One thread that I believe runs through the content on this site is “things that help or hinder productive conversations.” (Go ahead and substitute “collaborations” as the direct object of that last sentence.) I provide this in response to recent feedback that my writing was “all over the place.” In my defense, these “things that hinder” are literally “all over the place.” Conflict is my muse.
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.
The realm of perceptions is full of blurry lines. Where does “young and energetic” turn into “cocky?” On the flip side sits “wise” versus “old and out of touch.” I always feel old writing about what “young people” can do to improve their effectiveness in engaging different stakeholder groups, especially through technology. Engaging through technology is pertinent to anyone in business.
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 like smartphones, o2 broadband and netbooks 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.
En route to a meeting this morning, I found myself listening to CBC Radio One’s The Current and a discussion of flu preventation/pandemic preparedness. Today’s discussion explored mandating flu vaccines for health care workers. One expert, Dr. Alison McGeer, the Director of Infection Control at Mount Sinai hospital in Toronto, makes the very general comment, “Nobody likes to be told what to do.” As it turns out, this may be the biggest issue in play for this particular discussion.
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!
Spending scandals are always good news stories; the best, of course, involve taxpayer dollars. There seem to have been a lot of them lately. One such story this week, involves the RCMP planning to spend $200K on the leadership development of three of its officers. Interestingly, perhaps, the issue this twigged with me is “what do you charge for these type of services?”
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.
If you read this column, you will know by now that I have a very soft spot for analogy. My favourites involve the restaurant industry, and to guard against diminished impact from overuse, allow me to share one from a client of mine, who is enamoured with sports analogies. He explains a relatively recent switch in his and his agency’s role:
“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)
The last few months have been rich with current events stories involving negotiations that appear to be relatively contained. Notable in this category is the Toronto City workers strike. Maybe it is the micro-scale complexity that I am enjoying. Another of these stories–which my clients and students have benefited–is Jim Balsillie’s pursuit of an NHL team, and more specifically, a team that operates out of SW Ontario. (Full disclosure: As a fan whose fanaticism has waned under far-away expansion, I would love to see another team close by. Any critique is intended to be constructive.)
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.
With my recent purchase of a new car, I have ceased membership in two groups to which I had a certain affinity: (1) those with cars built last millennium, and (2) drivers of standard transmission. All indications are that both these are dying breeds. The sales guy who facilitated my purchase won me over partly by saying that the automatic transmission turned “driving” into “aiming.”
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:
- A “strategic” partner talks about how much they value the relationship, but constantly resorts to “nickel-and-dime” approaches to negotiations;
- An internal workgroup, whose mandate is to improve efficiency, continually schedules meetings that fail to move the process forward; or
- 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:
- Is this partner really that “strategic”?
- Do we need to be efficient in addressing efficiency?; and
- 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)
Last week I participated in a meeting of the CSCSC’s board of directors, which brought together an impressive cross-section of stakeholders in Canada’s supply chain community. In addition to hearing reports and updates, attendees participated in a group exercise, led by Linda Lucas, to build on information from pan-Canadian information-gathering sessions conducted earlier this year. The exercise involved three steps:
- Identify sector-specific priorities (in a given overall segment);
- Map actions to further those priorities; and
- Assign tasks to people (bonus marks, I think, for time lines).
From my experience doing similar work with clients and groups, all the steps are important, and gauging consensus (rather than happiness) along the way is essential. Success or failure can hinge on the Number 3 point, above; failure is still in play even if Numbers 1 and 2 are clear and garner group support.
My group was focussed on issues under the umbrella of “Attracting and retaining talent in the sector.” Among the priorities we determined was getting other business functions to recognize the strategic importance of the supply chain function to make it a desirable area to pursue.
Note: The theme of the undervalued supporting function is rampant. “Supporting” roles never get the respect that they should. Individual egos (and we all have them) are no small part of this. At varying times, I have sat in meetings where those from other supporting functions (PR, Communications, HR and IT, for example) bemoaned the fact that they deserved more respect in the organization.
Having identified this priority, we suggested that the appropriate action is to “bang the drum” about the importance of supply chain. We then dutifully took aim at assigning the task, but concluded that this one – perhaps like others – is everybody’s job.
Some specific examples for the rollout might look like this:
- Leaders in organizations: celebrate successes in supply chain innovation internally (to reinforce the changes) and in other companies (to demonstrate the opportunity).
- Educational institutions and designation-granting associations: foster pride in being involved in 21st-century value creation (profiling successful graduates), and provide skills to communicate that value to different areas of the organization.
- Workers in the sector: take every opportunity available (and create opportunity) to share successes with all related functions internally and externally; praise and foster internal collaboration that helps generate innovative solutions.
- Consultants in team and stakeholder communications: provide awareness as to the importance of selling your functional and individual value; train skills on effectively communicating the value of supply chain to the wider stakeholder group.
Much of this is already underway, I know. According to information gathered in the Council’s activities, the work is far from done to further this priority to the extent that the sector needs to realize its potential. Consider yourself tasked, and stay tuned for the timelines.
This originally appeared in the June 2009 newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (supplychaincanada.org)
The last day of public school reminded me of my youth when late in the school year, my grade 7 English teacher, Mr. Williams, gave us a quiz on a series of short stories he had assigned to read. The front page was a combination of short answer, fill in the blank, and true/false questions. On the back, there was on line on which we were to record “the number, between 0 and 6, of stories that you actually read.”
Does self evaluation get any better than that? I can’t remember what I wrote or his reaction, but I remember pondering whether to gamble in looking “studious, yet forgetful” or being “honest and, perhaps, lucky.”
Look for a letter to the editor that I submitted on two articles in today’s National Post commenting on peer evaluations in university. The issue being, is it progress to use a software that allows peer grading for short written assignments? Dangerous move toward blind leading the blind, or novel way to bring technology and dialogue into new millennium academia?
I will share the actual submission, if printed, but the gist of my argument is that most post-secondary education should be about discussion to gather support for an argument, and practice in presenting arguments effectively. This view reflects my bias in working in a business school, and away from the “black and white” numbers side of things (although you learn to use numbers in such a way to support your intentions).
The article writers on opposite sides of the issue both do a poor job in supporting their case. The software vendor quickly refers readers to the vendor site for objective support for the value of the software. You have to do better than “if you don’t believe me, then look at this thing that I wrote.” Where is your third-party endorsement?! The teaching assistants make a noble attempt to evoke an analogy, which I find very effective. Their problem is the hyperbole (it’s like peer-delivered medicine) followed by a quick “All joking aside…”
When operating out of the realm where you have no “benefit of the doubt,” that kind of support won’t cut it!
I spent the morning working with a client to “bullet proof” a proposed project direction that she will presenting over the phone to a task force. We were meticulous about the clarity of ideas and the relevant support to back them up. Since the group meets every 6 to 8 weeks, getting buy-in next meeting could mean accelerating the project schedule by two months. Not bad for 90 minutes of prep work: for the numbers people, it is almost a 1000-fold return on minutes spent. I will suggest it is worth spending the time, and worth getting help.
Toronto city workers are striking, because they can. City management and union representatives, hopefully, continue to negotiate, because they have to. I am expecting final class assignments devoted to analyzing this situation:
- what went wrong?
- how could it have been better?
- what should they learn for next time?
I always enjoy the perspectives and the biases that come out in the analysis. Likely because he shares my biases, I enjoyed Howard Levitt’s legal perspective on the situation in today’s National Post.
As an additional perspective, my MBA class (Negotiations) this week tried to deal with ethics as practically as possible. With the assistance of some readings, excersises and discussions, we arrived at some criteria that can help inform ethical decision making. (I don’t like to think that it always “depends;” there are some more biases for you!) One of the criteria was “It is unethical to maximize your own interests with a disregard for shared interests.” You can argue the semantics of any of those words, but the point, as I see it, is look out for number one, but stay attentive to shared interests.
Under this criteria, in nature, a parasitic relationship becomes unethical if it threatens the survival of the host. Does that mean the Bernie Madoff was unethical because he failed to create a sustainable Ponzi scheme? Maybe. Remember, this is one of four criteria.
Do city workers violate this ethical code by holding out for, specifically, sick day banking and pay-back for half a year of sick days upon retirement? I think the answer is, “Yes.” The shared interest is in a sustainable system whereby reasonable tax revenues cover reasonable city services. As Mr. Levitt illustrates, the status quo union agreements have progressed to being unreasonable (evidence by the fact that you don’t see similar benefits in the private sector).
The checks and balances of the private sector are not perfect–and certainly do not guarantee ethical behaviour–but can help. Uncompetitive wage burdens were part of GM going bankrupt. Unions, workers and pensioners live with the consequences. Pushing a business to unsustainability is unethical if your plan is to continue working there (as it appeared to be for many workers) or to bank on retirement income from the company (as it appears for many pensioners).
If today’s City of Toronto workers are in it for anything other than short-term gains, they are not behaving ethically, I will suggest. Anyone who makes such a claim, better have a strong ethical leg to stand on (or had best make it on a blog whose readership is limited to like minds… we will see.)
- 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
