The Big Idea Blog - Consulting

The Difference between Managing and Leading

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:00:46 -0500

Why are the first job titles in the management chain usually called "team leaders", but then quickly change into "managers" and then "directors"?

If we think in terms of stewards, shepherds, tour guides -- pick a metaphor that works for you -- you have an active, engaged person who is charting or scouting ahead in order to bring their team forward.

Managers by comparison walk perimeters, to check on fencing and boundaries. They often describe their job as "herding cats".

Directors normally don't walk anywhere -- they are far removed from the teams they are charged with leading, often focused on their own fiefdoms and concerned with the activities of rival princes.

In typical, silo (or stovepipe, again, pick the metaphor you like the best) -- the information flows upward, filtered at every level -- distilled if you will, by someone who is presenting (or word-smithing) the information in a way that they think (or hope) the next level up wants to hear.

Time for some humor to illustrate the point, and lets reach back and pull a classic management telephone-game style joke:

The Plan.
In the beginning, there was the Plan. And then came the Assumptions. And the Assumptions were without form, And the Plan was without substance. And darkness was upon the face of the Workers. And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinketh."
And the Workers went into their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung and none may abide the odor thereof." And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide it's strength." And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong."
And the Directors went unto the Vice President, saying, "It promotes growth and it is very powerful." And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying, "This new Plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good. And the Plan became Policy. This is how Shit Happens.

Sound like a project or two or ten that you've worked on recently? They all have secret code names, usually named after wild-life

How is it that projects that are doomed to fail, and everyone knows it, continue to get funded and proceed in a death march towards oblivion? The kind of projects that sap financial resources from companies, stealing shareholder value, and wasting time which translates to lost opportunity.

I would argue it comes down to the fact that the "management chain" isn't about leading at all. A leader would stand up and pull the chain and stop the factory -- it's that whole "you can't inspect quality into a product" mantra.

Today's Big Idea: People follow the leaders. Stop managing and start leading.

Start by Walking Around....

Not using RSS yet? Get the updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBigIdeaBlog

Security Systems Engineering as a First Class Discipline

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:24:53 -0500

Change happens. When it does, someone, somewhere has to figure out what the implications of that change are. Little, seemingly innocuous changes can have long-lasting and far-reaching ripple effects.

Take my friend Ivan, a Security Systems Engineer for a manufacturing and service company. He works in an environment where change to the current products and services he's charged with protecting is only half of his problem. The other half is the fact that about every 9-13 months he has a new boss he has to re-educate thanks to the constant mini-reorg's that ripple through large companies. It's hit or miss for Ivan, and lately his latest string of bosses don't have a clue as to what he does nor the value of the role he fills. His latest manager has hamstrung and marginalized his contribution and seems to think that what Ivan does should be some other groups responsibility. That's the bad news. The good news is that he's probably due for a new manager in a couple of months.

Here's a short quiz to get the conversation started:

1. When you board an airplane, are you more secure in the knowledge that:
A. the fact that there are now locks on the cockpit doors, or
B. you bought trip insurance

2. When you visit your doctor or clinic, are you comforted by the idea that:
A. your personal data is encrypted on their computers and thumb-drives or
B. the fact that the clinic has you sign a HIPAA disclosure form?

3. When you log in to your bank, brokerage, or retirement account, do you pay more attention to the fact that
A. you have to select a personal image, a phrase, possibly validate the computer you're on, answer a few questions the first time if you haven't used this computer before -- or
B. are you just glad that the website shows that your deposits are FDIC insured?

If you answered "A" above, you can thank a Security Systems Engineer like Ivan!

Security, as embodied in the "holy trinity" of C-I-A : Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability, has to be "baked in, not bolted on." It's about understanding the first principles of Systems Engineering and that change has consequences.

From the six-sigma/lean world:

"You can't inspect quality into a product"

The same is true of security in terms of Information Risk Management. You have to consider the people, the places, and things that touch and interact with the system under consideration. It's about understanding situated context.

Today's Big Idea: Systems are complex and any change requires thoughtful analysis to understand the butterfly effects.

It's not about compliance. You can't buy an insurance policy big enough to cover your loss of goodwill.

Hopefully Ivan's next boss will understand that.

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

How Public Radio is like street performing -- the creativity of a radically different business model

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:21:02 -0500

Hey NPR, you're just another mime annoying the passerby.

In a manner of speaking. Or not speaking.

In creating a new business, consider what model you will be adapting: Most project some sort of you pay us and we'll provide a service or item. Hopefully the model includes getting paid more than it costs to run the business. We're looking at you GM.

But what if...? You didn't charge at all. Just gave away your stuff and hoped that it was so fantastic that people would just plain donate enough money back to run to stay in business? Crazy. Its like a permanent Sampling? Like it? Get some.

But the guys busking in Key West are making it work - If you like their show, donate whatever you want to. If you don't no worries. And now authors, bands and other creatives are giving it all away. And making money doing so.

Big Idea: Consider being a mime. Or adopting a non-standard business model to make money.

Goal tenders, nay-sayers, old guard, party poopers & defensive backs - People who think they're helping. (They're not)

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:32:00 -0600

There exist a group of people whose whole job seems to be blocking the implementation of ideas. They themselves do no create any ideas, but --often after the fact -- they move to stop yours. In business-speak, they add no value, but work incessantly to keep your creativity from doing so. They are overly fond of Standard Operating Procedures, Robert's rules of Order and forms. {In triplicate.} You can spot them by their frequent use of the phrases: " Slow down there buddy..." " We tried that ten years ago..." " That sounds risky..."

A company that fails to innovate :By sales, GM ranked as the largest U.S. automaker and the world's second largest for 2008 The largest automaker in the US and yet had to file for bankruptcy....Why?

A group which neither changes nor innovates, just blocks ideas, change and growth --

Republican filibuster record

And a solution Creativity in Business

Today's Big Idea: Remove the after-action idea blockers in your groups; replace them with change agents, idea people and creative types.

It's not an artifact

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:30:00 -0600

If there were an HTML tag for "rant" I'd use it to give you the heads up that I was going to, so lets just pretend:

<rant on>

Stop calling your reports or work-products "artifacts".

Seriously.

You are not creating something for some future generation to dig up and contemplate about the role and use of whatever it is you think you are producing!

an artifact is an object recovered by some archaeological endeavor, which may have a cultural interest*.

The only people that really should be using that word are called archaeologists. If you're not an archaeologist, or if you aren't having a conversation with one, using the word "artifact" doesn't make you one.

Now, it's probably true that the work-product you're promising to deliver is going to get lost in some filing cabinet, or a hard drive or network share and probably will never see the light of day again requiring an archaeological effort to find it (unless you're lucky enough to have an audit, in which case it magically transforms into "evidence" as in "Exhibit A").

If anything your work-product is likely a by-product of some procedure or process that amounts to little more than a check-box on someones "deliverables" list.

</rant off>

See how useful that tag would be? While we're at it, try to go just one day where you don't use (or hear!) one of the top 10 overused business buzz-words:

Stakeholder

Heads up

Mission critical

Bandwidth

Touch base

In the loop

Low-hanging fruit

Moving forward

At the end of the day

On the same page

The author of this top ten list points out that:

"When overused or misused, however, buzzwords can overshadow or even distort the overall communication. Using too many buzzwords can lessen an individual's credibility as an independent, intelligent, creative thinker. At worst, it can make him/her look like a wishy-washy wannabe."

Some random links of other top overused buzzwords, jargon, and phrases for your amusement:

Commonly Used Business Jargon -- Includes some of my favorites: "Solutioning", "efforting", and the obnoxious "learnings" as a noun...

Overused Business Buzzwords -- You could probably build a 100% buzzword compliant status report generator from this list suitable for any project occasion!

100 Overused Marketing Phrases -- For fun, read through any advertisement to a friend and omit the adjectives and see if they can figure out what it is

Maybe adopt a "buzzword jar" that people have to put $.25 in every time they get caught using one of these puff phrases?

So, today's Big Idea is this: "Have a meeting (or just follow-up!) with someone instead of "touching-base" or "circling-back". Find the courage to call your spreadsheet/powerpoint/report what it is instead of what you want people to think it is."

The only artifact you might be leaving behind is the impression that you are a poser.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Yeah I know that software people have co-opted the term, but that doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. I have a Master's in Software Engineering and I can tell you that they are just kidding themselves and you. I recommend negative reinforcement, like a water-spray bottle used to re-train cats.

Not using RSS yet? Get the updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBigIdeaBlog

On being a successful creative professional

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:46:00 -0600

I know a great many creative persons; artists, performers, speakers, magicians, and so on. They are all deeply talented and energetic about their work. As a group they create interesting, moving and fascinating art/ projects/ shows/ scripts/ etc. But only a very small percentage are successful as professionals. What separates the 'make a living as a creative person' group from the 'great and talent hobbyist' group? One thing.

Delivery.

The professional can, consistently, deliver a project on-time, on budget and to spec for a client.

the amateurs are as talented as the professionals, they are as creative. But they are not as disciplined. (Nor as customer focused.) They create primarily for themselves, not for a paying market.

Today's big idea: Even in the most creative fields, customer service trumps talent.

The idea of property...and what is it you are selling?

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:30:00 -0600

As we slide into the digital age, many things change dramatically. We can now watch TV on our computers. Our phones have GPS directions. Whole groups of jobs appear as others become obsolete...and our hamsters are now electronic.

Many creative people and most consultants are selling nothing more than clever ideas -- ideas that now can be seamlessly copied and re-distributed. How do we protect ourselves...? Here is one surprising answer:

Protecting your ideas in the digital age

Today's Big Idea: Give away your ideas.

Today's top ten teaching tips

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:10:00 -0600

For presenters; I happily present my Top ten teaching tips....

1. Start with the basics. Even a 30 second or 1 minute overview will catch everybody up.
2. Don't learn any new technology just before your presentation.
3. Powerpoint? Maybe. Sometimes. A little.
4. Know the 'limits' of your topi.c*
5. teach to multiple learning styles.
6. Tell stories.
7. Use your fear as energy.
8. Demonstrate if possible.
9. Handouts.
10. Speak up. Can the back of the room hear you?

(* covered later in 'rules of the game.')

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:30:00 -0600

Today's point-counterpoint should be fun! I got a text from Dave on Wednesday suggesting "Counter-point topic: should you give away your ideas? I'll take pro." -- That means I get "con".

Personally I'm a big fan of creating ideas and seeing them in motion (I admit I'm a feedback-junky). I realized that when I made the transition from programmer/developer into a software architect. But today I argue for their proprietary value.

I'll lead off with a little story oft recounted in consulting circles:

The story goes that a complex machine has stopped working shutting an entire assembly line down. Every hour that goes by the company is losing thousands of dollars. After many hours of trying to get the machine working again, the plant manager calls in an outside expert (consultant/engineer) to assess the situation (I've heard this story ascribed to lots of people, including Henry Ford...anyway...) So the expert comes in, walks around the machine, looks at the dials and screens, and finally asks to borrow a hammer. With one swift and decisive tap of the hammer the machine fires right up. Relieved, the plant manager thanks the expert profusely and asks the expert to send the invoice right away. When it arrives there is a single line item charge of $1,000. The manager immediately calls up the expert and demands to know why hitting the machine should be worth $1000?! The expert acknowledges the concern and agrees to revise the invoice. The new invoice arrives with two line items: Hitting machine with hammer: $10. Knowing where to hit the machine: $990

In the same vein I've taken the title of my post from a quote by the famous American oil well firefighter, Red Adair a man who's ideas about "where to hit the hammer" were highly desired and richly compensated (go read his quote on retirement and you'll see why I'm a fan of the man's philosophy).

Ideas come from a generative process whether its improving on something that already exists or inventing something novel. The end result is that the winning ideas are naturally selected by the market -- the selection is usually because the market finds value in them. When I speak of value, I am talking about a mutually agreed upon exchange of something of worth to both parties. For some, it can be the simple satisfaction that comes from feeling good about your contribution (and hopefully being recognized for it if you care) as seen in volunteerism. For most that value is a quantifiable amount of economic value exchanged -- usually in the form of "scaricity tokens" of intrinsic value (from beads to gold) or the fiat variety that we think of as money.

The "almighty buck" you say? Does it sound cheap? For a good treatise on the role of money, read Ayn Rand through her character Francisco in his "money speech" from Atlas Shrugged for an alternate take on the role of money in society. After all, even mimes on street corners need money to buy facepaint (and a probably clown lessons).

I agree that some ideas are so big that they cannot (and should not) belong to one person, or one group of people, like developing and providing clean, safe drinking water for the world. But even here, the actual implementation of the idea needs to compensate the men and women who invested the time to create and test ideas to find the ones that work. They should get some return on that investment.

Which brings me to today's big idea: "Ideas might be disposable but Good Ideas are priceless."

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

The Emperors New Clothes : Telling people what they need to hear

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:25:00 -0600

Here's my take on it:

Telling people what they need to hear takes courage.

We like to seek confirming evidence of already held beliefs - it's not uncommon to surround ourselves with like-minded individuals. In the extreme though they blind us to reality -- the sycophants that orbit rising stars act as insulation mainly protecting their own interests.

Henry Ford didn't give the people what they wanted, because as he so eloquently put it:

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

As a consultant it is a fine line to walk. You're brought in to solve a problem and add value. Rarely does that ever mean you confirm what they already believe. And yet I've seen time and time again well entrenched consultants "milking the customer" for all they can like a parasite. Make sure you're in a synergistic partnership and not a symbiotic one!

I like to collect quotes and aphorisms -- one of my current favorites is the idea that Sunshine is the best disinfectant

And while perception may be 9/10ths of reality and telling the emperor that his new clothes are splendid may be the easy path, I would hope that you would want to know you were actually naked when you become emperor someday?

So today's Big Idea: Tell people what they need to hear, in a way that they want to hear it.

Not using RSS yet? Get the updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBigIdeaBlog

Give the People What they They Want -- Or What they Need?

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:30:00 -0600

Today's point-counter point will be on "playing to your audience"

My friend Jennifer has been in town the past couple of months rehearsing for with The Minnesota Opera for this weekends opening of "Casanova's Homecoming" -- and last night she invited us to the full dress rehearsal. The story details Giacomo Casanova's (yes, he was a real person) return to Venice after a 20-year exile. If you haven't been to an opera, this would be an excellent soft intro -- first of all its all in english -- and has scrolling subtitles -- plus it's hilarious!

Casanova is a good character study for today's blog posts as his autobiographical account sketches someone who beguiled his audiences by playing to their vanities -- but also redeemed himself at times by being wittily (if not brutally) honest with people.

Today we're going to play to our strengths -- my associate Dave is a professional entertainer, so he'll argue from "giving people what they want" -- and I'm an arm-chair philosopher (my minor in college) -- so I'll argue for "giving people what they need"

Stay tuned...

Next time have a Dialogue instead of a Discussion

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:30:00 -0500

It never really occurred to me that there was a really big distinction between Dialogue and Discussion -- which is a little odd, given my strong interest in etymology. The difference (and it's a doozy) was first illustrated to me in one of my new favorite books by Peter Senge titled The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (free in Google books!)

So what's the difference?

Discussion, it turns out, has its same roots in percussion and concussion (discus) which means to throw, fragment, or shatter. As Graeme Nichol's of Arcturus Advisors points out in his Dialogue vs. Discussion article:

The purpose of discussion, though, is to make sure you win, or that your point of view is the one that is accepted. During the discussion you will support your idea and give your points more strongly until, eventually, others agree with you.

That doesn't sound very collaborative, does it?

Dialogue on the other hand is an exploration of ideas...during dialogue everyone works together contributing towards the idea.

Senge credits his discovery of the distinction to David Bohm who first really advocated it (see the link to Bohm's Dialogue).

There's a pretty good illustrative difference between the two hosted by The Dialogue Group, a small consultancy with some impressive clients. They reinforce the collaborative nature of dialogue:

In Dialogue we do not try to convince others of our points of view. There is no emphasis on winning, but rather on learning, collaboration and the synthesis of points of view.

I think that words are important. Specific words even more so. I've heard it said that you can really only ever "think in the words that you know" (for example, when I was living in Japan, my friend Shinobu once told me that she needs to use English to really convey emotions -- kurazy desu ne?).

So, today's Big Idea: Next time someone says they want to have a discussion with you, ask to have a dialogue instead.

Think of drums and fireworks -- boom boom. They may just be planning on trying to win you over instead of really asking for your help or input...

Transparency in Coaching: The (non)value of Anonymous Feedback

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:30:00 -0500

In coaching the primary goal is the effecting an end change in behavior. The Wikipedia entry linked above starts out with:

Coaching is a method of directing, instructing and training a person or group of people, with the aim to achieve some goal or develop specific skills. There are many ways to coach, types of coaching and methods to coaching. Direction may include motivational speaking. Training may include seminars, workshops, and supervised practice.

Feedback (and by extension feedback loops) are a key component of coaching. In education there are five common subclasses:

Confirmation

Corrective

Explanatory

Diagnostic

Elaborative

In management, all five are employed. Today we're going to focus on the Diagnostic case, as it is the primary mode by which performance reviews are conducted.

The solicitation of feedback by peers is a time-honored method for managers to gain some insight into how effective an employee is in performing the duties of their job. It helps to validate internal models of competency that the manager has with regard to their relationship with an employee, especially positive feedback. (of course negative feedback can also validate any models of incompetency the manager may have) -- there is a whole field of "Survey Theory" that works to obtain meaningful and more importantly unbiased data.

But humans are (thankfully) not robots. We have all sorts of motivation and moods, many of which can change from day to day, depending on the distractions around us (work, life, play). And that variability exists on both sides of relationships.

In recent years, organizations large and small have been using (at least in name) the concept of 360-degree feedback (I say in name only, as I've been involved in a number of companies that use this term and terms like "full-circle" -- but honestly don't understand the method).

Bacal & Associates have a pretty decent resource called the Performance Management & Appraisal Help Center with an excellent summary of the problems of providing anonymous feedback in an entry titled Is there a problem if we use "anonymous feedback" in 360?.

It echos a fair number of concerns I've had with it for some time. In thinking about the inter-human relationships between you, the manager (proxy), and feedback provider, it raises some serious questions of validity that is likely to have some unintended consequences.

Anonymous feedback has a double toxic affect of:

a. not allowing the employee the ability to evaluate who said what, so you can figure out where its coming from, and what agenda/purpose/context and potential credibility they might have
b. breeding ill-will potentially towards everyone else, since you constantly have to wonder who said what

For the relationship between the proxy and the subject (your manager and you) it can raises questions of whether the person performing the review concurs with the feedback (which when you think about it, they probably do, otherwise, why would they be providing it?) Or in the extreme cases, potentially the manager wrote the feedback but is hiding behind the anonymous wall. Either way, it can create a re-evaluation point where the strength of the relationship between manager and employee is significantly diminished.

In other words, if you don't respect the feedback provider, you will not likely agree with their assessment, which in turn will have little impact on outcome and can lead to Disengaged Employees

Your manager in effect becomes an amplifier -- and without the overall context of time, place, and situation, you are left without any means of qualitatively evaluating its relevance.

Which brings me to today's Big Idea: The elimination of anonymous feedback in coaching.

What do you think? Have you found that anonymous feedback to be meaningful? How would it change the feedback you provide if you knew it was not anonymous?

Count to three and point to the problem ?

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:27:00 -0500

Here's an interesting exercise posed in the book I'm currently reading called The Art of Thinking by Allen F. Harrison and Robert M. Bramson, Ph.D.

Its a Synthesist strategy called "Open Argument and Confrontation" (p.23) where a consultant meets individually with team members and gathers confidential information from each person mostly about what they feel the other team members are doing that is nonproductive (or worse).

The consultant then brings everyone together and starts "feeding back" information gathered during the interviews, with the intent for the group to acknowledge and identify the problems and helping the group to resolve them.

Here's today's Big Idea:

If after a time the group continues to avoid talking about the interpersonal problems, the consultant arranges everyone in a circle, so that everyone can clearly see everyone else. The consultant then announces to the group "I'm going to count out loud to three. When I say 'Three' I want each of you to point to the person in this room who gives you the most problems."

Of course not everyone is going play along, as the author points out, but does go on to suggest that it does work dramatically and will get a conversation started.

I think its bold. What do you think?

PS: I took the assessment and scored equally high as a Synthesist & Idealist (btw, I created a simple spreadsheet to make scoring trivial -- you'll need a copy of the book for the questions and analysis) and am reading with the same mindset as that advocated by the StrengthsFinder 2.0. I'll report back after I'm finished.