As long as I have been active in the business world (and paying attention), “providing solutions” has been part of normal business language. This is not a measure that I endorse, but a Google search for “business solutions” garners 10 times more results than does a search for “business problems.” (For what it’s worth, bing.com turns up 270 million for the former, and 300 million for the latter. Is Microsoft onto something here?)
Tom Blackwell (National Post Health Care columnist) writes last month about the trends to bring Toyota-like efficiency into hospital and health-care environments. The successes are clear and are often demonstrated in reduced wait times and higher through put. Both of these offer defense to such criticisms as “you can’t treat people like automobiles” because you can treat processes like processes.
One of the perspectives that Mr. Blackwell introduces is that of consultant Tim Hill, who works in the implementation of such programs. His criticism is that, as the worm turns toward “everybody’s doing it,” clients may not be getting the value that they should (or, as Hill puts it, “A lot of health care facilities are getting ripped off.”). Needless to say, the eHealth initiative in Ontario has raised the level of scrutiny on consultants to the health-care industry, including perhaps myself and Mr. Hill.
Accountability for “providing solutions” has always been a tricky one for consultants and service providers. How many software executives would take payment from the efficiencies their product generates? Or how many advertising executives would link compensation to the sales impact of a campaign? With a larger understanding of shared interests, consultants can be encouraged to try to “solve the problem” rather than simply “provide the solution.” This may override the obvious tension of the pay-the-least vs. charge-the-most divide. Again, both sides need to be reasonable.
The bigger challenge is where “the problem” stretches beyond the area of the organization that hired the consultants. The natural temptation for any service provider is to give the client “what they want,” which may not be the solution they need. To use Mr. Hill’s example, the hospital may get the rigour of Lean processes (that they asked for!), but some important underlying issues remain unsolved.
Managing the tension of collaboration is possible when there is an understanding of the shared interests. This likely means that: (1) the customer is not always right; and (2) for consultants, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions… but we all knew that already.
THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE MARCH NEWSLETTER OF THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.supplychaincanada.org)
Let’s grant Francois Houle (Univ of Ottawa) his presumed wish to go back in time to before he hit send on the e-mail warning to Ann Coulter this week. We will weigh the decision based on some negotiation theory.
First up are M. Houle’s interests, including the overriding objective of the school. (e.g. promote constructive educational dialogue). Determining the latter will be a conversation given the published University “mission” statement, which is not clear enough to be workable.
Taking the overall goal into account with other interests (e.g. increase Ottawa U’s global reputation: mission accomplished on that one!) M. Houle would ask himself if bringing Ann Coulter to the university serves his purposes without compromising the overall goal. (There are some serious assumptions made before ticking “yes” to this, but let’s make them.)
M. Houle them selects between different negotiation strategies based on (1 or X-axis) the importance of demonstrable outcomes, and (2 or y-axis) the importance of the ongoing relationship with the other party. This becomes a 2×2 grid, across the axes of “low” to “high” for each dimension; the strategies are AVOID (low and low), ACCOMMODATE (relationship trumps outcome), COMPETE (outcome trumps relationship) and COLLABORATE (high and high). To oversimplify, we will call the single demonstrable outcome “a safe campus event” and the relationship is, obviously, with Ann Coulter and by association.
By sending his warning letter to Ann Coulter, M. Houle was executing on a COMPETITIVE strategy, which marks a strategic error. If you can’t have a safe event with her there, don’t invite her (AVOID). If you want to try to work with her to ensure the discourse remains constructive and educational, give her a phone call: dialogue is conducive–and necessary–to collaboration. Competitive tactics (e.g. strongly worded and public letters) invite retribution. Find her response on her blog, in public, for all to see.
Oh, the difference made by little things. Had M. Houle engaged Ms. Coulter in private dialogue and raised his concerns and hopes for, for example, a safe event, this would play out differently and much more positively for the University. Had she not been interested in this kind of discussion and responded in a competitive/combative manner, he could move to “AVOID” and be done with it.
We will never know how receptive Ms. Coulter would have been to such a phone call prior to the event. I wonder if such conversations took place in Calgary. We can’t know, because such discussions are kept necessarily informal and non-public, which is where such collaboration sometimes has it’s best chance.
Cynicism can be a very destructive force, and can be particularly damaging to the trust/goodwill/benefit-of-the-doubt that seems to help collaboration unfold. I might suggest that perceived hypocrisy is the very best fertilizer for those cynical weeds in the collaborative lawn of an intra- on inter-corporate culture.
Claiming hypocrisy appears to be a safe place from which to launch a critical attack. Much of the criticisms of the recent Copenhagen climate summit point to a disconnect between curbing greenhouse emissions and jetting off to global conferences, then taking limousines to the hotel.
Al Gore received the same treatment for living in a mansion.
David Suzuki got it for using a tour bus to move his small entourage around Canada.
On a smaller scale, in the set-up to some client work I did on effective meeting behaviours, the senior manager showed up a few minutes late and then began chastising the lack of respect for people’s time that hampered effectiveness.
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.
Late in the semester takes on a degree of urgency for those involved in education on either side of the chalk. Similar to the wind down of a sports season, things count more and time runs short. Not surprisingly, the final project for my negotiations class entails analyzing a real situation to assess strategy and implementation of the parties involved. There is a timeliness and relevance that comes with looking at situations that are currently unfolding, and my classes have been blessed over the last bit:
- 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.
Earlier this month, I attended a talk at Schulich Business School where Operations Management faculty and PhD students played host to Dr. Kevin Hendricks from Wilfred Laurier University. As is often the case, we began with introductions; the audience was small enough for us to go quickly around the room of students, who were largely looking for research tips. Describing my connection (negotiations instructor) and my interest (helping positive change take hold), I got the sense that people in the room asked themselves “What is he doing here?” I was very clearly “outside” this particular group. It’s not the first—and certainly not the last—time that will happen.
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)
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)
- November 2011
- October 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- 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
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
