I run into this with my working descriptions for negotiation strategies.
A couple of semantic challenges are:

- Even if you are not “a competitive person,” you can still pick a strategy of “competing” in a certain situation;

- It can make strategic business sense to “accommodate” the needs of others and you don’t have to be weak-kneed to do it;

- Collaborating with a party does not mean agreeing with them all the time, and you don’t have to be “nice” to do it.

I will suggest that collaboration is a default for supply chain initiatives, given that the relationships (internal and external) have to be maintained over a period of time and that, in today’s competitive (semantics again!) environment, there is no room for compromising the returns on time and dollars spent.

So do you have to collaborate all the time on everything? Not at all.

Before giving you the model, let me give you this:
Glossary of Terms

Information: Results, data, examples and findings that may help in determining a superior course of action.

Expertise: Orientation, experience and training that enable one to see relevant implications of a decision prior to its implementation.

Authority: Structural or informal power to direct the actions of others, coupled with accountability for the consequences of a decision.

If you have all three, there is no need to collaborate. Why would you? You have all the information you need, you know what is important for the decision, and your sphere of responsibility allows you to “make the call.”

This doesn’t mean that you have to be obvious about “going it alone,” but engaging others would be strictly for relationship-building. You will decide if this is worth the effort.

Tune in next month for an elaboration on what to do when you have “two out of three” (which “ain’t bad,” according to Meatloaf).

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE AUGUST NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL.

“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)

Authority – Who’s in charge?

Things are straightforward when the person who should make the decision has the visibility to come up with the best answer. Small operations, where the founder/owner knows every detail of every process, supplier, procedure, etc., will fall into this category.  It is not long, however, before organizations reach a size where authority and expertise sit with different individuals. In the SMB space, as well as with larger corporations, necessary functional divisions make it impossible for those at the top of the organizational chart to see everything beneath them. Culturally and structurally these organizations have to create an environment where information flows up and down.  Also, different layers of management can create a dynamic by which those at different managerial rungs will be tempted to cover their respective backsides, on the off chance that results are not as favourable as expected.

Two things to watch out for in the authority structure are:

1.Are those in charge accessing all the information that they need to make decisions?

2.Are those in authority taking responsibility for the decisions they make (or should be making)?

“No” to either of these will hurt implementation in every case.

Expertise – Who knows best?

There is a human tendency to over-recognize ones own expertise (and I say this as an expert in interpersonal communications in change environments…). In process improvement projects, however, those “doing the work” can add significant value by sharing their “on the ground” expertise.  Familiarity with the day-to-day operations provides excellent visibility to identify areas for cost and/or time savings.  These process experts may not, however, have visibility for the overall operations or the wider improvement initiatives that are underway.

Good information comes from tapping into the expertise at all levels of the organization. This may sound easy but can get hung up on a couple of areas:

1.Managers who have “come through the ranks” may have to realise that times might have changed;

2.In engaging the “rank and file” managers must foster trust and manage expectations (e.g. just because I am asking you what you think, doesn’t necessarily mean we are going to do it.)

3.Once the decisions are made, managers have the responsibility to “close the loop” with those whose expertise has been tapped.

So what?

Authority and expertise play different and important roles in enabling the most effective changes to take place. The interplay has the potential to slow or stop some of the best initiatives from smooth implementation. I would suggest that more responsibility sits with those in formal authority to reduce the interpersonal noise that habitually arises. This type of “micro leadership” can pay macro dividends as the right information moves to the top of the pile.
This originally appeared in the September 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).

It is an exchange that is short and sharp, but you can tell that very quickly the focus has shifted to absolutely the right area.

The reason this stands out for me is that it is an example where the person who actually has “the answer” is able to convey it to others, and the others are actually listening. This is a phenomenon that I would suggest is rarer than it should be. Understandably, it is tough to replicate because it demands that:

1 – there is an absolute answer;

2 – someone actually knows it;

3 – others listen; and

4 – others believe the person who is telling them the answer.

I hope to focus this blog on examples when the (objectively) correct information makes it through. Yes, there will be times that it doesn’t, and we can certainly discuss those, too. I hope to find a suitable tag/title for this moment; something like “moment of truth,” maybe M.O.T. The quest for the John Aaron moment is on!