Management for Accomplishment, 1-2-3: Here is Step Two

Two weeks ago (https://usingthefourconversations.com/blog, Sept. 15, 2020) I mentioned three examples of projects I consulted on where managers wanted to implement a change in their organization. For the most part, they did not know how to set the project up in a way that everybody could win and accomplish the goal. One of those projects will serve as an example for Step Two in Managing for Accomplishment.

A city government’s Department of Electricity had five Units related to their project: Electricity Distribution, the Meter Shop, Engineering, Customer Service, and Purchasing & Stores. These groups worked well together – except for the Engineering and the Distribution Units, who rarely interacted except to argue about equipment and supply requirements.

The diagram below has 6 circles, representing the 5 Units in the project + the electricity Customer. It also has 11 arrows, representing the primary “communication relationship” between the groups, i.e., the most important products, services and/or communications that moved between each pair of circles and what they talked about most.

Notice in the diagram that installation equipment and supplies were determined by the relationship between the Engineering Unit and Purchasing & Stores. The Distribution Unit, which was made up of teams that handled construction, installation and repairs of electrical wires and stations, were the primary users of that equipment, yet were left out of the decisions on what equipment was outdated or needed to be changed for new kinds of projects.

One member of the Distribution team told me, “We aren’t able to satisfy our Department’s mission to ‘provide energy, street lighting and related services reliably with competitive pricing’. We can’t always pay for the city’s need for streetlights.” He was discouraged that they had no voice in improving construction and installation for electricity distribution.

The administrator of the Electricity Department wanted the Engineering and Distribution Units to find a way that they could both have a say in the selection and purchase of electricity installation equipment and supplies, to ensure that Distribution teams would have the equipment they needed to solve the engineering and maintenance problems in the field. He told them to work together and come up with a solution, but the Engineers had little respect for the Installers – and vice versa – so they made no progress.

This administrator did not know that “management for accomplishment” begins with creating a “team”, i.e., getting people aligned on the basics of working well together. Management for Alignment is Step One, and once Team members are clear on the intention of the project, have identified a responsibility structure for the Team, and agree to recognize the relevant rules and regulations for working together, they are ready for Step Two: “Management for Production”.

Getting people ready lay the foundation for productivity requires Team collaboration to define three Step Two elements: (a) the metrics of success; (b) the Team’s performance network of agreements for goal-relevant communications etc. (that’s where their diagram came into existence, even though this version does not spell out all the deliverables); and (c) the production and delivery systems, and standards and practices, to coordinate work and agreements within the Team and with others, including for processes, quality, schedules and costs.

The idea of a “performance network” of deliverables and receivables is sometimes hard to grasp for people who haven’t thought of projects in terms of “deliverables”. We tend to think of “doing” a project and we look forward to when it’s “done”. But we don’t often think of what needs to be “delivered” between Team members and others in order to get the project completed successfully. There’s a big difference in what happens when you focus your attention on Doing vs. Done vs. Delivered.  Tip: Go with “delivered” – get the results (products, services and/or communications) produced into the hands of the people who will put them to work. And get the resources you need delivered to you.

Ultimately, this city Electricity project involved discussions with Purchasing & Stores and the Meter Shop, which produced changes in the way installation equipment and supplies were ordered. Meter equipment was then ordered using the same computer system that Distribution and Engineering would use, which included updated reporting formats that would go to Customer Service from all of the groups.

Production is not a matter of “doing”, nor of getting something “done”. Production requires looking at what needs to be produced and by whom, and to whom it is delivered. All 11 arrows in this performance network diagram were altered – with many added specifics and new agreements – as the Engineering and Distribution Units invented out a way to make more effective purchasing decisions. Note: The Engineering Unit also collaborated with the IT Unit for this project.

As with Step One, the elements of Step Two require the ability to ask 6 questions and to work together to develop the answers. And again, none of these elements involve managing the people (we manage agreements here).

Step Two: Management for Production

WHAT-WHEN-WHY – Spell out the metrics for each key goal: What are the success metrics for budget and cost goals; What are the key performance indicators for production processes, product quality, and service quality. When are the key due dates and milestones. Why these metrics and timelines are important for fulfilling the overall purpose of the work.

WHO-WHERE – Identify the project’s performance network and establish agreements for sending and receiving goal-relevant products, services and communications: Who & Where are the non-Team players who are important for the Team to send and receive goal-relevant products, services and communications (e.g., funding, HR, maintenance, operations, product and service delivery, legal obligations, etc.). Assign responsibilities to the Team members to “own” one or more of these relationships and establish and honor agreements with external non-Team players for goal-relevant delivery content, quality, timing and costs between the Team and external players.

HOW – Spell out production and delivery systems, standards and practices for the project: How all aspects of the work and its deliverable products, services and communications will be produced, coordinated and delivered among Team members, and with players in the performance network, to satisfy goal-relevant requirements, e.g., content quality, schedules and costs, for key functions including: Budget, Operations, Product and Service quality and delivery, IT, Marketing, and Public communication.

Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? But managing for production requires structures to accommodate the velocity of production and the partnerships in the Team’s external environment. Especially: (a) The metrics that will let everyone see progress and success (or failure) in meeting targets; (b) The relationships with other individuals and groups outside the Team who have resources and ideas that can support success and integrate the project’s results into the larger work environment; and (c) The Team’s organization and coordination of its work and its products, services and communications within its performance network and with other key functions.

A team of people aligned on working productively with goal-relevant partners, using its own custom-designed goal-relevant structures of (a) success metrics, (b) a functional performance network and (c) agreements for coordination and communication, will be ready to manage itself – for accomplishment. I’ll tell you that story in 2 weeks!

Management for Accomplishment, 1-2-3: Here is Step One 

We talk about it a lot, but mostly we see management as a concept rather than a set of steps or tools. One way out of that conceptual view is to say what we are managing FOR: What do we intend to accomplish? Here are a few ideas of results I’ve seen managers choose to accomplish:

  1. Bring together two groups that have interrelated activities to draft a plan that will improve the interactions, efficiency and/or productivity of one or more of the processes they both participate in. Example: People from the Engineering section and people from the Maintenance team get together to redesign the way they select, purchase and use the equipment needed to solve engineering and maintenance problems in the field.
  2. Have a group of people design and perform a specific change in their organization, such as implementing a new IT process and operating it properly for both users and customers. Example: A restaurant decides to implement a new Point of Sale (POS) system to improve staff productivity and customer satisfaction.
  3. Finish a long-term project that is persistently postponed due to staff shortages, poor scheduling and/or deadline changes on other projects (or maybe just simple procrastination). Example: A cleanup project in a corporate library to clear out old books and files, many of which would be re-categorized for other purposes, given to other programs, or recycled.

Management for Accomplishment is a three-step process. To prepare for managing any of these projects, Step One is alignment, which itself has three elements: develop team alignment for focus on the task at hand; plan the set-up for the production and performance of the task; and plan for accomplishment of the task, taking into account the environment it will be operating in. There are three interesting points about these elements:

  • All three are effective for preparing to manage a short-term or one-time project as well as a larger one,
  • None of them involve managing the people (we manage agreements here, and
  • They all require the ability to ask 6 questions, then work together to develop the answers. The questions are: What? When? Why? Who? Where? and How?

Step One: Management for Alignment

WHAT-WHEN-WHY – Spell out the Intention for the task: What we want to make happen, and what will tell us when it is complete. When we will want it done, including goals for interim timelines. Why it matters for those performing the task and for others including customers, co-workers, or executives.

WHO-WHERE – Identify the “authority” structure for the task: Who will lead the team to ensure the intention is fulfilled, who will fill the necessary roles for task accomplishment, whether inside the team or outside it, e.g., people the team will report to, work with or get materials, information and/or support from, and who the beneficiaries of the end results will be. Where these people are operating from – their “base” – and where else people will need to go to fulfill their responsibilities.

HOW – Clarify the relevant rules and regulations for working together: How all aspects of the work to be done will comply with corporate rules and guidance as well as the needs and requirements of others within the organization and externally, and how all relevant federal, state and local laws and policies might pertain to the work at hand.

Seems pretty basic, doesn’t it? But these three sets of questions are often overlooked, especially for defining (a) the foundation of a team so that everyone is aligned on what the team is out to accomplish; (b) the relationships among team members and with external associates, senders and receivers; and (c) how the team will operate with respect to its surrounding infrastructure.

Creating team alignment is Step One in ‘Management for Accomplishment’ and is especially important for a group that has not worked together on a task or project like this before. The way such a project is launched begins with these 6 questions and their discussions to build direction, clarify responsibilities and respect the new environment they will be operating in for the duration of the task.

I’ll be back with Step Two in 2 weeks.

What to Manage: Workers? Or the Links Between Them?

I’ve been reading an article (HBR, Competent Management) which mentioned “obstacles that often prevent executives from devoting sufficient resources to improving management skills and practices”. The research they reported made it clear that better management skills lead to higher competitiveness and better performance all around. So, understanding obstacles to good management is a good idea.

What are the “obstacles”? First, overconfidence: managers think they’re already doing a good job. Another obstacle is that many managers can’t make an objective judgment about how well things are really going. The article included several other obstacles, but the whole list made me recall the most frequent problem I encountered in my career as a management consultant: managing the people and their activities. That’s not what needs to be managed.

I learned about that obstacle very early in my career, from the CEO of a non-profit firm. I saw a need for better management practices – aligning people on goals, measures, tracking and reporting. Two of his groups were making mistakes in the products and communications they were sending out to the firm’s members, prospects and customers and the reason was they were not collaborating with one another at all. When I suggested to the CEO that it would be useful if his Marketing team and his Communications Office got together at least once a month to clarify what each of them needed or wanted from the other, he banged his fist on his desk and shouted at me, “They should already know their jobs!”

Omigosh – he was watching what his people DO instead of what they DELIVER to others! Wow.

I was startled that he shouted at me, of course. But it was difficult to believe he did not have a process for ensuring that different units in his organization had an opportunity to talk with each other to stay updated on the products, services and communications they produced, sent out, and/or exchanged with one another. That would have given the Marketing team an opportunity to find out what the Communications Office was sending out to the firm’s prospective members, which would have helped Marketing do a better job of recruiting new members.

The CEO couldn’t see that the Marketing team needed information from the Communications Office and vice versa. Instead of supporting effective and goal-oriented communications between groups, he was watching what goes on inside those groups, as if they were stand-alone entities. As I went through my whole career, that was something I came to see as a frequent cause of misunderstandings in organizations. It was also a source of blaming “those people” for not knowing what they’re doing.

The mistake was the focus on what people were “Doing”, which isn’t what I was watching for at all. I focused on what moved from one group to another or went out to a customer: the products, services and communications that go out of Group 1 and into Group 9, then on to a user/customer. This allowed me to start at the end of the line, getting ideas from the Receiver of a delivery about how they evaluate or measure the quality and effectiveness of what they received. Then I could work with the Sender to obtain and use that feedback from the Receiver on a regular basis. I admit, it was sometimes touchy, especially if the Receiver was unhappy with what they got from the Sender. But I was the “ambassador”, carrying feedback to the Sender and assisting them in finding ways to put it to work. Ultimately, though, the two groups would establish a productive relationship and better products, services and communications were then available to all.

I was surprised to find that almost no manager watches the links between Senders and Receivers. They’re watching the “job”, the “work”, the people and their activities – but that’s not where the leverage is. Just sending something from one place to another doesn’t mean you’re getting the job done. You need to get the Receiver’s feedback on how well it worked. Was it the right quantity or size? Was the quality what they wanted or needed? Did it arrive on time? Does it perform properly, producing the effects the Receiver desired?

Getting feedback requires establishing a reliable communication link between Sender and Receiver, an easy management practice to implement. And, according to the article, good management practices will pay off in a big way, delivering better overall organization performance. That non-profit CEO actually learned how to improve the whole network of teams in his firm.

Even though that article I read didn’t focus on the links between groups, it had a lot of smart things to say about competent management. One valuable point was that companies think strategy is more important than management. I haven’t seen this discussed for over a decade, and the research reported in this article clarified that management competence is more important than strategy. It’s a good read, even if it is over 3 years old. Check it out: (HBR, Competent Management).

One Management Trainer’s Advice – and Why I Think He’s Wrong

I’ve been clearing out – very slowly – the client files from my career as a management consultant. I found some notes on what one workshop leader – I’ll call him Alex – said about “how to be a good manager”, and as you’ll see below, I didn’t agree with him on several of his ideas.

Thoughts on a Workshop about “How to Be a Good Manager”

HE SAID

SHE SAID

1.  Have one-on-one meetings with each of your staff members to establish performance expectations. 1.   Have weekly group meetings with your whole team to review goals, clarify assignments and identify obstacles or problems. Don’t use the “expectations” thing.
2.  Rely on relationships and personal connections to get things done. 2.   In any conversation for getting something done, (a) state the objective and the value in succeeding, (b) establish agreements on who will do what by when, then (c) take responsibility for the follow-through with everyone. Build productive relationships, not “connections”.
3.  Influence and motivate your people rather than using your “power position” or your title. 3.   Rely on productive communication – dialogue to clarify goals and measures, clear requests and promises to establish agreements, and follow-up to review progress on agreements – to generate engagement and momentum.
4.  Encourage planning all schedules and activities based on priorities. 4.   It is important to be clear about priorities but recognize they may change quickly and often. “Planning” is a process of (a) identifying intended results and outcomes, (b) formulating the processes and actions that will produce those results, and (c) establishing timelines and assignments for accomplishing them. “Priority” can be fleeting and is not always a reliable management tool.
5.  Resolve conflicts and deal with emotional behavior promptly. 5.   Dealing with conflicts and emotional behavior is best based in policy rather than playing therapist to resolve them. Your people should understand that they will participate in resolving conflicts, including problems with emotional behavior. A manager is not a den-mother.

Mary Parker Folet, a 1920’s management guru, said, “Management is getting things done through other people.” She did not say, however, that management needs to focus on the people, but that is where management theory has taken us. This people-focus, visible in each of Alex’s pieces of advice, has given us a people-oriented vocabulary that has taken over management thinking. Here it is:

One-on-one meetings” focus on an individual rather than promoting coordinated teamwork. They are often seen as making someone feel “special”, or an opportunity for “development” of some kind. Sometimes it develops teacher’s pets, though, which can cause ill feelings among team members.

Expectations”? They are subjective – they live in your head and can change in a flash. Further, it can sound a little demeaning to tell people, “Here’s what I expect from you.” Simply state the goal, then discuss it until you are you are confident there is a shared understanding of what success looks like.

And “performance”? The word literally means “provide thoroughly”, but we have turned it into a code for evaluating people. If it’s not quantitative or visible, it may not be performance at all.

“Connections” are personal relationships, not necessarily productive ones. For a manager, it is more useful to learn how to make agreements to produce specific results and support staff people in committing to do or produce a certain result by a specific due date. Using a personal relationship to get a performance promise from someone may be seen as manipulating them into doing you a favor. Why not keep things a more professional?

And how about “influence”? This is another interpersonal game, like “expectations” and “connections”, and it relies on personalities. First, “influence” is a vague concept: how do I know whether you are influencing me or I am influencing you? But influence can also be very short-lived (ending when the Influencer leaves the room), and may not produce any genuine engagement or commitment. Maybe people don’t like being “influenced”, experiencing the process as a form of bossiness.

“Motivation” – we talk about it like it’s a thing, as if it can be passed from one person to another. But your motivation is for you to generate, not mine to give to you. I can’t motivate anybody but myself. I’ve seen managers work to “motivate” their people, expecting some response that seldom arrives. I’ve also talked with the people who have been the object of those attempts and are often not inspired. One person said, crossly, “I don’t want her to try to motivate me. She should just talk straight.”

“Priorities” are individual interpretations that are unlikely to communicate anything specific about the desired due date, the product quality or quantity. “Priority” is just a code for saying something is important and/or urgent and a priority can change quickly if something else happens. Stick with performance agreements and follow-through, including the details of what is wanted and needed by when.

“Resolve conflicts and deal with emotional behavior promptly” – this last one is the icing on the cake of management’s “people-talk”. It fails to draw the line between the rigor of clarifying agreements and holding a psychotherapy session. Both conflicts and emotional behavior should be rare phenomena in the workplace, and this suggestion from Alex takes us back to the beginning: hold group meetings, encourage people to work together in pairs or sub-groups to get things done, and deal with the whole picture of what all team members are doing and where people need help or resources. The team can solve problems, including some personal ones. Create transparency wherever possible, without releasing confidential material, and people will support one another.

Management is often misunderstood to be all about people – getting people to do things and having them behave “properly” to support a productive environment. But you can make management about getting things done with group discussion on the specifics of what, when, and who, which gets an actionable message across. Then, if you add respect, good manners and some friendliness or humor, you’ll also make room for everyone to be more responsible for their commitments to “provide thoroughly”. Do we have an agreement?

A Close-Up Look at Micro-Management

When I was a management consultant, clients sometimes complained about “micro-management” in their organizations. I had to look it up, because I thought it just meant someone was paying too much attention to details. I learned that it’s much worse than that, but now I have been educated in real life, because I have now been micro-managed.

I am working, post-retirement, as a volunteer in a small organization. I support three Committees, each of which has a Chairman, so I take my job to be assisting those Chairmen in setting and attaining goals as well as supporting the Committee members in working as a team and being productive and effective. All was going smoothly until one Chairman resigned and was replaced by Captain Micro.

The Captain watched every action I took, heard every idea I offered and saw every communication I delivered to Members. He then criticized each of those things, saying this email to members was “too complicated”, and that idea was “inappropriate”. His instructions to me were specific but piecemeal, and I wasn’t always able to assemble them into a meaningful whole. I confess to having lost my sense of humor at one point, telling him that his latest instruction was “another piece of our communication problem”, which was the first time I had let him know how I saw the situation.

Another annoyance was that he wanted me to check with him about every little thing before I took any action, as if I couldn’t see for myself what would work. He gave me miniature assignments – send out this email to the members, forward him a copy of Aaron’s article from last week, etc. And he often messed up my schedule by giving me several different due-dates and times for each request. Multiple emails and phone calls showered down in the first week of working with him, which became annoying. I suspect he could hear the impatience in my voice by that Friday afternoon.

Week Two didn’t gain any momentum. Fewer calls and emails, but he was still stalling on taking any substantive action for the Committee and was not allowing me to make any decisions (or he corrected the ones I had already made). What had been an unfolding project for the Committee was now a mute folder lying on my desk waiting for attention, and I couldn’t get him to move ahead. He didn’t seem to know or care what I had done for the prior Chairman nor to have any sense of urgency about moving the members’ teamwork forward to meet the goal everyone had aligned on before his arrival.

It’s over now. Captain Micro won’t work with me – he’s going to do it all himself. Perhaps I’m too headstrong, pushing to finish the Committee’s current project so we could move on to future aspirations. It appears he has decided to take over the facilitation tasks I had been doing – sending out what he chooses to the members, and perhaps also taking notes on their monthly calls and creating an agenda for the next call (though he may not think such tasks are necessary).

Now I’m supporting only two Committees. I initially feared that Captain Micro’s lack of support would undermine the group’s sense of purpose and cohesion, but several members have now been in touch with me, looking for more productive pathways to get what they wanted to accomplish. Captain Micro will go his own way with his new Committee – and I wish them all the best. I’ll continue my accountability for supporting the two remaining Committees as best I can, and be grateful for the trust and respect of their leaders.

 

Managing Performance – From a Distance

So, you are a manager and your people are working from home – or on alternate days. How do you manage their performance long-distance? It’s a bit of a challenge, at least at first. Not because they are poor performers or you’re a poor manager. It’s a challenge because you’ll have to change your habits of communicating.

Remember how you used to tell them what to DO? With the details, sometimes: “Do this, then do that, and get Dave to do the other thing.”

No more. Performance is not about DOING anymore. It’s about DELIVERING. Borrow a term used by consultants: “Deliverables”. For a consultant, that’s what performance is: it’s a Deliverable. (I’m going to capitalize that word for a while because it’s important to learn to use it properly).

The whole world of performance has changed, because your “Goal Team” is now likely distributed, and you cannot assume that everyone understands the “big picture”. Now is the time to be clear with your people about the “Goal Deliverable(s)” – the product(s), service(s) and/or communication(s) to be delivered as the ultimate outcome of their work. If you haven’t had this conversation with them, they cannot see the larger purpose of what they are doing, so they are probably busy doing tasks and activities.

Once the Goal Team is familiar with the Goal Deliverable(s), work with them to identify all the other people, the necessary players, who will be involved in the accomplishment of the Goal Deliverable(s): their Collaborators, Resource suppliers, Authorities (not just you: include regulators and other rule-makers) and Beneficiaries (those who receive or benefit from the Goal Deliverable). Sound challenging? Maybe, but it’s what anyone who has a substantial goal or objective needs to figure out.

You have to “Know your CRABs”. You have been doing this for as long as you’ve been a manager, probably without saying it the way I’ve said it here. But now you need use the language and to train your Goal Team members about using it too. Your people will understand the CRABs idea: they know it takes Collaborators, Resource suppliers and Beneficiaries to accomplish anything substantive. They just never saw the whole circle before, and now it’s time. Introduce your Goal Team to their “Performance Circle” of CRABs, and invite their thoughts on how to expand, reduce or otherwise clarify it.

Note the Diagram that comes with this post:

  • The arrows are 2-way, indicating a central “Goal Owner”, i.e., your Goal Team members, will be in 2-way communication with each CRAB player, to create, commit to and support the fulfillment of Agreements – yours and theirs – to deliver goal-relevant Deliverables to one another.
  • Note also that the Collaborators, Resource suppliers and Beneficiaries have the same elements in their Agreements for goal-relevant Deliverables: Deliverable specifications, Schedules and Costs.
  • The Authorities have a slightly different set of elements in their Agreements – Deliverables, Goals, Rules & regulations, and/or Budgets – because, well, they are the people who have a say about the big-picture requirements for a Goal-Team’s work.

Your Goal Team members will come to learn that their job is not about DOING – it is about identifying the key players required to send and receive the goal-relevant Deliverables that will add up to their Goal Deliverable. They will learn about making Agreements with those key players to provide what is needed and when. And that means your Goal Team members will learn how to “manage” relationships with their CRABs to achieve the Goal Deliverable.

You’ve been doing this all along: you’ve always known there is an “end result”, the Goal Deliverable. But your Goal Team may not have seen that big picture Goal, or the Performance Circle of CRABs that contribute to its accomplishment. The key things they will discover for themselves are:

  1. They are a Goal Team. Every team (or department, or functional group, etc.) needs to be clear about its primary big-picture Goal. What is its ultimate Goal Deliverable? A product? A service? A communication? To whom? For whom? For what benefit? You can have this conversation with them and develop your own ways of saying it clearly.
  2. Every Goal Team has a “Performance Circle”. There are multiple “outsider” players necessary to accomplish a Goal Deliverable (finance people, IT experts, marketing consultants, regulatory agencies, etc.). Any Goal Team Member or any Collaborator, Resource supplier, Authority or Beneficiary can be made aware of the Team’s Goal and then be asked to commit to sending and/or receiving well-specified and goal-relevant products, services and/or communications, in support of the Team’s larger goal.
  3. Performance happens on the arrows. Performance is the product of a relationship – those two-way arrows between Goal Team members and the Collaborators, Resource suppliers and Beneficiaries. Each relationship will establish Agreements for the delivery of the goal-relevant Deliverables needed – to and from Goal Team member(s) and CRAB member(s) – for the ultimate accomplishment of the Goal Deliverable. Each arrow in the Performance Circle is therefore a relationship and Agreements for Deliverables and a pathway for the delivery of those Deliverables. Paying attention to the arrows between the Goal Team and the CRABs will also reveal the difference between Doing, which happens in those “boxes”, and Deliverable Agreements, which happen on the “arrows”.

A high-performance Goal Team will identify their Performance Circle and establish the relationships that commit to and deliver their goal-relevant Deliverables to meet agreed-upon specifications, schedules, and costs. Some of your Goal Team Members may begin to operate like managers, sometimes making the promise to deliver, sometimes asking others to commit to fulfilling the promise – and sometimes both.

No need to get crabby about any of this. It’s a new day, one that calls for a shift between Doing Things like “tasks” and “activities”, to Delivering things like goal-relevant products, services and communications. You know how to do this, and how to coordinate this “performance circle” idea, with relationships that clarify Agreements and support the necessary Deliverables. Now you need to speak that language with your people, so they learn how to do that too.

Manager Tip: Clarify What You Really Want in Every Work Request

One job of a manager is to ask, invite, or demand that other people “do their work”. But people understand the word “work” in three different ways. You may be asking that I “do” something, like you want me to put the appropriate data into a spreadsheet for analysis. That’s not the same as getting something “done”, which is when you tell me to get that spreadsheet finished. And it also doesn’t mean “delivered”, which would be you asking me to send the finished product over to you by close of business today.

When you want something from me, it is important to clarify: Do you want me to work on something? Or produce something? Or bring it to you or someone else? Do – Done – Delivered: do you want to keep me busy, or finish something, or turn my final result over to somebody? Or maybe all three?

Good work typically generates a specific product, service, or communication that calls for all three: to be produced, completed, and delivered to someone who will use it and/or value it. The best way to produce results – to perform well – is to focus on those “deliverables”.

A focus on deliverables, sometimes called “Do-Dues”, requires giving attention to the desired outcome(s) – the products, services, and communications to be provided to another individual or group. Deliverable results always have:

  1. Specific characteristics such as production processes, amounts, formats, and other attributes or qualities,
  2. A producer/sender and a user/receiver,
  3. A due date and time it will be sent or received, and
  4. Some value or benefit that will serve others.

Both the work-requester and the Doer-Deliverer should clarify – and agree on – these four aspects of what a “good result” will look like.

If you want to improve someone’s “performance”, don’t focus on what they should do. Start by being clear on the specifications, requirements, and conditions for what will be sent and received, to and from others. This seemingly small shift in attention – from what people are doing to the outcome of what they do – is actually very useful. If you add the information of who will receive it and why it matters to them, you have added value to people’s “doing-work” and to the result it produces. Magically, their “work performance” will improve too.

 

We All Need Deadlines

“I don’t need time. What I need is a deadline.” -Duke Ellington, jazz pianist, composer, and conductor 

Although we resist, protest, and sometimes miss deadlines, they provide a structure time alone does not. “Deadlines are one of the most powerful tools for accomplishment you can use,” writes Jeffrey Ford. Deadlines let us know what is needed by when and, when added to a request, create an agreement that can be managed. Without a deadline, projects or tasks exist in limbo, their importance undetermined and their necessity questioned. 

No matter whether the task is for personal satisfaction or a critical business action, a deadline arranges time so you can measure success. So, the next time you are given a new assignment, take the first step to achieving success by asking, “by when do you need it?” If you don’t, getting it done on time suggests “It Don’t Mean a Thing”. 

Photo by Kevin Ku on Unsplash

The Leadership Challenge… Again.

I saw an article earlier this month titled “How to Spot an Incompetent Leader”. I rolled my eyes, expecting to see a case for personality traits rather than communication effectiveness. I was right about that, but it was an interesting article, nonetheless.

Here’s a sample: “competent leaders cause high levels of trust, engagement and productivity”. Well, yes, of course they do. But how do they do it? With their charming personality? Or by knowing when, how and why to communicate with their people? The article says the personality trait that is most highly correlated with incompetent leadership is arrogance, or over-confidence. Maybe so. But I’d like to clarify two things.

First, that leadership is defined as the ability to “draw people together toward something”. That is a two-dimensional capability: pulling people together and moving them ahead to reach a goal. I understand that being self-centered could distract from accomplishing both of those things.

Second, drawing people together to accomplish something is not simply a matter of personality. It takes productive communication to make that happen. (You knew I would say that, didn’t you?)

  1. Talk about the goal. Clarify what we all want to make happen, why it is important and how we will know when we are successful. A clear and worthwhile goal, with timelines and measures of progress – a scoreboard of sorts – helps give everyone a sense of purpose. It “draws people together toward something”.
  2. Engage the people. Talk with people about the goal and discuss ideas for reaching it. Listening is important here: use people’s ideas wherever they make sense. Meetings and one-on-one conversations should include mention of the “game and the scoreboard”, plus respect for team member input.
  3. Develop management skills where possible. The people on a team will need to reach out to others, perhaps both inside and outside your organization, in order to achieve the goal. Whether they are in other departments or outside customers or vendors, goals are reached by productive networks of agreements. Have at least some team members make requests, make promises, and create and manage agreements with “outsiders” to achieve specific results toward the goal.
  4. Review progress regularly. Weekly or bi-weekly meetings are the forum for examining the progress made on goal, measures, and timelines as well as the successful delivery on agreements with other key players. This also serves to train team members in being accountable for creating agreements and supporting their fulfillment.

These four conversations are what ensure that “competent leaders cause high levels of trust, engagement, and productivity” in the workplace, as mentioned in the article. True, as the article points out, incompetence is likely to be a product of putting too much attention on oneself, which looks like arrogance or narcissism. Competent leadership puts attention on drawing people together – by talking with them and listening to them – while making the goal the center of the conversation.

It is fine to have several goal-endeavors going at once, if you can handle it. Each goal-team will have its own version of the four conversations identified above, focused on accomplishing something specific and of value. Not everyone is able to be a leader, but that’s alright.  Still, according to this article, we probably should not put people who think they are the center of the universe in positions where we want them pulling people together to achieve something important.

All Ears: The Importance of Listening in Organization Change

The Smart Manager magazine’s copy editor asked me last autumn to write an article for them about “how leaders can stop blaming resistance to change and view it as a positive resource”. Since Jeffrey and I have several academic articles on that, so I am familiar with the topic and it was fun to write. They just published it in their January-February 2020 issue. I liked the clever “meme” they used with the article too – it gets the whole message across visually.

Here are three quotes from the article they featured with bits of their “meme” artwork — so you’ll get the picture:

  1. Organizations need to constantly evolve to meet new challenges, but there is one key component that gets lost in the upheaval—listening. Without an open culture which encourages and responds to feedback — in all its positive and negative forms — a company-wide transformation will fail before it has even begun.
  2. The primary role of leadership in organizational change is to facilitate employee engagement at every level, across all departments and units that will be directly or indirectly touched by the change.
  3. Dialogue and discussion are the tools of good leadership to formulate and prepare for a change, and to see the change through to a successful conclusion.

Management communication is especially important when making an organization change. I’ve seen many failures – and more than a few bad moods and resistant behaviors – when a change process marches forward without proper dialogue and genuine listening.  You, dear subscriber, can see the article HERE – and at the bottom of the lead image there is a shaded strip with arrows that will let you scroll through the document.