My article on “Zen and the Art of Leadership” is now available at FreudTV (www.freudtv.com).
A great deal has already been said about the plane landing in the Hudson River last Thursday. What’s amazing to me is how many people have ascribed to luck the happy ending to what could have been a major disaster.
Was luck involved? Certainly!
It was lucky that the plane went down at a time of day when there was very little commercial shipping on the river.
It was lucky that the ferries were out at the time the plane went down.
It was lucky that the particular pilot just happened to have the necessary and appropriate training to recognize what had happened and not panic. Instead, he remained calm and relied on his training to glide a passenger jet down to the river.
As the old saying goes, luck is when 10,000 hours of preparation meets a moment of opportunity.
The lack of shipping and the presence of ferries wouldn’t have helped much if the pilot had lacked the skill to bring the plane down safely. It’s doubtful that he ever really believed that all that time he spent training, flying, and in a simulator would matter, other than for his own growth and development. What are the odds of a double-bird strike? What are the odds that just the right person was in the right place at the right time? Who could have known what would happen?
No one.
And this is the lesson for businesses. It’s easy to see what skills and knowledge are useful today. No one knows what skills or knowledge will prove useful tomorrow. Trends can change in a metaphorical heartbeat. When businesses cut training and development, or restrict the courses an employee can take (refusing to pay for a course unless a “clear” business need exists), that business is focusing entirely on the problems of today. It is not creating a workforce that is ready for the problems of tomorrow. Ready, in other words, to face unpredictable situations, unexpected problems, and unplanned for or unlikely circumstances.
On the other hand, those who have had the opportunity train and develop their skills, who have the freedom to explore their interests and learn the things that may or may not be obviously useful, are the most likely to come up with a good solution to an unexpected problem.
In the end, luck really does favor the prepared mind.
The holidays are the season for Yankee Swaps. Now, a Yankee Swap would seem to be a fairly simple and straightforward activity: each person either chooses a wrapped gift or steals an opened gift from someone else. This latter activity can, of course, trigger a chain reaction, but that’s part of the fun. At the end, everyone feels like they had at least some measure of control over the outcome. One would think it difficult, if not impossible, to mess up a Yankee Swap.
However, all things are possible. In this case, one company held a Yankee Swap with incredibly detailed and complicated rules which had as its most salient feature that no gifts were opened until the very end. In other words, the experience was transformed into the equivalent of a very slow grab bag: a long, frustrating, totally random process at the end of which people felt that they had no control over the outcome. Ironically, the most common complaint from employees at this company is that many of the rules are complex, time consuming, and leave them feeling like they have very little control over how they get their work done.
Now, a Yankee Swap is a pretty insignificant event, little more than an amusing party game. However, how a business goes about designing a small process says a lot about how it goes about designing larger, more significant processes: process design is strongly influenced by institutional habits and beliefs. With a small process, it’s easy to see the results of that belief in action because the entire event can be seen at one time; with larger processes, cause and effect may be separated by weeks or months, and the process is often so big that no one ever views it as a whole. The company ends up wondering why their results are poor, but can’t figure out the reasons. Those small processes can provide valuable insights into the company’s methodology and assumptions; recognizing consistent causes of small problems can enable you to avoid large ones. Ultimately, more important than improving one process is improving how the company designs all its processes.
In designing a process, it helps to clearly understand what you are trying to accomplish. Why did this particular company choose to redesign the Yankee Swap? Was there an actual problem that someone was trying to solve? Clearly, someone felt a need to come up with something, although their motives are impossible to fathom. As a result, they got a process that rather missed the point, but did end up reflective of the organization as a whole. However, it’s generally more successful to focus on results:
· Clearly define the objective. If the objective is to solve a problem, take the time to look at the symptoms and consider what they mean. When do they come up? Under what circumstances? Remember, the symptoms are not the problem, they’re just the symptoms. Generate a list of hypotheses and then test them to see if they lead to the observed symptoms. Solving the wrong problem will generally make things worse, not better.
· Describe what a successful outcome will look like. What will have changed? What behaviors will be different? Make this concrete. If success is, “people will have more fun,” how will you know? If the picture isn’t clear, identify the questions you need to answer to bring clarity. This may be an iterative process.
· Identify what you can change and what you can’t. You probably can’t change the economy, but you can change how you deal with it. Tom Watson Sr., founder of IBM, used the Great Depression as an opportunity to build up a highly trained, extremely loyal workforce and a stockpile of equipment. When WWII started, IBM was in an excellent position to capitalize on the reawakening economy. If everything falls into the “can’t change” category, you need to revisit your goal or problem formulation.
· Brainstorm possible solutions or approaches. Record ideas and do not evaluate any of them until you have a significant number of possibilities. Don’t worry if some ideas are silly or off-the-wall: innovative solutions come from the most unlikely sources.
· Will your solutions really get you where you want to go? Do research. Don’t rely on opinion and conjecture.
· Define your action steps.
· Execute and evaluate. Did it work? If not, check your problem formulation and try again.
If you’re not getting the results you want, what steps are you missing?
In today’s high-tech workplace, it is virtually impossible to not be part of a team. Projects are too big, too complex, too involved for a single person to do it all. Yet far too often people find teamwork to be frustrating and exhausting. Even when the team successfully ships a product, team members often feel burned out, frustrated, or surprisingly unhappy with their accomplishment.
Many managers have heard of the four stages of team development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. What is not as well known is the importance of that early, forming stage. During this phase, team members determine whether or not they feel emotionally and intellectually safe working with one another; they develop a sense of group identity, or remain a collection of individuals.
There’s an old saying that a couple isn’t really married until they’ve had their first fight. The same is true of teams. Part of working together involves arguing with coworkers: put any group of people together, and they are bound to have their own approaches and solutions to problems. If team members feel unable or unwilling to argue with one another, they avoid any conflict. If they are forced to argue but haven’t developed effective means for conflict management, the argument can quickly turn personal. In either case, the exchange of thoughts and ideas is blocked, anger builds, tension mounts, and the ability of team members to work together is severely compromised. Instead of developing group identity, team members may become convinced that their best strategy is maximizing personal gain instead of team performance.
The problems are exacerbated when the leader’s expertise is not management but engineering. There is a persistent, and ultimately painful, myth that engineers will only respect another engineer. Unfortunately, the very personality traits and skills that make someone a good engineer are often exactly the wrong skills to be a good manager. A team leader needs to have the social skills and empathy to manage the evolving dynamics of his team, and the interpersonal knowledge to apply those skills.
Of those people who do possess both sets of skills, even fewer can do both simultaneously. A good manager spends his time building the team. If he’s busy writing code, designing circuits, or what have you, then he’s not building the team. If he’s like most people thrust into a new situation and tasked with doing something he’s really good at, and something he’s not good at, he’ll gravitate toward the former.
Another problem faced by team leaders is that the storming phase can get, well, pretty stormy. The focus of that storm is often the leader. If the leader feels attacked, she’s likely to respond accordingly. This is a perfectly natural reaction. It’s also counterproductive. Managing conflict effectively means not getting enmeshed in the conflict in the first place: team progress can be set back weeks, months, or longer. Once conflict is joined, replacing the leader may improve things in the short-term, but can often make things worse long-term. The fundamental team dynamic needs to be repaired.
Unfortunately, more than half the teams in businesses become stuck in conflict or avoidance. When a team becomes stuck, it is stressful and exhausting to the team members. The company pays for this in lower productivity, reduced product quality, increased illness and absenteeism, and higher staff turnover, all of which can be fatal to a business.
Despite claims to the contrary, lack of regulation does not cause people to commit crimes or engage in foolish actions. Nor is the presence of regulation a guarantee that people won’t violate the law or do something stupid: remember Long Term Capital Management for a perfect example of the latter. Just as no lock can keep out a thief who is determined to rob your house, regulation will not stop someone who is determined to cheat: remember Enron? How about Bernie Madoff? Regulation will, however, provide the grounds to prosecute those who do cheat. Attempting to prevent all forms of cheating merely overburdens the system.
So, if this is true, why do we have the toxic financial mess that has shaped the news for the past several months? After all, didn’t that come because of a lack of regulation on Wall Street? Well, not exactly. While better regulation might well have prevented things from getting as bad as they have, the lack of regulation is not the cause, in much the same way that the lack of a safety belt does not cause an accident; however, the use of safety belts reduces the harm caused by an accident.
What then is the cause? Sure, we’ve all heard the news about subprime loans and toxic mortgages. But those instruments had to come from somewhere. Wall Street tycoons? It’s easy to think of Wall Street as being dominated by wealthy investors who are making millions by selling bad loans, but even that’s not true. The vast majority of people on Wall Street are people just like everyone else: working men and women whose job it is to make money. Quite simply, just like any other employee in any other company, folks on Wall Street go to work each day and worry about paying the bills, taking care of their families, and doing their jobs.
Here’s the problem: what do you do when you are told to make money and the financial markets aren’t offering up opportunities? You can’t go to your manager or your investors and say, “Sorry.” That’s not what they want to hear, and if your goal in life is to keep your job, you are not likely to go there. Instead, you get creative. Just like any employee in any job, you look for an innovative solution to your problem.
Now the fact is most people are not evil. Most people will not knowingly and deliberately break the law. If there are clear regulations telling people not to go somewhere, they usually won’t go there. But if there are no regulations, or if the existing regulations are honored in the breach, that’s a different story. It’s not that people will set out to cause harm or do stupid things, it’s that focused on the short-term needs of solving their particular problems, they are easily blinded to the larger ramifications of their actions. Regulations, optimally, map out the territory: they define the box in which people should work. They prevent you from falling off a cliff and taking everyone else along with you.
So then is the cause of the problem people just doing their jobs and the financial meltdown all a tragic “oops?” No again. The problem is that the cause is not what we have but what we don’t have.
Each bull market, each economic boom, is carried forward by some form of leadership. In the 1950, it was the electronics boom. In the 1960s, it was companies like IBM and Polaroid. In the 1990s, Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon.com, Yahoo, etc. Technology leadership leads to a flowering of innovation, and a flowering of innovation leads to technology leadership. Improvements in technology lead to greater productivity and a stronger economy.
What about the bull market that ran from 2003-2007? Volumes have already been written about how little “boom” this economic boom packed. Although we did see some technological innovation during this period, for example Google, Taser, the iPod, and GPS (a technology with its roots in government spending – we’ll come back to that), for most part what we had was a commodities boom. The problem with commodities is that they don’t fundamentally change the world in the ways that technology does. They don’t leave behind a world of greater productivity or improved communications.
Now, there are many reasons cited for the commodities bubble of the past few years: China, OPEC, developing countries, etc. Let me suggest a different, and more basic, reason: there wasn’t anything else. The small amount of innovative technology we saw during that period was hardly enough to drive an economy or a stock market. But people still needed to make money; investment had to go somewhere, and it went to commodities and mortgages. What happened to the innovation?
Over the past hundred years, almost every economic boom and bull market had its roots in government spending on either innovation or infrastructure. Without providing an exhaustive list, a few highlights include: railroads at the start of the twentieth century: government investment in land and track; automobiles in the 1920s: government investment in transportation technology during WWI; electronics in the 1950s: government investment in radar and military technology in WWII combined with the development of the transistor; mainframe computers in the 1960s: investment in computer technology as part of the space program; biotech in the late 1980s: government research grants in life sciences; and, of course, the Internet, which started life as ARPANet: another government program.
Quite simply, the government investments that formed the seed of so many prior booms didn’t exist: the money wasn’t there. The argument is often, and loudly, made that low taxes are a boon to the economy because people get to keep more of what they earn and this stimulates growth. While there is a nugget of truth in this, in that if taxes are too high to being with, then lowering them will have the touted benefits. However, it is also a fact that the economy grew more under Bill Clinton than under George W. Bush. Was this despite the higher taxes during the Clinton presidency, or because of them? The traditional answer is the former; the truth, I believe, is closer to the latter.
If taxes are taken too low, then something has to give. Typically, what gets cut is basic research. Even the wars in Iraq and Afganistan are not producing remarkable new breakthroughs in technology; at least, if they are, those breakthroughs haven’t become commercial yet. For the most part, it seems as if these wars are being fought with refinements of existing technology or off-the-shelf equipment.
Some level of taxes, therefore, provides the fuel for investment in innovation and infrastructure that generates the next economic boom and bull market. This is a rather different perspective on taxes than what is traditionally said. When taxes are being funneled into the economy, they lead to growth. Taxes are an investment. Now, I don’t have exact numbers on this, but when taxes are reinvested, the money we pay in taxes is returned fivefold in our 401Ks. When taxes are cut to the bone and there is no money to invest in the future, the money we save is taken tenfold from our 401Ks. Now, again, the exact numbers are open to debate; however, I will venture to guess that most of us have lost far more in our 401Ks and IRA accounts this year than we gained in the previous two years, and far more than whatever we may have saved in taxes over that same time period.
Unfortunately, when the economy is booming, people tend to assume that it will never end: just look at any bull market in history for an example of that behavior! All markets are driven by fear and greed, and the latter dominates at the height of a boom. People start thinking about all the money they are paying in taxes; they start to see that as money being taken away, not as the price we have to pay to keep the boom going. Like fear, greed causes behavior that people would never imagine that they could possibly engage in… until they do.
Regulation provides the framework and the controls to keep the economic engine operating within tolerance. Just as a governor on an engine keeps it from redlining or stalling, regulations on economic behavior help to prevent the type of meltdown we are now experiencing. Like an engine, the governor causes a small amount of overhead; there is some loss of power. That loss is the price we pay to avoid catastrophic failure. However, regulations alone can’t do prevent all forms of failure; we need an ample supply of legitimate and economically safe ways of making money to prevent widespread fraud and abuse. On the other hand, we can’t entirely do without regulation because no matter how good things are, there will always be Enrons and WorldComs. Fear and greed both lead to illogical behavior; it’s vital to have the fences in place so that the economy won’t run off the cliff in a panic or fall victim to excessive greed.
Once we’ve prevented the economy from crashing, or at least made it less likely, we can get the engine running at capacity. Taxes feed innovation which feeds the economy: taxes are, in short, an investment in our own future. It’s time to recognize that investments are more than just something we put into a 401K and forget about. Regulation, taxes, and innovation: they are all connected. Mishandle one, you break the others.
It’s definitely the time of year for parties. The economy being what it is, it’s also the time of year for stories about employers. Some of the interactions are more amazing than others.
The names are withheld to protect the silly.
Someone, we’ll call him “Ivan Tadeov,” was talking about how the firm he works for provides cell phones to several thousand of its employees. The firm, a large, well-known New England company, will be referred to as the “Einstein Company.”
The Einstein Company provides these cell phones so that key employees, particularly in sales, can be available 24/7. However, in order to save money, they recently decided to restrict the use of these phones to business only. In other words, employees are now being expected to carry around two cell phones: one for business use and one for personal use.
The net result: at least some employees are (gasp!) leaving their work phone at work. How unreasonable of them!
A psychologist in the room, we’ll call him William James Hall, asked why people need to be available 24/7. Ivan replied that this way customers can always reach “their” sales person.
Dr. Hall: “Even at 3am?”
Ivan: “Even at 3am.”
Dr. Hall: “Why?”
Ivan: “It makes the customer feel good to know that they can always reach their sales person.”
Dr. Hall: “Psychologists deal with suicidal patients and we aren’t available 24/7.”
Ivan: “Well, I guess the tech industry just has better customer service.”
Let’s look at this for a moment. We’ll leave aside for the moment the concept that restricting the phone usage to business calls only will save money. Most phone plans are fixed price for a given number of minutes. So long as people aren’t exceeding those minutes, it shouldn’t be a problem. Of course, I suppose the Einstein Company could be paying by the minute. Then again, if a large corporation that is buying thousands of phones can’t cut a deal with the phone providers, they really do have a problem. But let’s move on.
The first problem is that the Einstein Company apparently forgot why they provided people with cell phones in the first place: accessibility. By making the phone convenient and free, they removed the barrier to getting people to keep them on all the time. Sure, most people carry cell phones all the time; but most spouses take a dim view of having dinner, or other activities, interrupted. Also, people will generally turn off their phones when attending a movie, concert, fancy dinner, and so forth. By providing employees with free phones, Einstein Company successfully created a sense of obligation on the part of the employees to keep those phones on all the time.
And then, in one fell swoop, they removed that sense of obligation and made carrying the phone inconvenient. What next? Fire anyone who doesn’t answer the phone? What about people who travel outside of the coverage area?
Even more interesting, though, is the concept of what constitutes good customer service.
I can accept the concept that it might make some CEO feel good to know that he can always reach a particular sales representative at any time, but is that really going to help him? Wouldn’t it make more sense to talk to someone wide-awake and coherent, able to analyze his problem and help generate a solution? I would think that a company of several thousand employees world over can maintain a night shift.
Fact is, getting your doctor at 3am or your psychologist or your massage therapist, or, for that matter, your car mechanic, child’s teacher, or ski instructor just isn’t going to happen. You’ll get a doctor at 3am if it’s a genuine emergency, but it’ll be whomever is on duty that night.
Do you really want people short on sleep making critical decisions or attempting to solve a complex problem? People talk all the time about staring at a problem for hours and then solving it in five minutes… after they’ve had a good night’s sleep.
Of course, if the problem isn’t that complex, or the situation isn’t that critical, why the 3am call?
The real point here is whether or not this 24/7 availability is actually benefiting the client. Are they getting the best possible help this way? Or are they getting an illusion of responsiveness that will actually delay their getting what they need?
A final thought… the reason you won’t get the psychologist (or the massage therapist) at 3am is that they’ve learned something critical: “you can’t give what you don’t got.” In other words, if you don’t take care of yourself, you can’t be of much use to anyone else.
Something to think about.
“What was the primary means of motivation in those days?”
“Fear.”
— Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks, The Two Thousand Year Old Man
For the 2000 year old man, fear may have been a very effective motivator: when he saw a lion, he was motivated to run the other way. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with fear. Fear doesn’t make someone move toward safety; it makes them move away from danger. Same thing? Not really. In jujitsu, pain can be used to invoke a fear of injury. Someone experiencing that pain, and that fear, will move away from it, even if moving away means running full tilt into the nearest tree.
In business, the same phenomenon occurs. Faced with an unexpected problem or setback, the most common response is to highlight the threat to the organization and all the terrible things that will happen if the threat is not immediately countered. This practice of attempting to motivate people to work harder through fear – fear of competition, loss of market share, job loss, company going out of business, and so forth – may encourage harder work, but not necessarily more effective work. In the business environment, there are a lot of trees.
While fear gets the adrenaline flowing, it also narrows focus, reduces creativity, and makes it harder for people to recognize and change a losing strategy. This would be fine, except that what is actually needed in most situations is a creative solution, the ability to accurately assess whether or not a strategy is working, and the ability to quickly discard failing strategies. Avoiding premature decision making, no easy task at the best of times, only becomes more difficult. As we all learned in grade school, in the event of a fire, don’t rush for the door: proceed slowly and avoid panic. The same is true in business: rushing to a decision is almost guaranteed to lead to a bad decision.
So given that the business needs to get employees focused and energized to meet a potential challenge, how should it go about doing that?
The key is to recognize that the glass in not half empty. It’s half full. That makes a difference: instead of focusing on what you lack, focus on what you have going for you. Instead of fear, instill an atmosphere of optimism. There are several steps to accomplishing this:
Half empty or half full. A fearful team or an enthusiastic, creative team. It’s your choice.
