Leading people, managing relationships

Recently I came across a list of behaviours which the writer claimed would help me to be effective and productive. At first glance it was quite a surprising collection of characteristics. In the first instance, the writer assumed that the readers would have a belief in what they were doing, that they were aligned with the way in which their organisation was going. His next recommendation was that people should behave with integrity; the ends do not justify the means and, as has been demonstrated in many spheres of life recently, a wrong act can unravel a right outcome. But integrity does not justify innocence or naivete and so people should strive for understanding; in some ways this can seem to be quite a burdensome responsibility and it does not seem to allow for the ‘I was only taking orders’ line of excuse. The understanding should be built with honesty and the integrity should be informed by the understanding. What understanding provides is knowledge and with knowledge comes power which the next behaviour, self control is presumably meant to temper.

I think here the distinction is between using our knowledge to outperform our fellows, which is acceptable and using it to humiliate them, which is not. The writer then seems to underline his point by requiring patience. Are they not the same thing? Perhaps not; perhaps self control acts as a filter on our actions and patience acts to attenuate our thoughts and our emotions; so it is not only how we act that is important but how we think and feel. What patience does is anchor the self control and put it into the context of relationships and what is emerging is a picture of the model which the writer has of how we should behave in a community. We tend to think of patience and self control as being very passive behaviours but in this context they are actually very active behaviours because what the writer is advocating is the building of relationships. We are building the capacity to act when the time is right and to act decisively and with impact. What is clear by now is that the writer is expecting his audience to accept the responsibility he is offering and to act pretty autonomously.

The next behaviour he asks for is true commitment; whoops, where is the ‘get out’ clause? ‘Too late’ is his answer; if we are looking for authority and we want to exercise it responsibly, there is a cost and our full commitment is it. If we cannot give it, we should go back to the beginning and question the vision. Our commitment should be emotional, psychological and intellectual; it is an outworking of the integrity that we agreed to earlier. This commitment is to the cause but that is not enough, we need to be committed to our fellows whoever they may be and to behave well towards them. To those with whom we agree to be co-workers we owe a deeper level of commitment; interestingly, this was touched on today by Steve Farber, a leadership coach, in a conversation starter for Harvard Business Publishing where he was strongly advocating a commitment to mentoring. Read it if you dare to see the word ‘love’ in the context of a working relationship.

So where does this get us? A long way from the ‘work harder and work faster’ view of productivity; a long way even from the ‘work smarter’ view. It gets us to a point where relationships are seen as having an important bearing on our effectiveness and productivity. If that is the case, perhaps HR responsibilities should be transferred back to line.

Productivity and effectiveness

Productivity is elusive. Of course there are those who will argue that it can be measured, which is an undeniable fact in certain well defined circumstances. But if we assume that productivity is a measure of value created for a given amount of effort expended, the extent of the problem becomes apparent. One question is now two questions: how do you measure value and how do you measure effort? The situation can be simplified by equating value with money and effort with time, which simplification has served adequately in the industrial age, a period characterised by extensive mechanisation.

How does it fare in the post industrial era? In an era where value is created by logistics and networks such a simple measure begins to feel seriously inadequate. It seems there is a question of timing to be included in the measures of both value and effort and perhaps a more subjective assessment of quality should also be considered as more and more value is delivered in the form of a service. Already it is clear that any approach based on measuring overall performance is going to become complex and unwieldy so there may be benefit in considering an alternative measure, based on education and behaviours. Identify those behaviours in your colleagues that are likely to deliver good value to your customers and to you; educate your colleagues in those behaviours and then reward them for exhibiting the desired behaviours. You are likely to be rewarding behaviours such as honesty, understanding and commitment which does not seem a bad thing in itself and will do no harm to customer relations and loyalty.

If productivity spotlights the behaviours of individual colleagues, consideration of effectiveness returns attention to the bottom line.  The impact here will depend upon how well you have identified those behaviours that deliver value to your customers. The speed with which the right behaviours feed through to the bottom line will depend, among other considerations, upon the natural cycle of your business which might be measured in weeks or months or years. The longer the natural cycle of your business, the more forward looking you will need to be or the more adept at finding ways to accelerate the impact on your business.

As a caveat, it is important to add that there are occasions when it is expedient also to educate your customers with regard to your value proposition and I say this as a card carrying founder member of the Ryanair Frequent Flyers (though I should add that my membership expired in December 1989 and I am not sure how far the Frequent Flyers survived into the next decade).

The ‘how’ of business is important too

Businesses, even small businesses, sometimes work against themselves. This becomes a problem when the situation is not recognised or when it is recognised and ignored or when it is recognised and glossed over. The telltale signs can include a chronic inability of the business to perform to its true potential or a growing frustration amongst key colleagues which becomes a real issue if they should eventually decide to leave. However in the short term what may appear to be a marginal performance shortfall is unlikely to be the most pressing issue for a business. If a business is growing there are likely to be other priorities and other options; resource shortfalls for instance can be met by investment and recruitment. At the other extreme when things are tight and everyone is stretched, ‘the best may be the enemy of the good’ and in this case ‘good’ may be survival. In either instance, a very good case would need to be made for persuading business leaders to spend much time on what might appear to be fine tuning as all businesses are ultimately ‘needs’ driven.

Though ‘needs’ define the why of business they do not represent the only business driver and recognising other drivers can provide some interesting insights. For instance, ‘needs’ do not define the ‘how’ or the ‘who’. The ‘how’ is very much in the hands of the business leader because he (or she) it is who determines the business culture and who also ultimately determines the organisation and the technology that the business will adopt in order to operate. In the natural flow of events the culture, the organisation and the technology often evolve as the business itself develops. Not only do they evolve together but they also adapt to each other. So what happens when in the fullness of time a business is asked to embrace a significant change in culture or organisation or technology? Or what happens when the technology or the organisation or, perhaps more likely, the culture comes to be regarded as immutable and its evolutionary progress is stalled or even reversed. Some sort of imbalance is introduced to the business which leads to stresses and strains which distort the behaviour of the business and constrain its performance.

Here is a problem, however. Business leaders by and large are not comfortable with relying on any process that can be described as evolutionary. For one reason it sounds like long term deal and for another the process sounds like it is out of their control. Thankfully it is possible to find at least anecdotal evidence that might provide some encouragement for them. In the first instance, a number of the changes that have affected our culture, organisation and technology at a societal level in the past 30 years have followed an evolutionary pattern where the adoption rate is slow initially but then accelerates dramatically, following a characteristic ‘S’ curve as saturation is approached in due course. The growth in sales of mobile phones is an example of this pattern. An item that was seen primarily as a piece of business equipment and supplementary to fixed line telephony has been instrumental in changing the social opportunities and behaviour of a generation in the developed world and has been the means of bypassing the need for costly investment in fixed line infrastructure in the developing world.

So get the change right and it can be the leaders who end up being the limiting factor. One important feature of such changes that must be borne in mind is that they are often ‘pulled’ by the adopters (the ‘out of the leader’s control’ factor) but there is also possible encouragement for business leaders here, too. Multidisciplinary research by various groups under the broad heading of complexity science suggests that it is possible to build models of complex behaviour involving groups of agents that interact according to relatively simple rules. This will not provide a tool for leaders to use to control the evolutionary process but it can provide them with a better understanding of the process with which they can better position themselves to influence it. The words say it all; an evolutionary process calls for an influencing style of leadership rather than a controlling style. It is not right for every situation but if you want to align the organisation, culture and technology of your business, then ‘influencing leadership’ is the way to go. And before you go, remember an effective communication flow of knowledge and information throughout the business process is the very lifeblood of an influencing style of leadership.

There are business tools that can help; one I have used with some success in the past is AIM (Accelerated Implementation Methodology) which is available from Implementation Management Associates.

The 3Rs of change

Even change changes. Why even Barack Obama’s official transition site has transitioned from change.gov to www.whitehouse.gov as a consequence of his winning the election. Groups from Luddites to NIMBYs have shown us how to resist change but it seems far more difficult to influence change in a positive direction; it is usually a voyage into the unknown. Here follow some ideas of patterns of behaviour for successfully negotiating change, called for the sake of argument the 3Rs of change. From the outset I will say I don’t think that any of these is an exact science, at least not in the dynamic world of rapid change.

There is no surprise with the first R which is for Reading. While this may involve words on paper or screen, it is certainly about reading the situation. What is the start point, can you visualise the desired end point, what are the obstacles, what will help or hinder you, who else is going to be in the change with you, how well equipped are you and how ready are you as an individual? Imagine yourself in a canoe and about to navigate difficult and unknown rapids; if you are wise you will get out of your boat and study the rapid before starting down it; identify the way the water is flowing, where the dangers and possible escape routes are and if in a group arrange to provide mutual support for each other en route. Reading change is an acquired skill, requiring knowledge and experience; I would argue that this skill is not given to everyone.

The second R is for Riding. Once you are committed, you are …. well, committed. You might as well enjoy the ride, if you can. There will be a flow and to continue with the whitewater analogy at any instant you will be busy dealing with the consequences of how you negotiated the features upstream, navigating the boat through the feature you are in and positioning yourself as well as possible to enter the downstream stretch. You are in what Boyd, an American fighter pilot ace called the OODA loop, that is Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. These are skills that you need to develop to Ride change successfully.

The third and final R is for Reckoning. Hopefully in your reading of the rapid you will have noticed an eddy or two where you can escape from the main flow in order to gather your breath and reassess the situation. Are you still on course to complete the rapid, is the group together, does anyone need help, have you learned anything that changes the route for the remainder of the rapid or what you will do when you get through it? You have gone through this change for a purpose; did you achieve it? One technique you can use for the Reckoning is the After Action Review; there is nothing magic in it at all but having a technique helps you to be rigorous.

So there you are. It looks simple but it isn’t. There is nothing new; it has all been said many times before in many different ways. But if this encourages anyone, it has been worth writing. Just because you have failed once does not mean you are not capable; you are only not capable if you are not capable of learning.

Notes:

1. If you have time and particularly if you have an interest in the Theory of Constraints, have a look at the OODA link; it takes you to a treasure trove of interesting material.
2. This link takes you to the USAID guide for planning, preparing and conducting After Action Reviews; follow the prinicple and adapt (simplify) the practice to meet your own needs.

Old insight, fresh perspective?

When Ralph Stacey looks at the complexity matrix (seen here being used by the medical profession) he drew up some years ago he could be forgiven for feeling a glow of satisfaction. For him it is perhaps ‘old hat’ but for many of the rest of us his matrix provides a helpful fresh perspective on the confusing economic, financial and political climate in which we find ourselves. His matrix suggests that in situations where we are far from agreement and far from certainty having recourse to rational decision making (and this I would qualify to mean linear rational thinking), political decision making or judgement based decision making will not necessarily be very effective. Brenda Zimmerman of York University, Toronto on whose analysis the above reference is based acknowledges that traditional management teaching has concentrated on decision making where (linear) reasoning, politics and judgement can be effective, which focus has left a gap in management teaching. This raises a couple of questions: how useful could the Stacey matrix be in the prevailing circumstances – which can well be described as far from certain and far from agreement? How aware are the current business leaders of this material, given that many of them will have completed their formal education before it was published?

In Stacey’s matrix this region (far from certainty and far from agreement) is divided into two zones, the zone of complexity and the zone of chaos. With reference to the zone of chaos, Zimmerman says, with no little understatement, this is a region ‘… that organizations should avoid as much as possible.’ So, looking on the bright side, let’s assume that we are in the zone of complexity. If traditional management tools are not necessarily effective in this region, what tools are there that we can use?

Some strategic thinkers are looking to see what complexity science can offer in the military sphere and this book by James Moffat serves well as a starting point: Complexity Science and Network Centric Warfare. In amongst the non linear maths there is a wealth of analytical thinking that lays down a foundation for the application of complexity science on which to build models of operations in what is described as the information age.

I don’t want to say more about complexity science here apart from commenting that its use in this context is to help break the mould of traditional command and control structures and to create the philosophical and intellectual framework for de-centralised command and control. Hold the idea of using complexity science in this way while we explore another line of thought.

A recent copy of the Economist includes a special report on the middle class, particularly in emerging markets (Burgeoning Burgeoisie, Economist, 14th February 2009 – to see the link may require a subscription). There is an interesting discussion on who or what are the middle classes but two particular correlations stand out; one between the middle class and economic growth and the other between the middle class and democracy. As the report recognises the former case is easier to make and even it is unlikely to continue without interruption through a recession. Daaron Acemoglu of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology is quoted as attributing the importance of the middle class to growth in the emerging markets to the fact that “… they are more committed than the elite to a mixed, competitive economy.” This is related in the Economist report to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; I suspect that account also needs to be taken of an economy of exclusivity alongside the economy of wealth.  The former is a zero sum economy while the latter is not; as an emerging middle class starts out with little to lose in either economy it does not have to balance a loss of exclusivity against any gains in wealth. This brings us back to complexity science because it provides one of the perspectives for understanding the dynamics of non zero sum economics as is very ably expounded by Eric Beinhocker in his book, The Origin of Wealth.

What puzzles me in the current climate is that with all the scholarship that has gone into complexity science over the past 20 years I am not hearing more reference to its use in responding to the current uncertainties. Perhaps I am listening at the wrong windows; I hope so because I find much to attract me in the philosophical underpinnings of complexity science and much that I would like to investigate as a means of addresssing the difficulties that present themselves to me.

James Moffat acknowledges the role of the Santa Fe Institute in the early development of this field of multidisciplinary research and the institute provides a treasure trove of relevant expertise and reference material. Ralph Stacey is professor at University of Hertfordshire and was recently interviewed here.

Interoperability can be fun

I am so frustrated – I recently read an article in the FT by Michael Schrage entitled “Interoperability: the great enabler” (5th Feb). In his article, Schrage introduces the concept of IQ or the Interoperability Quotient but he does not describe how to measure it.  Here I am, in France struggling with interoperability every time I venture out of the house and I could conclude from his article that, with a low IQ, I might be  destined to underachieve. Perhaps willingness makes up a large part of the IQ measure; certainly buying food in a street market was successful and ultimately satisfying as was, at a much deeper level a guided tour of a country house by one of the family who could tell a story about every one of many ‘objets d’interet’ in the house and garden. Even if I could only understand one word in five, the personal intensity of the message conveyed all the meaning necessary.

So here is my real frustration with the article.  While it recognises the technological driving force behind interoperability and an economic context in which it can develop, it does not acknowledge the importance of culture and organisation in determining potential for the wider implemention of interoperability In my opinion, the  factors that will determine success in interoperability have more to do with people, organisations and culture than a quotient relating to components and systems. Alberts talks about this in his book “Power to the edge” where he discusses interoperability in the physical, information, cognitive and social domains. It is not that all these domains are relevant to every instance of operability as this is obviously not the case but Alberts also talks about the need for ‘jointness’ which I take to mean the responsibility of the people involved at each end of any ‘interoperation’ to take responsibility for effective interoperability. People with a shared intent and awareness working ‘jointly’ can provide resilience and adaptability in the deployment of interoperability and these underpin the evolutionary capacity that is a prerequisite for survival.

Technology landscapes

Are there times when the ground rules of our businesses seem to be changing around us yet we do not seem able to anticipate the nature of the change? Anything that can help us to understand the situation is useful and here is one model for you to consider.

Most of us are born with a set of capabilities and we spend much of our lives using those capabilities to interact with our fellows, sometimes collaboratively and sometimes competitively. Almost always we are seeking to use our capabilities to the best effect and mankind has a long tradition of discovering and developing tools to give us some sort of edge. Useful tools are widely and rapidly copied so we develop the capacity to produce the tools in greater numbers.Typically we will set up some sort of system for production, supply and distribution; historically these have often been fairly informal but as the pressure of demand has increased they have become more and more formal. Experience has shown that once capacity has been established and the consumer community becomes used to products or services they begin to demand the ability to customise them – the ability to meet this demand has led to the development of customisation . But there are instances where the consumer wants to exercise greater control of his or her own destiny and this has been shown to be possible where the necessary networks can be put in place to provide direct support to the consumer. There seems to be a progression; we use tools to add capability, then we apply a system to achieve capacity, then we develop logistical skills to meet the demand for choice and finally we use networks to gain control of the resource we have developed.

Basic landscape concept

Take for a simple example our ability to walk; how do we overcome the limitations of speed and range that our physical bodies impose? In the first instance, we began to exploit an animal which was physically capable of carrying us further and faster than we could walk or even run. Even so there are limitations as riding requires skill and is physically demanding. In due course a number of us opted for travel by carriage – but here economics steps in because by this time such an option was only open to the wealthy. The introduction of cabs in cities extended access and a gradual increase in demand led to the establishment of stage coaches that operated between urban centres.

Jump now to another, more recent development track. In the late 19th century the motor car came onto the scene. This promised great mobility to anyone who could afford one, subject to the availability of fuel and the reliability of the machine. It rapidly followed the evolutionary progress of the horse enabled movement, with motorised cabs and omnibuses quickly replacing their horse-drawn predecessors. What the motor car (or more properly the internal combustion engine) offered over the horse was the potential for series production and this over the course of the 20th century has reduced the cost of ownership so that car are available to almost any person in a developed economy who wants to own one.

Mobility/transport landscape

If there is a development track for the aids to movement there is also a development track for the production of such aids and for the complementary capabilities that make the widespread use of such aids possible – in the case of cars these include production lines, dealers, service stations, repair and service shops, roads, tyre depots, loans and insurance companies, etc.

What is interesting here is that in a developed industrial and urbanised economy, the universal ownership of a horse as a means to mobility never materialised – possibly because a network for supplying, feeding, maintaining (blacksmiths, vets, etc), housing and managing waste was not economically sustainable. However there is virtually universal access to car ownership in such economies and established a new basic skill level – we learn to drive almost as automatically as we learn to walk. I will add a couple of observations, for what they are worth. From a cultural perspective walking, owner ridden horses and owner driven cars all offer mobility whereas the omnibuses and cabs (and trains, planes, etc) offer transport – so they result in a very different user experience. Secondly, another interesting element of the landscapes is that established capabilities in one area may become a key enabler of the emergence of another – so mass production has become a key enabler of, for instance mass ownership of cars that gave individuals back control over their movements at a greater level; likewise the mass production of electronics has brought computing power and communications capability to individuals – and the model does not apply only to manufacture but also to service industries.

So why is this of any interest or of anything more than passing interest?

Where is your product? Where are your products? Are they mass produced? If so, are your customers about to demand choice, customisation? Are you able to respond to such a demand? Can you anticipate it and drive it to gain a competitive edge? What might it cost to do so? Is the time right? Are you providing a service that supports a product or products? If you changed the way that the service is offered, what might happen? Where are you on the capability, capacity, choice, control continuum? Is the infrastructure in place to support a move from one corner of the square to another? If you don’t know, how can you be sure what impact any changes you make to your business model will have?

Please let me know if you find the model useful or if you think it is worth improving, extending or both and would like to discuss ideas of how to do this.

Organisation, technology, culture and their impact on the implementation of innovation.

In the 1980’s leading research into the successful introduction of new technologies identified the need for mutual adaptation of technology and organisation. There needs to be explicit recognition of the major influence culture has in determining success.

Dorothy Leonard-Barton asserts  in a paper* that “The major point in this paper is that implementation is innovation.” She is a writer whose work I regard highly even if the way that she writes and the way that I read are not well aligned and I usually make heavy weather of her texts. The important thing is that in this instance perseverance is well rewarded. If I were to change her assertion, it would be to say that innovation is the implementation of invention.

This 20 year old paper is interesting in its continued relevance to the business world of today. Leonard-Barton studied 12 instances of the introduction of new technologies into the operations of large corporations in the 1980’s, with outcomes that ranged from ‘Highly successful’ through degrees of  moderate success and partial failure to ‘Total failure’. She states that ” … a technology almost never fits perfectly into the user environment” and this situation she describes as misalignment. However there is not a single misalignment but a combination of misalignments which create complexity and which must be addressed by what she calls ‘mutual adaptation’. This involves “… reinvention of the technology and the simultaneous adaptation of the organization.” There follows a discussion assessing:

1. the significance and impact of misalignments at different strata of the organisation
2. the nature of adaptation cycles, both large and small; their impact on the business and the implications of committing to them

Some examples of adaptation options are presented and Leonard-Barton concludes that a degree of ‘mutual adaptation’ is an essential part of successful implementation. She also comments in her conclusions that “… research on survival in highly competitive industries suggests that the surviving companies are those that are open to advances in process technology – even if the price of that openness is expensive technical experimentation and costly organizational shifts.” There is no reason to think that the situation is any different now; indeed, I would argue that this broad conclusion can be applied much more widely to innovations in any aspect of  business.

One dimension in the process of implementation that is implicit in her discussion  is the influence of culture. At several places in the paper, the behaviour of individuals and groups and the effect those behaviours have on outcomes is described.  Behaviour is not a factor of technology or organisation so while it has been observed it has not been considered as a variable in this study. If you accept, for the sake of argument, that behaviour is driven by culture then the interfaces between organisation, technology and culture must all be taken into consideration and included in the process of adaptation if probability of success in the implementation of change is to be maximised. I will come back to the relationship between culture and behaviour in future posts.

* “Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization”, Dorothy Leonard-Barton; Research Policy 17, 1988, pp251-267; Elsevier

Exploring the edge

I first came across the word ‘edge’ being used in the context of business organisation in the work of John Hagel III and John Seely Brown. The material in their book, “The Only Sustainable Edge” and in John Hagel’s blog “Edge Perspectives” (http://www.edgeperspectives.typepad.com/ and http://www.edgeperspectives.com/) provided a rich vein of resource material as I began to think about how to respond to the increasing uncertainty in my own work environment. If you are familiar with situations where your efforts to improve productivity are like sticking ‘a finger in the dyke’ and there are alluring but poorly quantified references to the benefits of outsourcing and offshoring, then give this material a look. However, they are not on their own; powerful support comes literally in the form of “Power to the Edge” (http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Power.pdf), a treatise by David Alberts and Richard Hayes on a transformation that is being proposed for military organisation. With an occasional nod to the industrial and commercial world, this book describes in compelling fashion how networked communication provides the only basis for an effective and affordable force, capable of responding in diverse conflict situations. If the words ‘flexible’ and ‘agile’ are being bandied about in your business, read these texts.