What kind of person are you: Competitive? Big-picture thinker? Assertive? Conciliator? Other?
Such tags tend to promise clarity, but bring in a bundle of behaviours and attitudes that may or may not relate. When these words find themselves describing quadrants or supporting wider groupings on a personality test, you almost need a glossary to explain the context (and the particular bundle).
I run into this with my working descriptions for negotiation strategies.
A couple of semantic challenges are:
- Even if you are not “a competitive person,” you can still pick a strategy of “competing” in a certain situation;
- It can make strategic business sense to “accommodate” the needs of others and you don’t have to be weak-kneed to do it;
- Collaborating with a party does not mean agreeing with them all the time, and you don’t have to be “nice” to do it.
I will suggest that collaboration is a default for supply chain initiatives, given that the relationships (internal and external) have to be maintained over a period of time and that, in today’s competitive (semantics again!) environment, there is no room for compromising the returns on time and dollars spent.
So do you have to collaborate all the time on everything? Not at all.
Before giving you the model, let me give you this:
Glossary of Terms
Information: Results, data, examples and findings that may help in determining a superior course of action.
Expertise: Orientation, experience and training that enable one to see relevant implications of a decision prior to its implementation.
Authority: Structural or informal power to direct the actions of others, coupled with accountability for the consequences of a decision.
If you have all three, there is no need to collaborate. Why would you? You have all the information you need, you know what is important for the decision, and your sphere of responsibility allows you to “make the call.”
This doesn’t mean that you have to be obvious about “going it alone,” but engaging others would be strictly for relationship-building. You will decide if this is worth the effort.
Tune in next month for an elaboration on what to do when you have “two out of three” (which “ain’t bad,” according to Meatloaf).
THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE AUGUST NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL.
You will see that I have started using Twitter (look to the right side of the top page). In the era of fighting for attention (a stubbornly scarce resource), hitting the window of opportunity with valuable insight can seem like bullseyeing that ventilation shaft on the Death Star (”use the force, Luke.”). This is where I think Twitter fits.
My plan is to restrict my twits (?) to comments on customer service with, as advertised, a wide definition of “customer.” Some interactions create an opportunity to move the relationship needle in your favour, or hold it steady against a negative pull. I plan to call out excellence and shortcomings. Follow if you like; we will both see where it goes.
Longer discussions and stories (conceivably for those prepared to invest more attention) will stay on this blog. Things like this:
I dearly hope that business models that rely on high switching costs are on the wane. (See this article summary from HBR.) I currently have insurance relationships with two different Canadian banks (car and house); the renewal rates are weeks apart. Every year, I am reminded by each of the bundling discount that I could receive by increasing the number of products, but neither makes it easy for me to do anything but renew what I have… and I never remember until after automatic renewal notice! (Talk about scarce attention!)
Good for them for deriving value from my inability to keep track of the dates! The downside, I would argue, is that my home mortgage is currently with a third major back (in the current climate, this may not or may not be desireable business for a bank!). My experiences with small-ticket insurance items is such that I won’t entertain moving my business to either of the other two when the mortgage comes up for renewal (and that date is in my calendar!).
Perhaps the impossibility of maintaining customer equity when you have diversified products and an old-school model will drive more customer-centric approaches… but maybe not. Hey, they may not even miss me.
I recently had the opportunity to work with a group of volunteer board members. A friend of mine and I were also volunteering our time to help in making the board work more effectively together, especially in their meetings.
As individuals, they were all lovely people who shared a common passion for the cause that the association was furthering. As a group, however, the meeting and general interactions had deteriorated to the point where one of the group members suspected they had become a dysfunctional board. The “volunteer” dynamic is fascinating in these instances because, conceivably, it would be easier to walk away from a dysfunctional volunteer situation than it would be to leave a dysfunctional company.
We were leading a discussion on what entails an effective meeting. There were no surprises, and, yes, Robert’s Rules were raised and quoted. There was an interesting dialogue at the end of the session that illustrated in large part the problems that the group faced. The following dialogue from a discussion on an opportunity to meet with a municipal group:
A – When did you get the e-mail?
B – I got the e-mail yesterday, maybe it was Thursday, and it said that we could send a couple of people to the meeting. I think that we can decide who those people are.
My friend – Does that sound reasonable, A?
A – Well, I would have to have to see the e-mail.
Robert’s Rules are no match for a meeting where past interactions have driven “benefit of the doubt” to the point of zero. It may take long time for my friends A and B to work together. Acknowledging that benefit of the doubt is absent, and giving it anyway, could provide opportunities to gain benefit of the doubt faster. It is a tough one, and it takes a big person to start, but there is sometimes very little standing in the way of two people working together more effectively.
American Idol has increased the profile of the “critique” and also demonstrates the different flavours that this sort of constructively critical feedback can take. Even if you are not familiar with the show you may have run into this type of coaching critique:
- Unclear (aka Randy) – Praise the good and allude to shortcomings; downplay the importance of the negative and openly use the prefix “I don’t know what it was but…”;
- Cheerlead (aka Paula) – Give As for effort; make everyone feel that they are trying their best;
- Direct (aka Simon) – If it is great, say so; call out all performances that fall below the “great” level and pin point exactly what was missing.
Whether a boss, mentor or coach, the Direct version is the one that holds the most promise for the coachee to develop existing skills and acquire new ones. People who truly want to develop—especially those who employ coaches—should challenge the Unclear, as well as the critiquing school of “Good, good. More of this is just fine.”
Where this falls down is when the Simons of the world cannot provide insight to fill the gap. Showing what is missing is important, but if the emperor indeed has no clothes, there is definite value in telling him or her where to shop.
Last week, Simon pointed out that singer Kady Malloy had “an astonishing lack of personality.” Voice, looks and all other assets could neither compensate nor cover up this fact. In the follow-up banter with Seacrest, Kady claimed that she did not know what Simon had meant. I would suggest that what she really didn’t understand is: “what do I do differently?”
Providing the “what should you do” is the value that the executive coach can and must add. Simon is not a coach, but would likely be good one because he is very perceptive in isolating what is missing. For what it’s worth, I think that Kady could smile and move more when she sings. For personality to the extreme (pun intended), watch Gary Charone sing “Hammer to Fall” in the 1991 Freddie Mercury Tribute concert.
- September 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
