Micro Organizational Behaviour

Stories about work/life balance and mobile communication (usually Blackberrys) are easy fodder for articles and columns on business skills, careers, etc. A recent such article (Blacking out the Blackberry from canada.com) provides one “after work solution” and one “during work solution” in its discussion of the “PDA pandemic.” Both suggestions are problematic, in my view.

Apparently the Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Department has issued a “Blackberry blackout” between 7PM and 7AM to help people detach from work and focus on family members. I guess the message could be: be productive while you are here, so you don’t need to take work home. Great idea, right?

I would say “No.” What about the people who jet out the door at 5 (to get home for dinner with their family, make a yoga class, etc.) but then log on from home later (after the kids are in bed, or after “So You Think You Can Dance,” etc.) to tidy things up that can be handled by e-mail? Smart employers will find employees who can balance themselves and provide them with the tools and flexibility to do so.

The “during work” rule used soccer (aka football) precedent of two strikes your out: employees get a yellow card warning for checking their Blackberry during a meeting; the second offense garners a red card, which brings a penalty of paying your own PDA “phone bill” for the month (likely in the neighbourhood of $500). What a great deterrent, right?  Not if you think back to your Psych 101 discussion of rewards and punishment (Skinner anyone?).

In this world with information and request overload, why not be explicit about “competing” for people’s attention? If I have called a meeting (or am delivering a presentation) it should be my job to get your attendance and keep your attention. Colleagues should have the right to decline on both fronts, but more often give the former and withhold the latter. Let’s shift meetings from “necessary until proven useless” and put the onus on people to explain why others should be there. Do we really need the update? If so, why? Do we really need to get together every week to “go over” things? If so, why?

NOTE: The trick is in asking those questions (especially of superiors) without getting backs up.

If I, as the meeting instigator, have failed to get your attention, go ahead and catch up your e-mails. It’s probably the best use of your time. Maybe then you can get your work done before they turn the servers off at 7PM!

This trilogy started with a discussion of three books, the last of which is Getting to Maybe, co-authored by Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman and Michael Quinn Patton. The subtitle for the book is “How the World is Changed,” which carries interesting ambiguity: does this refer to “how changes happen in the world” or to recent trends that have changed the world? It doesn’t really matter.

In my understanding, “Getting to Maybe” entails prolonging the discussion. The emergence of a “yes” or a “no” indicates are hard stop or start in direction. Some examples of conversation endpoints are:

• “No, we are not going to pursue this partnership,”
• “Yes, we need to develop a new offering,” and
• “Yes we need growth, but, no, your ideas for growth are beyond our capabilities.”

Depending on who is involved and how those individuals operate, the time involved to reach these end-points could be minutes or months. A “maybe” is not an end, it is a continuation, extension, or hiatus. There is an understanding–on both sides–that the dialogue will continue or resume.

Recently ending a lengthy run for the development of 3Ms “Post-it” as the most overused business cliche is the Google 20 per cent rule, whereby employees must devote one day a week to unrelated projects. This could easily be termed “maybe time,” which would allow those bringing forward the above ideas to:

• Continue exploring future possibilities for “this partnership” to take shape;
• Tinker with the current offerings to recreate relevance with an existing market segment; and
• Examine the fluidity of our capabilities to explore novel growth strategies.

The power of “maybe” is in accepting that no one knows for sure. Decisiveness is necessary, but can at times be limiting. There are times when keeping too many options open becomes counter productive. Given the speed at which things change, one might expect an increased need for decision. I would argue that with the state of constant flux, some things may benefit from being able to simmer for a little while.  Maybe time let’s these things ripen… or rot.

I have run into friends and colleagues whose strongest motivation was to combat a perception that he or she “couldn’t” do something. Maybe time legitimizes a pursuit that would either be done “underground” or would be a nagging “shoulda” when things inevitably turn south. Passionate and motivated employees will likely make their own maybe time, but will appreciate having it included among official activities.

To “get to maybe” also demands those in authority (formal or informal) to recognize and pull back from “gut feeling” decisions, when maybe is a viable option. Backing up from a knee-jerk decision takes self awareness or deft positioning of the “maybe” or both in order to further the dialogue.

No matter who is working together, the right ideas can emerge if information flows well. At different stages “Yes,” “No” and “Maybe” from all sides of the interaction can support that information flow. Go ahead, call me naive.

August Busch IV said “While the process was at times difficult for all parties, in the end, the right outcome happened for everyone” as comment on the recent acquisition of his family’s company by InBev. I would love to have a glimpse into some of those “difficult” discussions and if there were any personal bests set in depths of facial redness or heights of blood pressure readings.

There will certainly be opposition from other areas, as well. From a business perspective, the deal appears to be solid, as indicated in a description of the Wall Street Journal account of the deal, but will no doubt face opposition when the potential efficiencies start to be realized and, as Tom Pirko of Bevmark consulting says here the company is forced to behave like other global companies in pushing workers and suppliers to market levels. Busch’s “everyone” likely does not include suppliers of hops and electricity that will bear the brunt of increased “buyer power” from this new entity.

Can we assume that this is an objectively good deal?

If so, all parties, including workforce and suppliers, should be content: benefits are reasonable, and any heartache was eventual. The dollar figure ($70/share or $52 billion) gets a lot of attention, but as always there is much more to the deal than the price. I am intrigued by the decision to rename InBev to include the legacy of the Busch family. “Anheuser-Busch” is much more recognizable, I have to assume, to Bud drinkers than “InBev” is to those imbibing Stella-Artois, let alone any Labatt product.

Perhaps we will never know what it was that tipped the scale on this negotiation, but if August Busch IV was able to move the company into the future more easily given that the family name will live on, more power to him and to those who were at the table to close the deal.

This is obviously not all about ego and family legacy. Busch et al have two seats on the Board, and InBev will be able to benefit from this hands-on experience in further exploring the US market, as well as bringing Bud products to the rest of the world. It is fascinating, however, to see the subtle indications of what were obviously emotionally heated discussions. I am not surprised that a couple of cold ones were cracked at the end of it all. Well deserved!

My take on William Ury’s “The Power of the Positive No” (follow-on to “Getting to Yes”) is that clarity on what we don’t want helps refine what we do want. There in lies the “Positive No.”

It can take some thinking to get to what is the No and what is the Yes. David Cameron, the U.K.’s leader of the opposition, didn’t mince words this week in saying No to a society with diminished personal responsibility, and Yes to one with more personal accountability. Bold words for a politician, but any individual’s “ideal” will have a strong degree of good-old human judgment of “this beating that.”

Some of the No assertions are tough to make because they expose our values. In school I had to say “No” to a fellow student who wanted to repurpose an assignment a friend had used in the same class the previous term. The difference in orientation came down to our respective Yes and No statements.

• Me: Yes to learning by doing, and No to taking someone else’s work.
• My Classmate: Yes to efficient use of available information, and No to reinventing the wheel unnecessarily.

A thousand personal beliefs, experiences and orientations inform my and my classmate’s position. It is almost pointless to argue who is right because it comes down to conflicting emotional judgments that could stem from “fear of getting caught,” “pride in own work,” etc.

Being aware of our ideal is important; how open you are about it is another matter. Declaring these ideals really does put you “out there,” and it is tough to keep control of a conversation or exchange that touches these. That said, whether it is No to being underemployed, No to being micro-managed, or No to imbalance in life, sometimes the buck actually stops. In my working history, it has always (eventually) felt good/paid off to stick to real Nos. (All due respect to my time-starved classmate!)

I was called “naive” this past week during a conversation with a client.

The context of the comment was skeptical rather than critical because I had suggested that it was possible to have productive conflict conversations where teams neither like nor trust each other. My optimism/naivety comes in no small part from three books, whose titles and approaches complement. Below is the list, and at the risk of minimizing each work’s unique contribution, I provide one essential take-away from each:

• Getting to Yes: Use objective criteria as support; be receptive to objective support for the other position.
• The Power of the Positive No: Distill what is unacceptable (e.g. your “No”); pursue the acceptable/desirable.
• Getting to Maybe: Dialogue creates opportunities; extend the dialogue by latching onto the “Maybes”

So how does this help a conflicting senior team discussion when all niceties and “benefit of the doubt” are long gone?

You don’t have to have “the answer” (e.g. the Win/Win “Yes”) to provide support to a position. Those at the top of the org chart should be prepared to explain their rational, even if it is: “I don’t know for sure, but I think we need to do something and this approach is closest to the strategy that we are all working towards.”

MAJOR ASSUMPTION #1: One hopes that this can be correctly interpreted as, “If you don’t want to do this, you will have to change my mind.” Our org-chart topper has to be truly open to having their mind changed, provided the counter proposal is grounded in objective information… no matter who brings it forth.

MAJOR ASSUMPTION #2: One also hopes the dissenting second-in-command has intrinsic motivation for the venture to succeed. This motivation doesn’t have to be financial, but certainly could be based on self-serving profit sharing. It could also be interest in job security, emotional investment in the project/team/venture, pride in overcoming a challenge, etc.

Remove either of those assumptions and hope for a quality result is, indeed, naive.

If you are the team CEO, project head, team lead, etc., are you really open to dissenting opinion from those that report to you? If you are not ready to listen, you better be “enlightened.”

If you are on the team and you don’t like the direction: (1) are you motivated to express your dissent (as opposed to holding out for a personally satisfying “I told you so” opportunity); and (2) are you prepared to back up the position to move from “I told you so” to “I tried to show you so” with objective support?

Look up or forward to thoughts on “No” and “Maybe.”

There is a rigour to Lean thinking that can appear supremely cold and calculating. However, its unwavering focus on “what the customer sees as value” should curry favour with those who are receiving (e.g., paying for) the end product, which ideally equips companies to look after their people and their environment. Welcome to the triple bottom line.

See… it’s not all about the relentless pursuit of cost savings.

There are some very real inefficiencies (waste, or “muda”) that can be rid from any system with this approach. This may be part of the reason we are seeing such approaches embraced in non-traditional areas, including the service industry and, yes, health care.

The Flo Collaborative

The Flo Collaborative kicked off in September 2007 in order to examine and improve the flow of care in Ontario health care. Two Ontario hospitals acted as pilot sites for projects under the Flo Collaborative, working with the regional Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) and Community Care Access Centres (CCAC). The overall “flow” of care crosses several different organizations; for example, a client/patient moves from admission into a hospital medical unit, receives treatment and care within the hospital, and then transitions from the hospital to receive an appropriate level of care. The approach for improvement includes “The Model for Improvement,” Lean methodology, Six Sigma Tools, and PDSA cycles.

Not surprisingly, many initiatives that offer the possibility for “quick wins” target frontline staff who are actively engaged in their current standard processes. Andrew Ward, Senior Manager at the Erie St Clair CCAC, worked on the pilot project in Windsor between his CCAC and the Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital. He explains, “Often times, staff are well aware of shortcomings within the process but remain silent in expressing their ideas for improvement.” He adds that now, because of the Flo Collaborative, staff have greater opportunities to discuss and try new process changes. Often resistance to change is common in such improvement projects; however, Andrew still found an appetite for the improvements: “Many times we overlook that the frontline has lived with their current system inefficiencies and that they want the change, as well.” As with other change efforts, people have to feel comfortable contributing their individual insight to realize the overall process improvements.

Assessing and Influencing Authority
Asked about lessons learned in getting the all-important “buy-in” from “naysayers,” Andrew sees great potential in gaining involvement from the beginning. He says that it is well worth the initial investment in time to determine who has informal authority, in addition to those with formal authority. “No process change is made in a vacuum,” he explains. “Many things must be considered prior to making an adjustment in staff workflow.” Project leads and others within the team need to feel involved in order to want to share information.

There are some natural barriers that people can hit if they take a “business” approach to anything related to health care. Nonetheless, there are some significant improvements to be gained from a systematic approach, such as that with the Flo Collaborative. Like in any change initiative, it is ever so important to unlock the knowledge of the frontline by enabling good two-way communication. Andrew concludes, “By taking the time and identifying team members of formal and informal authority from the beginning, process changes will yield higher and more sustainable outcomes.” Don’t be mistaken: just because it’s soft, doesn’t make it easy.

This originally appeared in the June 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).

I had the very good fortune of hearing Deepak Chopra speak at the conference of the Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres (OACCAC) this week. He was speaking to a room of various individuals involved in the delivery of health care at a community level, but his messages were wide sweeping.

According to Dr. Chopra, the trend toward well-being is the single biggest trend in the world today. He extrapolated to include economic well-being and environmental well-being, in addition to personal well-being. In short, people want the best end result to complex situations that include many interdependencies. In order to overcome the challenges of today, thus achieving well-being, we need to speak in non-violent metaphors. This demands a paradigm shift.

He navigated an impressive range of topics and, perhaps playing to his audience, spent a significant amount of time discussing biological and neural happenings. I say “perhaps playing to his audience” because he spent time as well on quantum physics.

The key message was indisputably focussed on the best way to bring about the best change. Given the state of the health care system–and that Ontario’s Minister of Health and Long-Term Care recently changed–the forum was a good one. The talk was teeming with fascinating insight and inspiring stories, but one of the most tangible pieces of advice that he shared was around leadership. Although Deepak Chopra leads a session on the Soul of Leadership at the Kellogg School of Business, the advice was accessible and applicable to all who were there… a “Micro Leadership” message, if you will.

Effective leaders do two things, according to Dr. Chopra: (1) self reflect to self understand; and (2) remain open to opportunity. (Although he says many leaders mention luck, he defines “luck” as opportunity meeting preparedness.)

Clearly if everyone adopted this line of thinking, things would be easier. Although many hung on his every word (and bought the book after), not all were or will be able to embody or sustain this approach. Those who do, have a responsibility to (1) focus on the greater good and (2) look for ways to merge opposing interests with those of the former. Tough work, to say the least. Here are but two applications from follow on sessions that I attended:

1. Dr. Joshua Tepper from Ontario Health Force spoke about opportunities and necessity to have medical schools and colleges breed practitioners with cross-discipline awareness. What better way to find new opportunities than to have more people working together. The functional disciplines will have to be very comfortable with one another and secure in themselves to be open to this. You can imagine all the reasoning for not collaborating: what is they start doing our work? who decides if we don’t agree?

2. Jeff Dolweerd discussed a LEAN case study underway the Central CCAC. The rigorous focus on value from the client’s perspective identifies clear ways to create value more effectively. In a situation where supply is staff and demand is uncertain, the answer lies in getting people to work more flexibly, both with hours and job roles. Sounds simple, until you run into a union mindset (like this one), which may not be able to open up to possibility. (Not to suggest that privatization is the answer; it is definitely a possibility!)

I thoroughly enjoyed Deepak Chopra’s talk and it set a perfect tone for the rest of the day, in my opinion. Not everyone will “get” or will be able to follow his prescription to lead. For those that do, given that we are very emotional beings, it may be tough to stay that course. According to Chopra “there is a creative solution to every problem.” I have cast doubt on that thought on this blog, but I have pause to reconsider now. It is there; we are all tasked to find it.

In working with a client recently, a hospital nurse relayed a situation to illustrate some of the conflicts that can arise between staff. The loose details are as follows: a patient is recovering in hospital and begins to feel nauseous in the middle of the night. The nurse records a prescription for Gravol on the chart. The following dialogue ensues during the doctors rounds:

Doctor: Who prescribed Gravol for this patient?

Nurse: I did; he was nauseous.

Doctor: Listen, I prescribe meds for patients, OK?

Nurse: (either out loud or internally) It’s Gravol! The patient was nauseous, and you weren’t around. Would you rather I let the patient vomit on themselves while I wait for you to come around and prescribe Gravol?

Behind this conflict, there may be several issues (interpersonal history, sleep deprivation, emotional strain of the job, frustration at poor handwriting, etc.). One of the issues may well be that this particular doctor does not respect the nurses full ability to provide insightful medical care. If the nurse suspects or understands this to be the doctor’s orientation, he/she has two options:

1. Change the doctor’s orientation toward him/herself and toward nurses in general;
2. Work around the orientation to get the right treatment for the patient.

The nurse pursuing Option 1 may face this interaction:


Doctor: Who prescribed Gravol for this patient?

Nurse: I did; he was nauseous.

Doctor: Listen, I prescribe meds for patients, OK?

Nurse: Gravol does not need a prescription. Since the patient is not allergic to Gravol, it was the best and safest answer. I am in a position to make that call.

Doctor: No you are not. Doctors make decisions.

Nurse: With all due respect, my training gives me the expertise to make this decision. This can allow you to focus on more serious issues. You would be my first contact if I had any uncertainties. With this patient, I believe this was the right approach.

Doctor: Doctors make decisions.

Nurse: …


The nurse pursuing Option 2 may find this:


Doctor: Who prescribed Gravol for this patient?

Nurse: The patient was nauseous; I suppose I should have written “nausea” on the chart instead of “Gravol,” but because the patient has had Gravol before, I didn’t see a problem.

Doctor: Just give me the information; I will make the decision, OK?

Nurse: Sure.

From the outside, it is objectively wrong and a misallocation of resources for nurses (or any other participant in a system) to not be allowed to make full use of their training and expertise. Although in selecting Option 2, you are enabling that misallocation, you are saving your time and energy with a work around solution. It is a trade off.


In a very real sense, objectivity allows you to pick your battles. You have the option, in some cases, of steering away from the “let me change your mind” conversation and still get the “right” outcome. It is a tough turn to take, but often an easier and faster resolution.

If you have read my blog before, please pardon me while I explain this question in view of not getting the “benefit of the doubt” from others reading this. I have worked in and with a wide range of health care organizations. As a citizen of Ontario with children, a spouse, siblings and parents in the province, I have a vested interest in the current and future system reforms working. I see a greater possibility for success if the right kind of collaboration takes place so that the right people are able to make the best (not easiest) decisions.

With that context, understand my sincerity in asking “What is it with doctors?”

In my writing and my client work, in- and out-group dynamics come up a lot. Doctors are perceived as a very specific constituency in the system… with good reason. The extent to which this perception stands is fascinating:

At lunch recently with a fellow consultant in the health care system said to me: “We seek to inform the doctors, but all we hope is that they don’t actively resist the work we are doing.” Working with a hospital group recently, the historic specter of the doctor vs. nurse divide reared its head. An academic mentor of mine with whom I consulted before launching my practice suggested: “It won’t work if you don’t get the docs on board, and I don’t think you will.”

There are a number of reasons why doctors could view themselves as very removed from the system: degree of training, stature that crosses most/all cultures, different employment structure with the hospital/community system, etc. But do they see themselves as that different? Some may, some may not.

If I were a doctor, I think that I would be proud of my accomplishments, and I might develop an ego. I also might think that it is my job to make decisions and may actually not appreciate what I perceive as challenges from other staff (RNs, RPNs, etc.) who (although they are only trying to help) are trying to make those decisions for me. What if they are wrong? If I were time starved, as many doctors are, I may not be able to take the time to “soften” my message or think about the “how” of my communication skills.

If doctors are removed from the workings of the system, they can take responsibility to “engage” more. If they don’t those working around them can accept the out-group reality and behave accordingly. The right information to save and prolong lives can still get through. Like many things, it is easiest if both sides work together. Some doctors will; some won’t or can’t. It is the latter group that could tip the scale one way or the other. As some of the tougher reforms come through, it will be interesting to see if the perception (and reality) of doctors change.

I was surprised to see that the lead story on CBC’s The National last night was about the fight for the right to use the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. I started to get suspicious when the story concluded with by suggesting that proposed the CBC could run a contest to pick another theme song.

As a student of the negotiation process, I thought I smelled a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). The theory suggests that if you have a good BATNA, let the other side know it! And if you have a medium such as the CBC network, let others know it, too.

At first blush this BATNA seems pretty good, but when you think of the branding equity built up 40 years in “da da da da dah,” you quickly realize that the best is not all that good. When I was in grade 5, the city of Ottawa ran a contest for a city song. The winner was a really good song called, if memory serves, “Ottawa, the place to be.” I can’t recall hearing it since, and a quarter century out, I could find no reference to this song today, which is no surprise.

The contest, should it happen, would no doubt generate a great new song, jingle, theme, etc. Reality TV has proven there is some real talent in the masses. As good as it could be, it would not replace branding imprint of the predecessor. As the market for spectator sports gains competition from the likes of soccer, especially, I think the CBC should hang onto all the HNIC equity it can.

Without knowing both sides it is impossible to comment on the bulk of the negotiation, but from the public declaration of a viable alternative, I would gather the CBC has made a calculated bet to pressure a deal. I hope they get it, and I hope they realize what’s at stake.