In my role as a trainer/instructor, I have an opportunity to instill the importance of “walking the talk” when engaging hostile stakeholder groups, or even members of a cross-functional team. Most of the time clients, students and attendees can’t tell if I actually walk my talk. (Recall the cynical adage: If you can’t do, teach.)

Note: A colleague of mine, who also teaches negotiations found a neat way around the issue: “It’s not how good a negotiator I am; it’s how good are you after I have taught you.”

There are two situations where those watching, I think, have an opportunity to really assess my walk-to-talk ratio.
1 – Training presentation skills: Similar to writing a book on writing skills, leading a training session on “presenting” always makes me feel naked. During one such session, I found the projector frozen (having spent a December night in the trunk of a car). I am certain the audience was quietly thinking, “Wow! What is he going to do now?” and expecting me to have the right answer, (which is get on with the content; you will find the projector works fine once it is warmed up!)
2 – Negotiating grades for a Negotiation class: Students have an option to analyze and strategize their negotiation with me for a final mark in my MBA course. I don’t feel as naked in these situations because of the obvious power imbalance.
Either of these situations provides clear opportunities to spot the “do as I say, not as I do” moments. I can’t say that I have been called out much at all. One gentleman approached me after a training session with a hypocrisy sighting: “You told us you tend to ‘beg forgiveness over ask permission,’ but then you kept asking us if it was OK to move on.”
Hmmm. Needless to say, no “participation” marks were on the line this time.
When under scrutiny, I think that credibility can become very solid very quickly if the talk and walk line up. Authenticity is a strong asset in managing and leading change from any level of an organization. I firmly believe that those under the most scrutiny (from strong out-group camps), have a fighting chance to gain/regain credibility when they “walk their talk” as much as possible. This means that if I am not flawless, I can’t hold you to a flawless standard… that would be hypocritical, which would make you cynical, which limits our ability to collaborate.
No one is bullet proof. It is far too difficult to fake it. Lead with your strengths, and find others to cover your weaknesses.

• Fall 2008 – York University unionized workers strike.

Note: Neither Schulich (business) or Osgoode (law) were affected directly. All appreciated the irony of crossing a picket line to teach a class on Negotiating.

• Winter 2009 – Auto sector woes, which were welcome in the fall, continue.

Note: There is also a nice little transit strike in Ottawa.

• Summer 2009 – Toronto City outdoor and daycare workers strike

Note: Toronto City Counsellor Karen Stintz guest shared perspectives on this in class this semester.

• Fall 2009 – Cable companies and TV broadcasters

Note: Just in time for Fall 2009, CRTC Chair Konrad Von Finckenstein chastised the disputing cable and broadcasting companies with:
“You need each other; I don’t understand why you can’t negotiate.”
A final report gift, just in time for Christmas.

• Winter 2010 – Community College Teachers vs. Management

Note: As an instructor at Humber I was able to vote in this one. Who on Earth thinks that teaching is a profession in which to get rich?!
The thread through all of these situations appears to be “reacting to a business model that’s under strain.” Whether its wage dissatisfaction or margin envy, those involved, who really do need each other, would do well to hear Von Finckenstein’s words.
Complex situations? Requiring new approaches? This will ring familiar to those working in supply chain. Collaboration is easy to talk about and, theoretically, we can see the opportunity for creating/protecting value. The work comes in effectively executing on that mindset to address real challenges.
The competitive reaction appears to be automatic, especially if we are taking away things that people have “always had” (e.g. banked sick days) or have come to expect (3 – 5% year-on-year wage increase). The rightful target for competitive behaviour is often outside this relationship.
This means that even though it makes perfect sense to implement your cost-saving initiative, if someone is losing something, expect some push back. Positioning energy toward understanding the problem (hopefully a shared problem) is the most effective interaction. No situation is too small for a strategic look, which could start conversations toward some fixes.

You don’t have to spend too long with me before I start on about in-groups and out-groups. A fundamental belief of mine is that value-producing collaboration requires better communication across traditional divides (e.g. between the two groups). It can, however, be uncomfortable to spend time across a divide (as I can attest from some of the discussion involving research methods).

The set-up for Dr. Hendricks talk peaked my interest: “Many senior executives simply don’t understand the importance and value created by a well-performing supply chain.” His premise was that the best way to “prove” that companies should actively invest in pre-empting supply chain failures was to look at the stock price drop that followed a reported inventory “incident.” (For the truly peaked, click here.)

The take-away for the students was, as I understood it, that many of the traditional statistical methods (presumably familiar to these PhD students) are useless when looking at such incidents. There are other ways to inject the necessary rigour into the study, and this was the focus of much of his talk.

Perhaps a kindred spirit, I am certain that Dr. Hendricks does well in speaking to “practitioner” audiences, and clearly conveyed the importance getting this message out to other parts of organizations. Pre-emptive arguments that require investment are always difficult. Making the case to “senior management” may be easier with studies and findings he and others produce.

According to Hendricks, the majority of practitioners who take interest in this work do so because of such a failure and, conceivably, a drop in shareholder value in their recent past. This means that practitioners can simply wait for “an incident” to occur. Direct experience has a way of persuading.

THIS APPEARS IN THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (supplychaincanada.org)

An article from the Economist this month discusses banning hands-on cellphone activity in the U.S.; similar contentious legislation is coming to Ontario. The Economist article begins by wondering why the U.S. has high instances of driving-related fatalities, and goes on to suggest that driver distraction is a significant factor. The hypothesis seems to be, if it is bad now, it will get worse because everyone is trying to do too many things at once (e.g. multi-tasking) and young people are particularly susceptible to the lures of squeezing in a text message while merging into the fast lane.

Here is where the fun begins because people start looking for solutions.

• We should ban something for drivers: hands-on phones, all phones, all talking, loud music, music with words, anything verbal, etc.
• Cars/phones should be made safer: add sensors that flash when you get to close to something; wireless signal should be cut off during certain weather and road conditions; voice recognition texting, etc.

During this debate, you will hear other responses, but many will fit into those two buckets. Both, I suggest, miss the key point of the problem. It is not a legislation or technology problem. This is a human problem: A driver’s amount of attention is finite. The amount of attention required to drive safely varies and can change quickly.

Drivers often have help managing their attention: a talkative passenger will quiet down when the driver gets cut off. Also, the driver turns the stereo down/off when there is particularly bad downpour, or simply stops paying attention to the podcast as he/she begins looking for a parking space. The problem with cellphone conversations (hands-free or otherwise) is that the other party can’t see changing demands on the driver’s attention. The driver is on their own to say “It started raining really hard; can I call you back?,” which demands even more attention, and makes the immediate problem even worse.

There are many times when a driver has ample extra attention, maybe even too much. E-mail/text messages may be perfectly safe waiting for predictably long left turns; and loud music (or even phone conversations) can be just the thing to keep a bored driver alert enough to reach a distant destination.

I am not sure what the solution is to “driving while distracted.” There may be laws and technological advances. I will hope that a good chunk is left to personal responsibility to maintain a minimum attention reserve. I do think that the conversation/collaboration toward a solution will be “helped/less hindered” if people are focussed on the same problem.

This week in column in the Financial Post (“Is it time to kill the company newsletter?” Sept 22, 2009), Carolyn Ray suggests that a generation gap exists between old-tech Boomers and all-tech Millennials in the adoption of social media tools within organizations. One of the big challenges is that managers do not engage in dialogue. I will suggest the significant responsibility to foster dialogue sits with the younger side of the conversation.

I am not sure that the younger set “gets” the importance of courtesy and diplomacy that their older colleagues and managers place on written communications, especially in the absence of a strong relationship to buffer direct criticism. I had an example of such behaviour in one of my classes.  Early one semester, a student wrote me a quipped attack on a core theory and used Mariah Carey as a case in point. We had a “dialogue” with short exchanges, and I know that I allowed the back-and-forth to continue longer than a Senior Exec would have (Teaching in a business school is not the same as running things!). I am not sure the student appreciated the impression created, which was largely negative.

Much of the discussion around generational differences points to how younger people behave differently (or business is different) and we older people have to get used to it. I agree with that to an extent; we are all time starved and technology can provide very quick communication. That said, a bit of old-fashioned respect and courtesy can help such communication to be more effective.

For respect and courtesy to come across in e-mail, the writer can add such things as “Dear so-and-so” and “Sincerely,” although I will suggest it is more about taking the time to think through what you want to say. Writing can embolden. This is great if an idea emerges that would not come up in a large meeting. The effect is less for half-baked suggestions and criticisms.

Collaboration in the workplace is essential. Managers and leaders who do not engage in the dialogue will find themselves dangerously outside it. The success of workplace collaboration, and the success of the organizations, can come from savvy youngsters who woo the change with old-fashioned manners, and the courageous oldsters who are open to dialogue, no matter what the medium.

Complementing Dr. McGeer’s insight, was New York State Health Commissioner, Dr. Richard Daines, whose state has adopted mandatory flu vaccinations for those in the system who come in regular contact with patients. The scientific evidence appears to be compelling, and demonstrates the correlation between vaccinated health care workers and reduced impact of flu on society. Neither doctor relied solely on the scientific evidence because both, I assume, realize they are up against a less rational “you can’t make me” reaction to the word “mandatory” (or “forced,” if you want stronger reactions).

Their counter arguments were excellent, and I am curious whether or not this came through media training, or simply understanding how to diffuse a particular line of questioning. Here are two examples of note (paraphrased):

Dr. McGeer, in response to concerns about limiting freedom of choice: “If you are a pilot with a heart condition, you are not given the choice to continue to fly.” (Score more points for the analogy!)

Dr. Baines, in response to concerns about over applying the rules: “We have reasonable people in our institutions; they will implement this in a reasonable way.”

In contrast, I think that the support given by Linda Haslam-Stroud is the President of the Ontario Nurses Association was very weak, suggesting the idea is good, but stressing that choice is important without much support. I am not sure if this was a lack of media training/preparation, or if it is simply much more difficult to support the “you can’t make me” side of this argument.

Interestingly, in New York and other areas that adopt this practice wholeheartedly, the people can retain their right to choose, with the choices being (1) get a vaccine and keep working, or (2) don’t get a vaccine and take some unpaid time off. So, you see, “you can’t make me” is indeed correct!

I recently had a conversation with a former professor and colleague of mine a Schulich Business School, and we agreed that one of the biggest challenges for providers of professional services (like me!) is pricing. The formula involves trading time for money: hours or days spent either with the client or in preparation. Time spent on the latter has more latitude because, as my client, you won’t know exactly how much time I have spent preparing. I will suggest that in most cases there is a reasonable range, which is usually driven by the size of the project and the available budget. The resulting agreement ensures that you, as my client, get value for money and that I, as the provider, receive compensation that allows me to stay in business with a manageable schedule (e.g. not working 90 hours a week, 51.5 weeks a year).

A recurring stat in my profession is that employers spend on average $1200 per year per employee on training and development. Some will receive a much higher investment in their skills and abilities, and those are the ones that most providers like me hope to train. I am not sure of the upper limit of the reasonable range for an individual’s training allowance, but I think it is considerably south of “$200K for three people.”

What happens when the buyer fails to enact the “reasonable range”? The current levels of scrutiny on such spending, as well as the strong trends toward forced transparency, may eliminate these situations completely. Until that happens, individual ethics will dictate how much time makes into onto the invoice. Let’s call this “micro governance.” I think that it can cover for any governance/oversight that may be lacking in the always imperfect systems. Ethics or no ethics, for the sustainability of both sides, the reasonable range is the safest place to be. I hope we can continue to find it.

“We used to be like hockey referees. If things were working, people barely knew we were there. Occasionally we would be called in to work on problems, but there was often clarity about what should happen. These days, we are baseball umpires and are constantly being asked to call ’strikes’ and ‘balls’ in situations where things are happening fast and in front of many spectators.”

The difference in the impact of the authority of officials is stark between hockey and baseball (leaving national orientations aside). In hockey, a referee is unable to see everything because the action is so constant. In most instances, no action on the part of a referee is an acceptable response. There is an expectation that less-serious infractions and breaches will be ignored, and that occasionally a major breach will slip under the radar (for example, if it happens behind the play). In instances where a potentially game-changing decision is required, such as with a disputed goal, the lines are very clear and the maximum impact – one goal – is usually surmountable for the other side.

Baseball umpires, on the other hand, have a nearly omniscient view of the field of play. They are constantly required to make binary decisions – i.e., in or out (watch this clip for the frenzy created by delayed calls). One of the most-important criteria for an umpire’s decisions – the vertical strike zone from the player’s shoulders to knees – changes with every batter, plus the ball travels at highway vehicle speeds and only very recently has support been allowed through instant replay. “Game-changing” calls routinely become “game-ending” (e.g., how rare is a bottom-of-the-ninth third out on strikes?)

In the working world, which would you rather be?

A straw poll would likely show a preference for refereeing, but I will suggest that many organizations need the calls made by umpires. There are steep potential downsides to “no action” as a response to a situation:

• Delays that cause missing a window of opportunity
• Diminishing perceptions of the person’s ability/leadership
• Deflating employee spirits as “analysis” continues seemingly forever.

From my involvement with supply chain professionals, I’ve found that they often make up the group that has the best view of the “field of play” and may be in a good position to make (or initiate) a positive “game-changing” decision that takes into account wider implications. The criteria for success, like the strike zone, may need some clarification to maintain the quality of the decisions and garner necessary support.

The other thing to point out, before the analogy goes too far, is that the best decisions come when the “us against them” dynamic is altered toward collaboration. This is why I still prefer the restaurant stories.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE AUGUST NEWSLETTER OF THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.canadiansupplychain.org)

This week, I took the opportunity to respond to an editorial in the print edition of the National Post. Here is what was printed:

Re: ‘Integrity’ A Foreign Concept At The NHL, Kelly McParland, Aug. 12.

Kelly McParland is right on. Lack of “integrity” is a very weak argument to keep Jim Balsillie out of the NHL owner’s circle. The much stronger argument is that league commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners don’t like him. Balsillie’s competitive/ combative approach has strained, perhaps irreparably, key relationships with league decision-makers and influencers.

As in many instances, it is not enough to have a good game plan — you have to get a buy-in from your stakeholders. I give Jim Balsillie full points on the former, and a dismal failure on the latter.

Chris Irwin, lecturer, Schulich School of Business, Toronto.

There was only one time when I was truly embarrassed to drive my old car. Last year in March, ice on the highway caused me to spin out into a snow bank half way through a four-hour intercity trip. The bottom half of the trip was humbling; it is one thing to be driving an old car that runs well, quite another to drive one that rattles when you crack 85 km an hour. It was a very quick and inexpensive fix, which brings me to the topic of alignment, where little things can make a big difference.

Two summers ago, I sat with a client overlooking the newly installed volleyball nets on the lawn of the corporate campus. The idea was a good one: outdoors, exercise, taking a break, blowing off steam… The only problem was that, apparently, none of the senior staffers ever played. Directly or indirectly, the message to staff was “if you want to get ahead in this company, don’t waste your time on the volleyball court.” In my experience in and around organizations, there are many such instances that illustrate a misalignment between intention (what the organization wants) and action (what the organization does).

NOTE: HR has a tough role in these instances, and would do well to fully understand corporate cultures and values before launching “employee” initiatives.

Defining or clarifying some shared values can assist in making interactions and negotiations between working groups (e.g., on a micro level) more productive. Here are examples of gaps between the culture and the communication:

1. A “strategic” partner talks about how much they value the relationship, but constantly resorts to “nickel-and-dime” approaches to negotiations;
2. An internal workgroup, whose mandate is to improve efficiency, continually schedules meetings that fail to move the process forward; or
3. In dealing with their “internal clients,” a support function provides little in the way of customer service.

Like with my beloved car, small problems with alignment can result in large problems. Tension between management values (stated and, better yet, understood) and actions/initiatives are fodder for cynicism, lack of trust, and unhealthy noise between people and groups. On a smaller scale, individuals can take the lead in clarifying some shared values through questions such as:

1. Is this partner really that “strategic”?
2. Do we need to be efficient in addressing efficiency?; and
3. What is our understanding of “client service” internally and externally?

The answers to these questions may emerge easily, but more likely will spark a tough conversation between those involved. The discussion may force a clarification on what parties should expect (e.g., maybe it is unrealistic to expect to be treated as a “client” all the time).

Ideally, the corporation as a whole will have actions align with values. Individuals, I suspect, see misalignments more often than not. Approached in the right way, with a good degree of benefit of the doubt, I think that some of the smaller ones can be addressed, if not fixed. These little alignment issues can have wide-reaching effects. It may be worth a check.

This originally appeared in the July 2009 newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (supplychaincanada.org)