog heaven? Since every company’s Groundhog Day is uniquely theirs, the key is to know how to generate possible solutions, rather than find a one-size fits none approach.

First of all, don’t be afraid of your own shadow. Recognize that something isn’t working the way it should. The longer you pretend the problem doesn’t really exist or the longer you just hope it’ll go away, the worse it will get. As Einstein famously said, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. Whatever you’re doing to change things isn’t working. It’s time to try something else.

In Bill Murray’s case, Groundhog Day just happened overnight. In the real world, you didn’t get into Groundhog mode overnight and you won’t break out of it overnight. Stop looking for quick fixes: if they haven’t worked yet, they aren’t likely to in the future. You’ll spend more time and money trying quick solutions that don’t break the cycle than you will in committing to one solution that may take some time to implement. Organizational change, even beneficial change that everyone claims they want, is still difficult. If it wasn’t, Groundhog Day would be over by now.

Look outside the company for ideas. Let’s face it, you’ve got some really smart people working at your company (if that’s not true, you have bigger problems!). If they haven’t managed to change things, it might just be because they either don’t know how or they are too busy doing their jobs to devote the time and energy necessary to driving the changes necessary, or both. Whatever the reason, recognize that if they could, they would. Look at other companies and adapt their solutions to your specific culture and situation and bring in the resources you need to actually break the cycle.

Bill Murray has no choice but to repeat Groundhog Day over and over. Fortunately, you aren’t Bill Murray. What choice will you make?

 

Stephen Balzac is an expert on leadership and organizational development. A consultant, author, and professional speaker, he is president of 7 Steps Ahead, an organizational development firm focused on helping businesses get unstuck. Steve is the author of “The 36-Hour Course in Organizational Development,” published by McGraw-Hill, and a contributing author to volume one of “Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play.” For more information, or to sign up for Steve’s monthly newsletter, visit www.7stepsahead.com. You can also contact Steve at 978-298-5189 or steve@7stepsahead.com.

February 15th,2012 Newsletters | tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Happy Groundhog Day!

How to Use Sports to Advance Leadership and Organizational Development – Steve Balzac with James Rick

Here’s the blurb from my appearance on the Full Potential Show. For the actual show, click here.

Can sports be used for more than just fun and pleasure? You bet!  The same disciplines or character development, leadership and team based skills applies to almost every other domain in life.

Steve Balzac is a man of many talents. He is a consultant, speaker, and author of 36-Hour Course in Organizational Development. He is a popular speaker on such topics as leadership, team building, interviewing skills, and sports performance. In this interview, he shares the lessons he has learned from the sports he excels in – Jiu Jitsu and fencing – and how they tie-in with the honing of leadership and organizational development potential.

THE TIE IN

a)    Use the other person’s force against him (as in Jiu Jitsu)
b)    Meet and go with the force of the other person in order to take him to where you want him to go
c)    In a difficult situation, attract the other person to where you want to take him
d)    Don’t be afraid to try different techniques, even if you have to look like an idiot sometimes
e)    Explore and practice the fundamentals well (as in fencing)
f)    Build yourself to a point where you can stay focused for long periods of time
g)    When you’re up there, you should not care whether you win or lose. If you focus on the outcome, you doubt yourself and hesitate
h)    After preparing your team, give them permission to go off and achieve what they need to
i)    Look at mistakes as the cornerstone of innovation and as a part of the process of evolution
j)    Determine if mistakes repeatedly committed is due to a flaw in the system
k)    Don’t do all your research ahead of time – it’s impossible to know everything ahead of time
l)    Develop a culture where it’s acceptable of everybody to commit mistakes, including you
m)    Consult with your followers to show them you’re interested in listening to their ideas

FINAL POINTERS ON LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

1)    Tell your own story – what you’re trying to do and why you care about it
2)    While you should have an outcome, dwelling on it during show time can actually hinder performance
3)    Walk your way backwards through the steps from the outcome – this will make the first step very easy
4)    Don’t be afraid to ask someone to show you the way (no team makes it to the Olympics without a coach). This will shorten your learning curve.

FINAL THOUGHTS

• “Experiment” is synonymous with mistakes and breakthroughs.

September 20th,2011 Announcements | tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Use Sports to Advance Leadership and Organizational Development – Steve Balzac with James Rick

Who Betrays One Master

A nervous looking man in a suit slips furtively through the streets of an unnamed city. He comes to an office building and, checking to make sure that he isn’t being watched, slips inside. There, another man greets him.

“Do you have the plans?” the second man asks.

“Do you have the money?” replies the first.

Perhaps they haggle for a moment, but then the second man hands over the money and the first man hands over an envelope. The second man glances into the envelope.

“I see you kept your word.”

“You earned it,” replies the first man as he turns to leave.

“No,” says the second, as he pulls a gun and shoots the first man, “I bought it.”

“I betrayed my company for you! I proved my loyalty.” gasps the first man, as he falls to the floor.

The second man looks down at the body on the floor and says, “The man who betrays one master will assuredly betray another.”

If this scene sounds familiar, it probably is. Some variation of it appears in hundreds of movies, from James Bond to WWII action films to fantasy adventure. The trope is a simple one: a man betrays his country, company, organization, or teacher. The person to whom he sells out reaps the rewards, but never believes the traitor’s protestations of loyalty to his new masters. Eventually, it ends badly for the traitor.

Now, if this scenario were only a work of fiction, there would be little more to say. Unfortunately, the fictional part is the end: in real life the disloyal person is rewarded and given every opportunity to betray his new masters.

Read the rest in the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership

August 22nd,2011 Published Articles | tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Betrays One Master

What Big Picture?

As published in The CEO Refresher

Imagine for a moment that you’re sitting down in front of your brand new 72 inch flat screen TV. The picture is fantastic, and the room is huge, or at least good-sized. After all, if the room is too small, it’ll be hard to sit far enough from the screen to really appreciate the picture. But, assuming that you have a little distance, the quality and the detail is just amazing. You can relax and see everything. Of course, if the show you’re watching is really exciting, you may find that you’ve missed a few of those details while you focused on the main action. That’s hardly unusual, and is a reason why people will often watch a movie more than once. Successive viewings allow them to pick up the little details that they might have missed the first, or even the second, time through.

Now, should you be sitting a little too close to that screen, it can be difficult to pick up some of the details. You can focus really well on the spot in front of you, but other parts of the screen can be hard to see. You might need to shift position or turn your head to follow the action. Even then, if the action gets too exciting, you may find it confusing or hard to follow. You might even find yourself getting caught up in the details that are right in front of your nose and ending up with a very confused perspective on what the entire show was all about.

At one time, I worked with a company that kept exhorting people to focus on the big picture. At the same time, they kept setting extremely aggressive goals with very tight deadlines. Everyone was pushing themselves to the limit trying to meet the deadlines. It was more than a little difficult for people to focus on anything other than the immediate problems they were trying to solve. It was kind of like sitting a bit too close to that 72 inch flat screen television and getting caught up in the exciting details right in front you.

At various meetings, it swiftly didn’t become clear that no one really knew what the big picture was. The reason it didn’t become clear was that at the first couple of meetings those who raised questions or attempted to find out what the big picture was were castigated for not paying more attention to that big picture. They were also chewed out for not focusing more on their areas of individual responsibility. People learned very rapidly to focus on their own areas and nod sagely in response to questions about the big picture. At least that way you’d only get chewed on over one thing.

The resulting product could be described charitably as a little schizophrenic. It was the equivalent of the blind men describing the elephant, with the added benefit of having a fifth blind man sitting nearby talking about the elephant’s wings.

If you really want people to focus on the big picture, there are a few things that need to happen in order to make that possible.

First, silly though it may seem to mention this, you have to have a big picture. I can’t count the number of organizations, for-profit and non-profit alike, where I’ve asked about overall vision and gotten nothing but static. A 72 inch television shows snow really well, so well that you might not even realize that you’re looking at static. Take the time to delineate your vision.

Second, you need to make it easy for people to see the big picture. The company I mentioned earlier was trying to make it hard for people to ignore the big picture. Unfortunately, the harder they made it to ignore the big picture, the harder they made it to see the big picture. There’s a reason why people see movies more than once: when we’re excited or stressed we miss the details that are not in front of us. Unfortunately, most businesses don’t get instant replays. Therefore, we need to reduce the stress level if we want people to pay attention to things that are not of immediate concern.

Third, distance makes a big difference. When we’re too close to the problem, it’s hard to see anything beyond it. Just like sitting too close to that 72 inch TV, we forget about things not in our immediate field of vision. If you want people to focus on the big picture, you need to create some metaphorical space so that they can take it in. That requires taking the team away from the daily routine to periodically review the big picture. Help each person see why their piece is important and how it fits in. Connect the dots. Give people perspective.

Finally, encourage questions and give honest answers. That includes admitting when you don’t know. Don’t yell at people for not seeing the big picture; instead, view it as feedback that either the big picture isn’t being communicated well or isn’t clear. Invite feedback and encourage people to contribute to fleshing out the picture. It’s a lot easier to focus on the big picture when you feel involved.

It’s amazing how much better the picture is when you give yourself the space to enjoy it.

June 7th,2011 Published Articles, Thoughts on business | tags: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Big Picture?

Using the Force: What Every Exec Can Learn from Darth Vader

As published in the Worcester Business Journal

My 6-year-old son is seriously into Star Wars. As we were watching the movies recently, he turned to me and asked, “Why is Darth Vader such a mean leader?”

Coming from a kid who thinks the Sith are kind of cool, the question took me by surprise. On the other hand, it’s rather heartening to see that even a small child can recognize bad management. Of course, the real question is not what makes Darth Vader such a bad leader. After all, when you’re the Dark Lord of the Sith, you don’t really need a reason. More aptly, the question is: What does it take to be a good leader?

No Intimidation

First, we have to dispense with the primary weapon of the Sith: fear. Darth Vader rules through terror, but the fact is, you don’t need to have the power to choke people to death using the Force to create a climate of fear. Fear is very effective at getting people to move away from something. In the practice of Jujitsu, fear of injury is often quite sufficient to convince an attacker to dive headfirst into the ground or into the nearest wall. Some mistakes are a natural part of doing business. When people are shamed for making mistakes or threatened with loss of their jobs if they don’t measure up, they become less creative, less dedicated and errors are not corrected.

Team Spirit

To be a positive leader, the first step you need to take is to focus on affiliation. You might also think of it as team spirit. When people come together to form a team, the first thing they do is look for common ground. To really create affiliation, the leader needs to actively get to know his team members and encourage them to get to know one another.

Independence

Next is building autonomy. Perhaps counter-intuitively, autonomy is the result of having structure. Structure lets each team member know what the others are doing well enough to trust them when they aren’t visible. That trust is what permits autonomy.

Lack of structure is chaos. Too much structure is stifling. For example, when an employee comes up with a good idea and your response is to ignore them, that is too little structure. When you say, “Good idea! Here’s how we can make it better!” that’s too much structure. Appropriate structure is to say, “Great idea! How did you come up with it?”

Great Expectations

Competence is not just hiring competent people. It’s creating an atmosphere of competence. Nothing succeeds like the expectation of success.

Managers can motivate employees in one of two ways: you can focus on failures, and make dire predictions about what will happen if employees screw up; or you can focus on success, and remind the employee of the things they did well.

The keys to great leadership are: get away from fear, build affiliation, create structure to enable autonomy, and craft an atmosphere of competence.

The hard part is finding the right balance for your team and your company. Start slowly and let yourself accelerate as you learn to use these techniques effectively. You’ll soon be amazed at how fast you’re going.

May 31st,2011 Published Articles, Thoughts on business | tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Using the Force: What Every Exec Can Learn from Darth Vader

The Hydrangea Conundrum

As published in The CEO Refresher.

If you were following the news last summer, you’ve probably heard that, after the cancellation of the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, Boris and Natasha retired to Montclair, NJ. More specifically, the FBI announced the arrest of ten Russian spies whose mission appears to have been to infiltrate the PTA. At a certain level, the whole affair seems like a rather bizarre choice between putting together a deep-cover infiltration or having the New York Times delivered to your doorstep. What is particularly interesting, though, is the reaction of a neighbor of one of the accused spies:

“She couldn’t be a spy. Look what she did with the hydrangeas!”

This one line has received a great deal of press, to say nothing of a featured spot on late night comedy. It is, on the surface, quite ludicrous. After all, what would hydrangeas have to do with whether or not someone is a spy? Of course, the traditional movie image of a spy generally involves someone in a trench coat and sunglasses, but so what? Even the most dedicated spy has to take that trench coat off sometimes!

Seriously, though, this is exactly the point: when we hear about spies, we have a certain mental image created from a mixture of James Bond, Jason Bourne, perhaps some John le Carré novels, and so forth. When we see something that is inconsistent with that image, we make certain assumptions and judgments, often without realizing it. It is, let’s face it, hard to imagine James Bond planting hydrangeas. A good spy, though, is going to be aware of exactly this tendency and will take advantage of it: exactly because it is so hard to imagine James Bond planting hydrangeas is why he would do it.

The fact is, planting hydrangeas is as much an indication of whether or not someone is a spy as being charming in an interview is an indication that a person is a good hire or working long hours is an indication that someone is dedicated to the company.

OK, I realize that I’m taking a sacred cow and starting to grind it up into hamburger, so let’s look at these different scenarios.

When I talk with different employers about what they’re hoping to accomplish through their interview process, I get some interesting answers. The people higher up the management ladder tell me they’re trying to find the best potential employees, while the people who are actually meeting with the candidates the most tell me they’re looking for someone who will be fun to work with. This is rather like getting married, or not, after a first date.

While charming might be very nice and feel good in an interview, the worst prima donnas are often extremely charming and engaging for short periods of time. It isn’t until you’ve worked with them for a while that it becomes obvious what you’re dealing with. They know how to plant those hydrangeas, though, and are fully prepared to take maximum advantage of the impression that gives. In fact, some of the most competent people come off the worst in interviews because they’re seen as too intense or too “threatening.” That last seems to mean, “more competent than I am!” If the interview isn’t structured and the interviewers trained appropriately, the hydrangea effect is going to produce a lot of false positives and false negatives!

The hydrangea effect is in also in full flower in employee evaluations. I can’t count how often managers tell me that their best people are the ones who are working the most hours. Yet, when we actually look at results, we find that the correlation isn’t quite there. Focusing on accomplishments without looking at time spent reveals that quite often working long hours is just another form of the hydrangea effect. However, the fact is that a lot of people are well aware of the fact that visibly working late is a good way of currying favor and generating an image of dedication. This image is so powerful that I’ve even see the person doing inferior work be rated more highly than the superior performer who didn’t work late. What is even more interesting is the implicit statement that someone who gets the job done slowly is more valuable than someone who gets it done quickly. Consider that the next time you’re sitting around waiting for the mechanic to finish working on your car!

While it’s clearly the case that the hydrangea effect makes it hard to catch spies, that’s not going to be an issue for most of us. When it causes us to hire or reward the wrong people then it can lead to some rather unpleasant corporate hay fever, and that is an issue for most businesses.

So how do you tell when the hydrangea effect is influencing your decisions?

Next time you find yourself saying, “He must be a good hire because he’s so well-dressed and charming,” or “She must be doing great work because she works such long hours,” try replacing everything after the word “because” with: “he/she did such amazing things with the hydrangeas.” Does it still sound equally valid? You should have a very different reaction in either of those examples than if the sentence was “She’s must be doing great work because she meets all her deadlines and the customers love her stuff.”

In other words, are you focusing on something real, such as results, or are you being distracted by the colorful flowers?

April 18th,2011 Published Articles | tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Balance the Individual and the Team for Top Performance

As published in Corp! Magazine

In Monty Python’s classic comedy, “The Life of Brian,” there is a scene fairly early in the movie when the people of Jerusalem have decided that Brian is the Messiah and are standing waiting on the street outside his window. Brian’s mother screams out at the crowd, “You are all individuals.”

The crowd replies: “We are all individuals.”

A pause, and then a lone voice yells, “I’m not.”

This is typical Monty Python absurdist humor, but it makes a very serious point. What is standing outside Brian’s window is not a group of individuals, it’s a mob. A mob is a group in which individuality is lost in the urge to conform to the group. As the movie progresses, we see the mob do various ludicrous things as they follow their unwilling prophet. Brian’s followers are, of course, convinced that they are acting according to his instructions and executing his desires, no matter how much Brian screams to the contrary. This being a Python film, the sequence of events is absolutely hilarious.

In a business, not so much. Unfortunately, the tendency for a group to lose individuality in the service of a charismatic leader or a particularly enticing corporate vision is not restricted to comedy. At one large software company, the dynamic became quite extreme: employees were expected to arrive at a certain time, eat lunch at a certain time, visit a certain set of restaurants, leave at a certain time, and so forth. No deviation was tolerated. The mantra was, “We’re a team. We do everything alike!”

Sound fanciful? I wish it were.

The problem is that a team that loses its individuality is not a team, it’s a mob or a rabble. It can be a very disciplined mob or rabble, sort of like the Storm Troopers in “Star Wars,” but it’s still a mob. Like the Storm Troopers, it’s very good at dealing with routine situations, but isn’t very good at dealing with the unexpected: new tactics from the rebels or, if you prefer, new competitors or existing competitors adopting new strategies. The other problem is that when a group focuses on homogeneity, it loses its ability for the strengths of some to compensate for the weaknesses of others: the Storm Troopers, for example, cannot successfully shoot the broad side of a barn.

At a different high-tech company, the only engineers hired matched a very precise and very limited profile. Not only did you have to solve a certain set of puzzles, you had to solve them in just the right way. Alternate solutions were not tolerated. This created a team that was very good at creating intricate, convoluted algorithms, and a user interface that was equally intricate and convoluted.

None of these situations are as extreme as that portrayed in “The Life of Brian,” but then again, they aren’t as funny either.

Later in the movie, we see the opposite end of the spectrum: the members of the People’s Front of Judea are so busy drawing insignificant distinctions between each of their positions that they are not functioning as a team. Rather, they are a horde. Each person is operating according to their own individual needs and goals, with no actual concern about the goals or strategy of the group. In a horde, everyone is a hero, entitled to his or her share of the plunder and devil take the hindmost. Cooperation is almost accidental, and the group is likely to break apart at the slightest disagreement:  the People’s Front of Judea can’t even quite figure out why the Judean People’s Front broke off, but is quite happy to yell, “Splitters!”

At a certain manufacturing company, each department was totally focused on doing its own job. None of the departments considered how their actions or decisions affected the others. Within each department, much the same thing was happening at an individual level. Rather than figuring out how to work together, they spent their time blaming one another for the inevitable failures. Fixing this issue saved the company in question several hundred thousand dollars a year.

The challenge, of course, is to find the middle ground, where the individual and the team are in balance. While it’s extremely difficult to find the exact middle, anywhere in the general vicinity works pretty well. Peak performance occurs when people are committed to the goals of the company and the team, and are also free to pursue their personal goals and work the way they want to work. Is it easy? No: less than one team in five ever gets there. However, it sure beats a horde or a mob of people chanting, “We are all individuals.”

Stephen Balzac is an expert on leadership and organizational development. A consultant, author, and professional speaker, he is president of 7 Steps Ahead, an organizational development firm focused on helping businesses get unstuck. Steve is the author of “The 36-Hour Course in Organizational Development,” published by McGraw-Hill, and a contributing author to volume one of “Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play.” For more information, contact steve@7stepsahead.com.

April 14th,2011 Published Articles | tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Balance the Individual and the Team for Top Performance

The Peter Principle of the Thing

As published in Corp! Magazine

A good many years ago, I was working at a small software company. For various personal reasons, the VP of Engineering abruptly left the company and one of the senior engineers was promptly promoted to take this place. Now, this guy was an excellent engineer and I learned a great deal from him. He was a fun person to work with and someone who was always enthusiastic. He was picked for the job exactly because of those qualities and because of his engineering prowess. However, as a manager of engineering, he never appeared to have the same joy and excitement about his job. Indeed, he often gave the impression that he’d rather be writing code than managing other people who were writing the code. After the company folded, as far as I know, he went back to engineering.

At another company, Jim was a star researcher. He was brilliant. He was the person who came up with idea after idea. He did so well that eventually he was put in charge of the lab. At that point, things went downhill. Working through other people drove Jim up the wall. He wanted to be in the lab, not arguing about the best way to do things. He couldn’t go back, though, without being viewed as a failure. At the same time, he couldn’t get promoted until he “shaped up” and “made his lab more productive.” He was trapped doing a job he didn’t particularly enjoy and wasn’t particularly good at.

Both of these stories are examples of a hypothesis first proposed in the 1960s by psychologist Lawrence J. Peter. Today, the “Peter Principle” is spoken about with a certain amusement and a smug “yeah right” attitude. Unfortunately, “yeah right” is the only construction in the English language in which a double positive makes a negative. In other words, the Peter Principle is popularly seen as a joke. In fact, it’s not. Moreover, it turns out that when you have an environment in which someone can be promoted into a job that is significantly different from what they’ve been doing, the Peter Principle is virtually inevitable. The key point lies in recognizing what constitutes “significantly different.”

Well, as it happens, managing engineers is significantly different from being an excellent engineer. Managing researchers is significantly different from being a top researcher. Managing salesmen is significantly different from being a top salesman. However, being a top engineer, researcher, salesman, or whatever is exactly what brings that person to the attention of senior management. If this isn’t disturbing enough, in the study confirming this phenomenon, authors Pluchino, Rapisarda, and Garofalo also found that the best way to avoid it was to either promote people randomly or promote the best and the worst performers equally.

As Monty Python might say, “This is getting silly!” After all, how can it possibly be true that random promotion would work better than promoting the best performers into management?

Consider how much time, effort, and training is required to become a top engineer, researcher, salesman, doctor, or just about anything else. Nothing in the training these people receive prepares them to manage others. In fact, good management is, in many ways, the antithesis of being a successful solo performer: instead of doing the work yourself, you are now doing it through others. Motivating others is a different experience than motivating yourself. Helping others stay focused and on track is different from keeping yourself focused and on track.

So, without resorting to promoting people randomly, what could be done to prevent the Peter Principle from taking over in your company?

Well, if it were possible for someone to both be a manager and not be a manager at the same time, you would be able to see if they could do the job, and allow them to continue along the track they’re on if they don’t shape up. Unfortunately, literally attempting this is pretty hard on the person and the business; someone who tries to be both a manager and an individual contributor at the same time usually ends up doing one, or usually both, badly.

An alternative, though, is to take a page from sports and provide practice space for people. Just as a sports team might rotate players through different roles before figuring out what each one is best at, companies can use predictive scenario leadership games and exercises not just to train existing leaders, but to find leaders. Quite simply, when people don’t know what to do, they do what they are most comfortable doing. In predictive scenarios, people have the opportunity to demonstrate talents that might not be obvious or which may never come up in their regular jobs. For example, the best managers create order in chaotic or ambiguous situations and know how to build employees’ confidence. When you enable an entire department to participate in a predictive scenario, you can see who is actually doing those things. Rather than promote randomly, you can pick the people who most strongly demonstrate the desired skill set for the position you are looking to fill!

Is this easy? Not necessarily. It takes some serious effort to avoid the Peter Principle. I suspect that many of you reading this are thinking that you simply can’t afford do anything about it. The real question is, can you afford not to?

Stephen Balzac is an expert on leadership and organizational development. A consultant, author, and professional speaker, he is president of 7 Steps Ahead (www.7stepsahead.com), an organizational development firm focused on helping businesses get unstuck. Steve is the author of “The 36-Hour Course in Organizational Development,” published by McGraw-Hill, and a contributing author to volume one of “Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play.” Contact him at steve@7stepsahead.com.

March 14th,2011 Published Articles | tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Peter Principle of the Thing

Death of a Thousand Knives

As published in Corp! Magazine

Very few companies are ever driven out of business by their competitors.

I’ve found that this statement upsets a great many people, all of whom are quick to jump up and start providing examples of companies that were, in fact, driven out of business by their competitors. This is missing the point. Indeed, it’s rather like a detective in a murder mystery concluding that the cause of death was that the victim’s heart stopped. It matters whether the heart stopped due to lead poisoning, for example in the form of a bullet, or due to some other cause. Indeed, understanding exactly what led to that heart stopping moment is a key part of solving the mystery.

Similarly, while it’s not so unusual for a failing company to have the coup de grace administered by a competitor, how they got to that point makes all the difference. Focusing only on the end point provides a very simple, comfortable solution, but not necessarily a particularly useful one.

Robotic Chromosomes, for example, was a company that dominated a particular niche in the bioinformatics market. They were an early entrant into the field and their products were initially the best on the market.

Over the course of several years, though, they developed a view of their clients as idiots. The fact that their clients were all highly educated research scientists did not enter into the equation. If they had trouble using the software, they were idiots. As a result, the company became increasingly less open to feedback from either clients or the market. While their market share was increasing faster than the market itself, they could get away with that attitude. Eventually, though, their growth started lagging the growth in the market. Phrases like “law of large numbers” and “temporary aberration” were batted about. When their market share started shrinking, phrases like, “temporary aberration” became even more popular. The view of the clients as insanely stupid for buying competing products became more common.

Today, they no longer exist. Were they driven out of business by their competitors? Only in the sense that they put themselves in a position to allow their competitors to drive them out of their dominant position in the market. Sure, their competitors may have pushed them over the cliff, but they were the ones who chose to walk to the edge and lean over.

Now, it may reasonably appear from the preceding description that Robotic Chromosomes was taken down by a clearly defined event, that is, viewing clients as idiots. That is not, however, quite correct. While it may appear that way in retrospect, the reality is that Robotic Chromosomes suffered from a series of cascading errors. Each mistake was small, easily overlooked or ignored. Each mistake led to more mistakes until eventually the company was suffering from so many small cuts that it eventually had no strength left to resist when its competitors moved in. So how does a company avoid this death of a thousand knives?

The obvious answer is that they needed better communications. While true, it again misses the point. Communications is where problems show up, but the communications are rarely the problem. Rather, the dysfunctional communications are the symptom of the problem. It’s critical to look beyond the symptoms to identify the real problem. Otherwise, you spend all your time looking at the wrong things, as Robotic Chromosomes so eloquently demonstrated.

Avoiding that fate requires a willingness to accept negative feedback; it means being willing to hear what people are saying about your product, your service or your management style. If you aren’t willing to listen, or if you structure the way in which you listen to negate the feedback, you’re setting yourself up for failure, one step at a time. For example, creating a culture that mocks and demeans your clients is not a recipe for success, and closes you off from valuable feedback from those clients.

Being willing to accept feedback is only a first step though. You have to create a context in which employees are not afraid to give you that feedback, and in which they believe that providing feedback is worthwhile. If people believe they’ll be punished for being critical or regarded as “not a team player,” it’ll be hard to get them to provide feedback.

Next, you need to clearly define your goals and also define how you’ll know whether you’re succeeding or failing. Robotic Chromosomes had very fluid definitions of success, definitions that shifted regularly to avoid facing unpleasant results. It’s important to separate the evaluation of the feedback you’re getting from the testing to see if the criteria for that evaluation are valid. In fact, verifying the validity of your criteria should be done before you then evaluate your feedback: otherwise, it’s too easy to redefine success and give yourself a few more cuts. None of them seem all that bad at the time.

Step by step, over the course of several years, Robotic Chromosomes successfully created an environment where any negative feedback could be ignored because that feedback was always coming from idiots. Their competitors didn’t drive them out of business. They drove themselves out of business; their competitors simply put them out of their misery. How will you avoid the death of a thousand knives?

Stephen Balzac is an expert on leadership and organizational development. A consultant, author, and professional speaker, he is president of 7 Steps Ahead (www.7stepsahead.com), an organizational development firm focused on helping leaders grow their businesses. Steve is the author of “The 36-Hour Course in Organizational Development,” published by McGraw-Hill, and a contributing author to volume one of “Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play.” Contact him at steve@7stepsahead.com.

March 10th,2011 Published Articles | tags: , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Death of a Thousand Knives

Of Deck Chairs and Ocean Liners

As published in The CEO Refresher

“Just give me the numbers!”

Falling firmly into the “I just can’t make this stuff up” category, the preceding statement was made by the head of a certain engineering department. He wanted the performance figures on a series of database lookups so that he could determine if the database code was performing up to specifications. This would be a perfectly reasonable request except for one minor problem: the database code was not producing the correct results in the first place. Performance was sort of irrelevant given that getting the wrong answers quickly is not necessarily all that helpful, although it may be less irritating than having to wait for the wrong answers. It’s rather like driving at 75mph when lost: you may not know where you are or where you are going, but at least you’ll get there quickly. Or something.

In another example, the engineers developing a bioinformatics data analysis package spent all their time arguing about the correct way to set up the GUI elements on each page. The problem was that when they actually ran one of the calculations, the program appeared to hang. In fact, I was assured by everyone, it just “took a long time to run.” How long? The answer was, “maybe a few weeks.”

This may come as a shock to those few people who have never used a PC, but a few weeks is generally longer than either a PC or a Mac will run before crashing. Besides, the complete lack of response from the program regularly convinced users that the program had crashed. The engineers did not want to put in some visual indicator of progress because they felt it wouldn’t look good visually. They refused to remove that calculation from the product because “someone might want to try it.” Eventually, they grudgingly agreed to warn the user that it “might take a very long time to run.”

In both of these cases, the team was solving the wrong problem. Although there were definitely complaints about the speed of the database, that was very much a secondary issue so long as the database wasn’t producing correct results. And while the user interface decisions were certainly important, designing an elegant interface for a feature that will convince the user that the product is not working is not particularly useful. At least rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic was only a waste of time. It didn’t contribute to the ship sinking.

The element that made each of these situations noteworthy is that in both cases there were people present pointing out that the wrong problems were getting all the attention. The people making the decisions didn’t want to hear that. They wanted to solve a certain set of problems and, by golly, they were going to solve them! This is a version of the Hammer syndrome: when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Sometimes, though, that nail turns out to be a thumbnail.

So why were these teams so insistent upon solving the wrong problems? Fundamentally, because they could. Simply put, if you give someone a problem they can solve comfortably, and one that they have no idea how to approach, they will do the former. In addition, they had never established clear metrics for success, never established standards by which they would know if the database was fast enough or the user interface was good enough. As a result, they built their goals and evaluated their performance around those issues. They were not being evaluated on whether they got the right answer, despite the opinions that the customers might have in that regard.

While clear, specific goals are certainly good things, goals also have to make sense. When a company is constantly seeing flaws in its products, it can be a very valuable exercise to look at the goals assigned to each person and each team in the company. Do those goals make sense? What problems or challenges are they addressing? Are the goals complementary, or are there significant gaps? If the engineering team is being evaluated on how many bugs they can fix and the QA team on how many new bugs they can find, what happens to the step where fixed bugs get verified? If no one is responsible for that happening, it won’t get done (and didn’t, in several software companies!). If the team focuses on the wrong problems, they’ll spend their time fighting symptoms or revisiting solved problems, and never deal with the real issues.

Therefore, even before you can set goals, you have to know what the problem is that you are trying to solve. That means first separating the symptoms of the problem from the problem itself. The symptoms are only symptoms; frequently, they can point to many possible problems. It’s important to look at the symptoms and brainstorm which problems they could be indicating. When you start developing solutions, you then need to ask what the final product will look like if you go ahead with your solution and you need to know what success looks like. Make sure that your proposed solution will actually solve at least some of the potential problems you’ve identified, and develop some way of testing to make sure you are solving the correct problem. In other words, have some checkpoints along the way so you can make sure that you’re actually improving things. Only then can you start to set goals that will effectively guide you to producing a quality product.

What are you doing to make sure that you are not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

January 6th,2011 Published Articles | tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment