Leaders and Managers

At one time--quite a few years ago now--as a contractor in the construction business with several teams of hard-working people, lessons about improving the way people come together to accomplish goals was a daily part of life. It still is today but one such incident from that earlier time stands out with great clarity, a memory and line of thinking that has only grown more important with the passage of time.


Two new employees (first day on the job) are excavating around the perimeter of the job site one afternoon. Due to terrain and existing obstructions, they are manually excavating a trench with shovels and picks.  Eventually, the trench becomes a footing for a small stone retaining wall alongside exterior concrete walkways. Even standing on the other side of the job site, the grumbling and muttering between the two excavators along with their frequent questioning stares around the area at the activity of others is a sure indication of some issue. 


The Supervisor (also a new employee) and I are discussing plans and logistics in a "quiet" spot. The drama implicit in the actions of the two newbies grumbling their way through the sticky, black clay is demanding more and more of my attention. After we decide the planning and logistical questions, I ask the Super how the two new employees are doing. He shakes his head, lowers his eyes, staring soulfully at the tip of his boots, saying, "I just don't know. They seemed sharp enough--and, maybe they are. They claimed they were ready to work but... well, they might not pan out."


"You want me to have a talk with them," I quietly suggest?


"Sure," he says looking up, "Maybe you can talk some sense into them."


So I make the rounds of the job site, wandering a bit and casually talking with crew and subs while incrementally approaching the two shovel wielding newbies. When I reach them, I introduce myself, shake hands, and ask them how their first day is going.


Their initial response is a rather dismal, "OK, I guess," without any eye contact. To continue the conversation and draw them out I ask, "What are you building here?" pointing to the excavation.


The answer is stunning. They both simultaneously exclaim, "That's the problem: We don't know!"


Yes, that is certainly a problem: Sound familiar?


It happens a lot in every area of human endeavor. Instead of bringing new people on board through the sharing of vision, goals, and desired outcomes, a different approach is taken. One that involves unilateral command, disciplinary action, and micro-management. It goes something like, "Dig a hole from point A to point B at a depth of C with a width of D. Get it done today or don't come back tomorrow." 


That is a recipe, as a manager, for long fruitless hours, stress, heart attack, poor outcomes, and failed projects. A machine might be "managed" in that way but people must be led. 


So, I gave 30 minutes of time to the new employees discussing our company, our organization and the project we were working. Not "laying down the law," instead having a frank and open discussion. When they understood the basics and questions were answered, we reviewed the details of this specific excavation. We pulled out plans and discussed what the client wanted, where, and how we expected to make it happen. I showed them where what they were doing today fit into the plan, why it was so important, and how we were depending on them to achieve the desired outcome. 


They "got it." Done.


When they understood the goals and had a clear picture of the outcome expected, they went back to work without grumbling, without questions, and continued to do excellent work for the remainder of the project. The excavation was finished that day ahead of schedule and without any need for rework or any further conversation. 


When I explained the situation to the Super and showed him how it worked on subsequent occasions, he became a skilled mentor in bringing people on board and a highly valued member of the organization. The two excavators, last I heard, were quite successful as owners of their own businesses. 


People who are talented and capable, people who are committed, engaged, and on board with the goals will self organize to achieve those goals. 

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Subscribe

And Then What?

It is often said that change is inevitable. A friend in the door64 and LinkedIn communities recently posed this question:

"As you know, the real problem is once there are structural changes in an economy or economic system, the "return to normal" never really gets to "normal." Job displacement, under employment, unemployment, regardless of how you say it means that skills are lost to an economy or a region. Then what?"

"Then what" is a really good question in any situation dealing with change -- personal, project, or huge macro shifts in social and governmental areas. Truth of the matter is we cannot forecast all potential outcomes from change -- negative or positive.

This (below) is the response given.

---

Then What: Change

At risk of seeming both specious and simplistic, the answer to "then what" is "change." And, change comes with both positive and negative effects; unintended consequences as well as known and unknown outcomes.

Disclaimer: The term "change" is used here without political implications. It is simply "change" in the dictionary sense.

The one central fact around change at the macro level is that we humans lack the ability to fully understand or forecast its result. And, that's not from lack of effort or rhetoric. We see change in an historical context with 20/20 hindsight but our vision is blurred as we turn our attention to the future.

Lessons Learned

One lesson from history is that becoming locked in a paradigm while faced with a sea change leads to disaster.

• The naval defeat of Carthage
• The British defeat in the American Revolution
• The antebellum South
• A lot more

The lesson is that when groups of people -- nations and states as well -- believe with the fierce faith of fanatics and depend entirely for their survival only on solutions or paradigms that worked well in the past, doom is certain; now or later. Change is inevitable and it tramples us unless we face it, learn from it, and move ahead with fresh solutions.

Electric lights put people out of work and changed lives. The steam engine, cotton gin, assembly line, radio and TV, movies, and the PC did as well. Refrigerators, central air and heat, and countless other things - at their inception - put people out of work and disrupted stable lives build on a belief that what worked in the past is "good," will always work, and will always remain "good."

And, that's just not true.

Good and Evil

Change is inevitable but neither all good nor all evil. Change comes fully loaded with both positives and negatives.

"Job displacement, under employment, unemployment...skills lost to an economy or a region" are short-term negative affects of economic change. To the extent that people hold on to the the past and believe the only answer is more of that past, the short-term negative becomes a long-term death sentence.

To the extent that we as a people, we as managers, or we as a government continue to support people affected by change in a manner that continues their reliance on the broken past instead of offering solutions for the new future, we are enablers of continued failure.

It is probably not about "getting those jobs back," or "keeping those skills" as much as it is about creating new jobs, innovation, entrepreneurship, training / retraining in new skills, starting fresh... Telling people the truth about their future including the fact that some of that future is unknown. It takes credibility and transparency in leadership. This is an axiom -- almost a rule -- for anyone managing change.

The invention and use of automobiles shut down equine related businesses. What would have happened if government stepped in as a manager to "control" that situation?

• Subsidies to blacksmiths, carriage makers, and horse trainers
• Outlawing auto manufacturing
• Putting tariffs on the import of automobiles
• High taxes on the sale and use of automobiles
  
• Laws against driving "horseless carriages" down Main Street

Truth and Transition

None of those things stopped the automotive revolution any more than similar measures will stop or "control" the current change cycle -- or any change at any level. If it is inevitable, it can't be stopped but we can sure make the transition easier.

We're better off in the long run telling people the truth about the change especially when jobs and financial futures are at stake. As managers or enablers, we help people accept the fact that change is necessary, celebrate and make possible "fresh starts," give those affected by change the tools and information to handle it well, and move it forward quickly.

Wrap It Up

Another saying is that "People don't resist change, they resist being changed." That means it's personal. The failure of managers at all levels to recognize, and manage to that most personal and instinctual level leads to the most negative of outcomes. It's not that people "take it personally" creating a problem... It is personal and that's part of the solution.

---

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Subscribe

Innovation: Alive and Well

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

A lot of gnashers (as in the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" bunch) have worked the death of innovation angle over the past few years. We won't dig around in that morass for examples but readers may, if they so choose, Google those swampy waters and find plenty of slimy opinion on the subject.

Some dis-innovation gnashers are on the stump simply because, in the world of 24/7 instant media, "if it bleeds, it leads." The birth of innovation or the continued health of innovation doesn't have the appropriate air of crisis and impending doom necessary for a lead story.

Some seem to be conspiracy theorists with a faulty GPS. They are temporarily lost in the woods but will return again to greener conspiracy pastures as soon as they re-establish contact with the mother ship.

Others are obviously looking for quick, easy excuses to answer questions like "why my business failed," "why my career fell off a cliff," and "why life isn't as good/easy as I thought it would be."

Then again, to put the best face on it, perhaps gnashers are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

• What if the place where innovation comes from today is radically different than where it came from yesterday... or decades ago?
  
• What if the very definition of innovation -- what it looks like, how we recognize it, how it's done -- is undergoing a radical change in the twenty-first century?
• What if, from the perspective of the 19th or 20th century, innovation as it exists now is unrecognizable?
  
• Is it possible dis-innovation gnashers are digging for grubs under the wrong rock?

Maybe; maybe not... But there are other opinions, facts we haven't heard, and even a breath of fresh air for those consumed by the noxious fumes of the morass.

Enter: Marc Andreesson. Marc is probably best known -- or made his first splash -- as co-founder and the technical mind behind Netscape: the creator of the Netscape browser. There is a lot more to his bio, he's done a lot more since, and Marc is re-framing the discussion around innovation with a very positive voice.

Marc interviewed this week on Charlie Rose. It's in the must-see category for anyone interested in innovation, the next big thing, or gaining a rational perspective on the current crop of technological start-ups. It's a paradigm-shifting interview if not life-changing for those who only get the negative side of the innovation conversation.

Marc has a lot to say and we should listen closely -- either to the video or by reading the transcript here: Charlie Rose interview with Marc Andreessen.

Be sure to click the "Watch full episode" link: Do it.

Subscribe

What Price Leadership?

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

The tone of conversation around the espresso bar over executive compensation -- we might call it "Bonusgate" -- is pretty vehement these days. Downright vindictive at times and getting more so by the hour especially where tax payer dollars are involved.

We all have a pretty good idea about the value of administration, and its red tape pitfalls. Most of us have an understanding and acceptance of the fact that for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, state, and federal agencies require a ton of strategy, process, procedure, meetings, and paperwork in the course of the business year and someone has to do that stuff. Give the devil his/her due, eh.

But... No one gets a six (or sixty) million dollar bonus for doing paperwork. At the highest level, that kind of work pays well but it isn't what "adds value" to the company, the stockholders, or to the employees in a way that's worth millions. Bonuses like that are outside the realm of administrative paperwork and generally come down to "leadership;" that's where the value is.

There's also a lot to be said, in terms of value, for people who can influence and negotiate at the highest level. Ditto for people with top-of-the-line organization skills. Throw in some proven entrepreneurial attitude and it's a winner. If a top notch leader also has the other attributes and skills just mentioned, the chances of success for their organization increases enormously compared to organizations with less qualified leadership. That's where the money is: Leadership.

Leadership, on its own, is difficult for some to define -- especially those who lack the trait. Really good leadership is rare and there seems to be something of a sliding leadership scale among humans.

A great many, but not all, are capable of (at most) occasional fits of leadership. Very, very few are capable of "great" and continuous leadership. Most of us are between the two extremes. The numbers of people with great (world class) leadership ability who have the other traits mentioned (also in the great / world class category) are very rare, highly valuable, and amount to something less than 1/10th of 1% of the population.

From great to the small, organizations under perform -- sometimes to the point of failure -- without great leadership. It's not the only one but it is a requirement for success in any business. Because they know this, the board of directors is willing to pay the very few who qualify a great sum of money to bring successful leadership, along with those other traits, into their organization. It's the difference between performing well and performing poorly... or between success and failure for the business.

It's those "great sums of money" creating talking points around the espresso bar and headlines in the media. Especially paying out great sums of money for something most people can't even define and don't really understand well. Especially in times where most people are not so happy about their salary and not so sure about job security. Especially when it's our money -- tax dollars.

In the bad times... when things get tough and the balance sheet is bleeding red; at the point where, arguably, leadership is needed most: What is the price of leadership?

When everything is rosy and all that is touched turns to greenbacks, the cost of leadership isn't discussed much. Leaders take their money to the bank without much comment. When ordinary workers are losing their jobs, homes, and more; when every penny is hard fought and hard earned; when our families are at stack, questions about value will be asked. Answers are expected; good ones.

It is trying times that require leadership the most. You know... step up to the plate and hit a home run; show us what you're made of; leaders should be... well... leading. Instead, those we trust to lead are cowering in fear, obfuscating, and making excuses.

If you're a top dog, act like one.

Contract or no contract, board of directors notwithstanding, find the ethical backbone necessary to do the right thing. Refuse the bonus; give it back. Stop the bleeding and start the healing.

Do your job: Lead.

Subscribe